‘Spencer’ Review: A Brilliantly Acted, Oscar Shoo-In, Snoozefest
THE ACADEMY IS ALMOST CERTAINLY GOING TO devour 'SPENCER', predominantly FOR ITS TERRIFIC PERFORMANCES, BUT IT also SHARES A KEY QUALITY WITH SEVERAL other PAST OSCAR WINNERS… IT'S BORING.
The 94th Academy Awards are just a few months away, and the only thing that would be more surprising than the telecast actually being good for once, would be if "Spencer," the latest vehicle from NEON and FilmNation Entertainment, walked away from the night without a veritable shelf of golden statuettes. After all, Spencer is precisely the kind of film that the Academy goes crazy for: a period piece that focuses on a real, iconic historical figure; a commanding lead performance in said role; and its lush production design, with costumes and locations that brilliantly evoke the time period in which it is set. In the Best Picture category alone, the victories of a good twenty films - “Cimarron,” “Gone with the Wind,” “Ben-Hur,” “Gandhi,” and “Braveheart,” to name but a handful - can be traced to the presence of the above qualities. Rarely - here’s to you, “Lawrence of Arabia” and “Platoon” - the end result is a timeless masterpiece that deserved to run off with the big prize, but often - as is the case with all other cited examples - the film is instead a tedious chore. Spencer is, sadly, no exception to the rule.
Pablo Larraín creates something of a companion piece to one of his earlier films, 2016's Natalie Portman-driven "Jackie," with an abundance of style and a gripping portrait of a powerful and legendary woman disguising a thin story. However, where "Jackie" constantly engages the audience and sticks the landing well enough, "Spencer" often wanders aimlessly, hoping that you'll be too focused on the performances of its cast and the magnificent wardrobe of Kristen Stewart's Diana to care that you're rarely being given depth or, at the very least, material that rises to the level of the performance.
Stewart, often given a bad rap for her work in the “Twilight” films, has spent most of the past decade proving her maturity and ability as a performer, with layered work in films such as "Clouds of Sils Maria" and "Personal Shopper". Here, Stewart does what is arguably her best work to date, a simmering frustration and trembling anxiety coming through in nearly every scene, but handled and guided appropriately without ever exploding into scenery chewing. That being said, as great as this performance is, it never actually feels like the inhabitation of Diana Spencer that the film seems to want it to be, an illusion deftly achieved in "Jackie" and in dozens of other historical biopics like Spencer. There are rare instances - a shot of Diana asleep in bed, or a moment where Stewart is wordless and motionless - where the real Princess of Wales comes through, but those instances pass in the blink of an eye. Whenever Kristen Stewart is really acting, you're just seeing Kristen Stewart. Mannerisms and expressions that are familiar trademarks for the actress are here in full swing, which further hamper her attempts to create the illusion that you are looking instead at Princess Diana.
Additionally, for as often great as this lead performance is, it is superseded by several of its supporting peers. Timothy Spall has made an entire career out of being spectacular without fail, but his work here as the royal family's equerry is pitch perfect. He exudes the "stiff upper lip" associated with England and particularly with a man holding such a title, and does not for one moment break, but Spall portrays a frustration with Diana's tardiness, her wandering, her divergence from norms and expectations, in his eyes and through minute facial cues, without it ever being outwardly expressed. More importantly, Spall gives off these nuances from his very first scene, understanding that these feelings come from a prior history with Diana, not that they would suddenly manifest over the single Christmas weekend over which the film is set. Sean Harris, who - between this and "The Green Knight" - is having a terrific year as a supporting actor, embodies head chef Darren McGrady with a similar adherence to royal decorum when he is in front of his men or the monarch, but relaxes to something of a more casual, aloof nature when he is alone with Diana, even attempting to help her fib her way into clemency whenever her escapades land her in hot water. Even Jack Farthing and Stella Gonet, as Charles and Queen Elizabeth respectively, utilize limited screen time in order to accurately and compellingly portray arguably the only two members of the royal family whose profiles rival that of Diana herself.
However, if there is one person in the entire cast who deserves an outright Oscar win, never mind a mere nomination, it is easily Sally Hawkins as Diana's royal dresser, Maggie. Right from her first seconds on screen, from the first words out of her mouth, Hawkins performs an awards season campaign in every single one of her scenes, and does it effortlessly. There's nothing forced, no straining to reach a higher note, no moment that calls out begging for attention from the Academy. There's just a constant, magnetic energy in place when Hawkins is on screen, as there is in most - if not all - of her performances, something that keeps you hanging on to every syllable, to every movement, to every subtle change in expression, and Hawkins capitalizes on that to an exceptionally high level. This is up there with "Made in Dagenham" and "The Shape of Water" as some of the absolute best Hawkins has to offer us, and it is the entire film's best feature. Any given scene could be used as a case for her Oscar nomination, but there is a particular scene on a beach that rends the heart and adds Spencer to an already long resumé of exceptional work from an exceptional actress. I'll go so far as to say this: it's fine if Stewart is nominated, even if she wins; but if both of those things happen without Hawkins being granted the same, that would be a travesty.
