"Nitram" and "Spencer"

Now, some controversial films about real people.

Let's start with "Nitram," the Justin Kurzel film based on the life of Martin Bryant, who perpetrated a mass shooting in Australia in 1996.  There are arguments to be made that it's in poor taste to be making a film about a notorious killer, especially one that humanizes him to the degree that this one does.  However, "Nitram" is a very well made film featuring some excellent actors.  Caleb Landry Jones as Martin is especially impressive here, delivering a performance characterized by poorly managed mental illness, loneliness, and self-loathing. 

The film charts the period of Martin's life before his rampage, starting from when he was still living with his parents (Anthony LaPaglia and Judy Davis) in suburban Tasmania.  They do their best to keep him out of trouble, but Martin is unable to restrain his impulses. His relationships with them, especially his icy mother, are increasingly strained.  Martin befriends and eventually moves in with a much older woman named Helen (Essie Davis), which gives him more independence.  However, a string of tragedies, the decreased supervision, and Martin's growing feelings of alienation put him on the path to the unthinkable.  From what I've read, the sequence of events is fairly accurate, and the film shows the lead-up to the massacre but not the actual event. 

"Nitram" is an excellent character study of a man of limited faculties who struggles earnestly to find a way to get along in the world, but just encounters one gutting disappointment after another.  He never has the tools or more importantly the support necessary for him to succeed.  His parents are clearly so destroyed by years of dealing with his behavior, it's hard to blame them.  The film suggests that it wasn't Martin's developmental disabilities or his fascination with guns that led to the tragedy, but his loneliness and isolation.  The film packs an emotional punch, not because of what Martin did, but because Martin snapped for reasons that are frighteningly relatable and familiar.  And Landry Jones' performance does all the heavy lifting of getting and keeping the audience on Martin's side, all the way to the end.      

And now, on to "Spencer," a Princess Diana movie like no other Princess Diana movie that has ever been made.  When I heard that Pablo Larrain was directing this, I was expecting something like "Jackie," his dreamy, lyrical Jackie Kennedy film.  This is not the case at all.  "Spencer" depicts the life of the Princess of Wales, played by Kristen Stewart, more like a psychological horror film.  The story is set at Sandringham House in 1991, where the royal family is gathered for Christmas.  Diana is expected to show up, dress and eat according to the carefully planned schedule, and play nice.  However, she's nervous wreck from her husband's infidelity, suffers from bulimia, and feels increasingly suffocated by the expectations and limitations of her position.  So, she starts lashing out.

I'm sure that nothing in this film is historically accurate, with many characters and events wholly invented.  However, it feels like an earnest attempt to dramatize Diana's  internal struggle at one of the low points of her life.  Watching her wage war against her wardrobe, her diet, and the household staff led by Equerry Major Gregory (Timothy Spall), is wild.  Stewart's performance initially put me off, because she looked so uncomfortable onscreen, holding herself rigidly, and radiating anxiety.  However, I soon realized that this was the point.  The film isn't about the graceful exterior that the public is familiar with, but getting us to see the deeply unhappy woman she was underneath.  I think some of the film's inventions, like Diana's fixation on her childhood home and visions of Anne Boleyn (Amy Manson) don't really work, but her fantasies of self-harm are wonderfully unnerving.      

       

I came out very mixed on "Spencer," appreciative of what it was trying to do, but unhappy about the execution.  The film is so tightly fixed on Diana's claustrophobic POV, and plays with so many different levels of subjective reality that most of its historical lapses don't bother me.  However, I still don't like Kristen Stewart's performance much, and I don't like the characterization of Diana as a little-girl-lost figure.  It's much too reductive for my tastes.  This is anything but another boring biopic about the royals, though, and I'm sure plenty of viewers will appreciate it.

---