One person in the UK who is truly eternal is Princess Diana. Just when you think everything has been said about her, she was back again on the big silver screen last week at the Toronto Film Festival, albeit in a different avatar. Keira Knightley’s new film, The Duchess, even though it is set in the 18th century, draws close parallels with Diana’s tragic life, possibly in the hope that Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire (on whom the film is based), will appeal to viewers who have grown up inundated with Diana images, Diana stories and Diana fashion. After her death, Diana has possibly been discussed even more than Marilyn Monroe.
Perhaps when a celebrity dies young it immortalises them at the peak of their career, or their fame, forever beautiful. We mourn their unrealised potential and preserve them in the formaldehyde of our memory. Only those who die young, after all, can never grow old and lose their wrinkle-free gloss.
In the film, there have been clear attempts by the producers to draw parallels between the lives of the two glamorous women. Even the promotional strapline, "There were three people in her marriage", is deliberately evocative of Princess Diana’s post-wedding blues when Camilla offered Charles frequent consolation. However, not everyone has been pleased by the film’s conflation of two celebrities just because they both belonged to the Spencer clan. Of course, the Spencer family has been unique and should be justly proud at producing two extremely well-celebrated women. Yet, as some of the critics have commented, the BBC costume drama with its "multi-storey wigs" has not been the best vehicle to commemorate the life of the sensational Georgiana. At the risk of upsetting millions of Diana fans, I have to say that Georgiana was a far more interesting woman than Diana could ever hope to be.
When adapting the book The Duchess, written by Amanda Foreman, for the screen, it is obvious that the producers have had to make certain dramatic changes. That is perfectly acceptable as most feature films which deal with history and biography are forced to reinvent the story afresh, whilst trying to keep the spirit of the person or the event intact. Indeed, even Shekhar Kapur’s Bollywood take on Elizabeth was severely critiqued because it did take a few liberties with recorded history. But feature films are not documentaries — they have to be made with a commercial appeal to the lowest common denominator. Therefore, facts are simplified, stories are rewritten, original characters are changed, new characters are introduced, and the whole effort is to make the film soft-focus and romantic, so that the average popcorn-chewing person in the front row will stay for the unexpected climax. It may not be entirely historically accurate, but unfortunately for the purists who cringe and carp, this is the way cinema creates box office biography.
Therefore, it would not be fair to discount the heroic attempts of the BBC to use every popular device to make sure their film is a hit. The BBC has always been outstanding in its period dramas (even on television) and I think it must possess the world’s largest collection of wigs, gowns, corsets and horse-driven carriages. But to do justice to Georgiana, they could have just relied on her own very fascinating life, instead of drawing comparisons between her and a rather lightweight celebrity who became famous only because she married the country’s most eligible bachelor.
Georgiana, on the other hand, as documented by Foreman, was a clever, politically astute and remarkably flawed but beautiful woman. Not only was she a fashion icon at the time when media did not have 24/7 channels — she also was a gambling addict who ran up huge debts that she constantly had to conceal from her rather straitlaced husband. She also took a huge interest in politics and deliberately manipulated events to what she hoped were a better set of circumstances. While Keira just does not have the wicked intelligence to play such a complex role, there is little doubt that Ralph Fiennes as the inhibited husband is fabulously cast — as he only has to play himself. His dour and expressionless performances in The Constant Gardener, or in The English Patient, is no doubt the reason why the English love him. Never have stiffer upper lips been more on display than on Ralph Fiennes’ wooden face. If parallels are to be drawn between him and Prince Charles, it’s certainly not a bad fit.
But if the film is indeed about Georgiana, then it missed a crucial point: Quite contrary to Diana’s life, Georgiana quite willingly allowed Bess, her husband’s mistress, to be a part of her home, as she was also Georgiana’s best friend. In fact, in a further twist to Georgiana’s complex nature, it is apparent that Bess was the glue which kept the marriage together. Georgiana loved her, almost as much, if not more, than her husband.
In fact, in the book it is not the high fashion and low fidelity which grabs your attention, but Georgiana’s unerring pragmatism and political instinct. She supported the more liberal Whig Party, even though she was related to the king, and was not averse to appearing at the hustings to canvas for her candidate. She was a major attraction with her three-foot-high hair towers (in which she used horse hair to supplement her own), often featuring entire ships or a complete salad bowl, or even a pastoral scene with sheep. While the media followed her every move — they also lampooned her viciously — Georgiana knew how to take the paparazzi in her stride. In the 18th century, she was more savvy than her 20th century descendant.
But what I found really interesting in the book was the description of 18th century British politics. They had the same volatility that you find in India today. There was rampant corruption, criminalisation, kidnappings, stone-pelting and lurid rumour-mongering — vividly reminiscent of current Indian politics. So all we have to do is wait another 200 years and no doubt we will catch up with civilised parliamentary practices and political discourse. Another similarity between 18th century England and present-day India is that Georgiana was hounded and harassed by her husband and his family to produce a male heir, and it was this persecution that created the most disruption in her short but eventful life.
So while one cannot be entirely pleased with the Dianafication of Georgiana, we can still hope that someday someone will unveil the real duchess.
Kishwar Desai
Links:
[1] http://103.241.136.51/content/kishwar-desai