Alas, the performances are surely great...but rarely has such élan and artistry been in service of something so messy as Spencer. Part of the mess is by design, showing Diana's fragile psyche as her marriage is failing and the pressure - nay, the silliness - of being "a good royal" has become too much to bear. This generally works well during the first act of the film, set on Christmas Eve, particularly in the opening segment of the film prior to Diana's arrival at Sandringham House, but as the film progresses, Larraín's stylistic tendencies knock all of the substance out of the proceedings. A scene at Christmas Eve dinner - a fantasy of Diana's where she imagines ripping off a set of pearls given to her by Charles, in front of the entire family, causes them to land in her pea soup, and then digs in anyway - is reminiscent of “Barry Lyndon,” specifically a pivotal, dialogue-free scene between Ryan O’Neal and Marisa Berenson at a dinner table. Here, the lighting and silent interactions between Stewart and Farthing mirror those of the scene from Kubrick’s 1975 masterpiece. This is actually the second major film in as many years to directly rip off the same scene, after “Emma.” from last year. It doesn’t really get the nuances, but it does get the style. And, to some credit at least, the scene effectively builds tension in both the score and editing, and allows Stewart to fully embrace her performance choices...until, as the strings crescendo, the movie suddenly cuts to an actual string quartet performing alongside the dinner. The reveal of the musicians plays like a moment in a Mel Brooks film or a Monty Python sketch, except I don’t believe the intention of the scene is to elicit a laugh. It’s an added flavor to the scene that backfires, taking the momentum out of what is happening to Diana in the moment, and souring one of Stewart’s best scenes, and then the film very quickly moves on from it, as Diana is next shown vomiting in the washroom, still wearing the lavish dinner dress that was curated for her by the royal family.
This scene actually serves as a microcosm for one of the other main issues present in Spencer, which is that the film assumes that its viewers are well-versed in Diana Spencer, in the history of the royal family, and the ways in which the latter deeply damaged the former. For example, Diana’s struggles with bulimia and Charles’ extramarital liaisons with Camilla are hardly even given lip service during the film, but both have a direct impact on the narrative. If you already know the finer details of these things, then terrific, you’ll get through the narrative just fine. If you’re coming into this as, perhaps, a younger viewer, or someone who has never really paid much attention to the royal family, if you’re here for Kristen Stewart and little else, it might be a bit easier to get lost during all of this. Your mileage may vary, but if you do fall into the latter camp, you might want to watch a Diana documentary or read a few Wikipedia pages first, which generally isn’t something you should need to do before watching a film in order to get the most out of its story.
Beyond that, Spencer doesn’t have much of a story to offer. The royal family treated this woman terribly and the press acted even more despicably towards her; we knew that already. The exploration of Diana’s mental state, her hallucinations, her anxiety, is an interesting idea and serves to further humanize her, but only a portion of the runtime is spent in that space. Her interactions with William and Harry - where you can see the seeds planted for the direction each son would head in as adults - are probably the most engaging piece of the story, but once again this is relegated to but a handful of scenes. The film otherwise largely drones through the events of this Christmas weekend, such that even when Sally Hawkins or Timothy Spall are on screen, you’re being held back from really relishing how excellent their work is because everything surrounding it just feels dull and monotonous. It all looks gorgeous - there must surely be no doubt that Spencer will be handed the wardrobe Oscar on a silver platter - but there’s often little underneath that. When you add in the innumerable endings this film has, the final feeling you get is a desire for it to be over, combined with mild shock at the moment that it actually is.
At the end of the day, Spencer is not a terrible film. It is, however, a supremely dull one, and it’s a shame given how great Kristen Stewart often is in it, and how her cast mates rise to the occasion and then go above and beyond. There are some interesting ideas here, there are even some good scenes, but it all just feels empty. It feels like a movie that was made in response to the recent controversy surrounding Meghan Markle and Harry, and their departure from the royal family, and perhaps one that was made to win some awards as well, rather than a movie that has a definitive reason for having been made. There have been untold films made about the royal family since Diana’s death in 1997, and while Spencer is definitely not like the others, it also feels familiar and even unnecessary. It also feels like something that would be better served by skipping it at the cinema, and instead sitting down whenever it comes to streaming, curling up on the couch, and letting it play in that more intimate setting anyway. It’s an exceedingly rare day where I suggest your living room over the movie theater, but here I am, suggesting it anyway. I hope the Academy doesn’t arbitrarily decide that that makes Spencer ineligible for that shelf’s worth of Oscars it’s sure to walk away with otherwise.