Diana: A twisted exaggeration of incomplete facts
Dr Hasnat Khan is portrayed as a villain, who didn't reciprocate Diana’s affection and abandoned the relationship.
Although the making of the film Diana has generated quite a bit of hype, the build-up seems to be more about the exceptional personality that the film attempts to portray rather than the film itself. After all, there is not much that the audience does not know about her and even a quick web search can give you a detailed account of what her life was all about.
Nonetheless, one would still expect some amazing emotional treatment and directorial class from Oliver Hirschbiegel, the German director who directed the Oscar worthy Downfall.
People all over the world have always been fascinated by Diana Spencer and the plot, script and direction, tries to cash in on this fascination. The storyline explores the perks and perils of being the most popular woman in the world and the repercussions that it had on her personal relationships. Simply put, the film is what one expects it to be – an emotional drama, sprinkled with a bit of fact twisting and cover-ups, and topped off with a few exaggerations here and there.
Although the film covers Diana’s emotional imbalance well, it does not do justice to the character of Dr Hasnat Khan and his apprehensions towards their relationship, in spite of being in love with her. Consequently, the film portrays Dr Khan almost as a villain, who did not adequately reciprocate Diana’s affection and abandoned the relationship on the pretext that ‘he is a very private person’.
While in reality, the late princess had nicknamed Dr Khan as ‘Mr Wonderful’, the film depicts his character as a rude, chauvinistic, vacillating and unhealthy loner. It seemed painfully obvious that the filmmakers were not quite ready to take the British authorities head-on by showing too much ‘truth’ in the film.
Along with this break from reality, the film has its fair share of hyperbolic melodrama, from the princess putting on a brunette wig to meet Dr Khan to them running in the fields like teenagers from a Bollywood romance. Moreover, it has left an unexpectedly bad taste amongst the British and Pakistani audiences with scenes of Dr Khan’s mother blaming the princess for millions of deaths during partition and the princess leaking her own photos to the paparazzi in order to make Dr Khan jealous. In fact, word has it that even Dr Khan himself has not been appreciative of the film and the story thus told.
Unfortunately, Dr Khan’s role seems almost intentionally sidelined. Naveen Andrews casted as the doctor, in no way resembles the real Dr Khan; in fact, the only similarity may be in the complexion; Chris Noth is perhaps, more like Dr Khan in appearance. Moreover, Andrews fails to deliver in his performance as well with his robotic dialogue delivery, enforced humour and unconvincing romantic moves.
Another missing link in the film is the absence of Prince Charles. How can Diana’s story be complete without Prince Charles? Yet, his presence and role have been completely ignored by the film-makers.
Needless to say, Naomi Watts worked hard in her role of the princess – perhaps, even too hard at times. Her research of the character is apparent in the tilt of her head in the same way as the late princess, looking from the sides of her eyes and fiddling with her fingers while talking and walking.
At times, however, it seemed like Watts was too focused on faking a British accent. Although this was crucial to her role, her care seemed to detract from her performance somewhat. She was made to resemble the princess quite closely, especially the hair, but the fact remains that Watts is a good 13 centimetres shorter than the real princess. With her height, Princess Diana, had an aura of grace and charm around her which Naomi Watts, unfortunately, failed to deliver. Although she acted quite well, when it comes to a biopic of this stature, ‘quite well’ leaves something to be desired.
Surprisingly, the best performances of the film came from the supporting cast. The most notable characters were of Patrick Jephson played by Charles Edwards and Sonia played by Juliet Stevenson.
The directorial treatment and editing is crisp in the film. In fact, the film’s first sequence raises the audience’s expectations with a shot in which the princess leaves her hotel room, walks in the corridor and stops for a bit while the camera zooms back, almost as though showing her life leaving her. However, as the film proceeds, the technical aspects are unable to save the sinking script and the ordinary performances.
Overall, Oliver Hirschbiegel’s work was largely disappointing.
Although Diana had its share of pleasant moments, it still falls short of being a great film. There were moments when I literally struggled to be emotionally touched by the movie in spite of all my love and fascination for the late princess. Even in moments when I began to feel something during certain scenes, the excitement was quickly suppressed by the sloppy romance and exaggerated portrayal of the Pakistani doctor.
Nonetheless, one would still expect some amazing emotional treatment and directorial class from Oliver Hirschbiegel, the German director who directed the Oscar worthy Downfall.
People all over the world have always been fascinated by Diana Spencer and the plot, script and direction, tries to cash in on this fascination. The storyline explores the perks and perils of being the most popular woman in the world and the repercussions that it had on her personal relationships. Simply put, the film is what one expects it to be – an emotional drama, sprinkled with a bit of fact twisting and cover-ups, and topped off with a few exaggerations here and there.
Although the film covers Diana’s emotional imbalance well, it does not do justice to the character of Dr Hasnat Khan and his apprehensions towards their relationship, in spite of being in love with her. Consequently, the film portrays Dr Khan almost as a villain, who did not adequately reciprocate Diana’s affection and abandoned the relationship on the pretext that ‘he is a very private person’.
While in reality, the late princess had nicknamed Dr Khan as ‘Mr Wonderful’, the film depicts his character as a rude, chauvinistic, vacillating and unhealthy loner. It seemed painfully obvious that the filmmakers were not quite ready to take the British authorities head-on by showing too much ‘truth’ in the film.
Along with this break from reality, the film has its fair share of hyperbolic melodrama, from the princess putting on a brunette wig to meet Dr Khan to them running in the fields like teenagers from a Bollywood romance. Moreover, it has left an unexpectedly bad taste amongst the British and Pakistani audiences with scenes of Dr Khan’s mother blaming the princess for millions of deaths during partition and the princess leaking her own photos to the paparazzi in order to make Dr Khan jealous. In fact, word has it that even Dr Khan himself has not been appreciative of the film and the story thus told.
Unfortunately, Dr Khan’s role seems almost intentionally sidelined. Naveen Andrews casted as the doctor, in no way resembles the real Dr Khan; in fact, the only similarity may be in the complexion; Chris Noth is perhaps, more like Dr Khan in appearance. Moreover, Andrews fails to deliver in his performance as well with his robotic dialogue delivery, enforced humour and unconvincing romantic moves.
Another missing link in the film is the absence of Prince Charles. How can Diana’s story be complete without Prince Charles? Yet, his presence and role have been completely ignored by the film-makers.
Needless to say, Naomi Watts worked hard in her role of the princess – perhaps, even too hard at times. Her research of the character is apparent in the tilt of her head in the same way as the late princess, looking from the sides of her eyes and fiddling with her fingers while talking and walking.
At times, however, it seemed like Watts was too focused on faking a British accent. Although this was crucial to her role, her care seemed to detract from her performance somewhat. She was made to resemble the princess quite closely, especially the hair, but the fact remains that Watts is a good 13 centimetres shorter than the real princess. With her height, Princess Diana, had an aura of grace and charm around her which Naomi Watts, unfortunately, failed to deliver. Although she acted quite well, when it comes to a biopic of this stature, ‘quite well’ leaves something to be desired.
Surprisingly, the best performances of the film came from the supporting cast. The most notable characters were of Patrick Jephson played by Charles Edwards and Sonia played by Juliet Stevenson.
The directorial treatment and editing is crisp in the film. In fact, the film’s first sequence raises the audience’s expectations with a shot in which the princess leaves her hotel room, walks in the corridor and stops for a bit while the camera zooms back, almost as though showing her life leaving her. However, as the film proceeds, the technical aspects are unable to save the sinking script and the ordinary performances.
Overall, Oliver Hirschbiegel’s work was largely disappointing.
Although Diana had its share of pleasant moments, it still falls short of being a great film. There were moments when I literally struggled to be emotionally touched by the movie in spite of all my love and fascination for the late princess. Even in moments when I began to feel something during certain scenes, the excitement was quickly suppressed by the sloppy romance and exaggerated portrayal of the Pakistani doctor.