![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() It's like victim blaming after a rape, and it is extremely uncomfortable to watch. If she resisted them she was called a f-ing b-, if she dared played along and smiled or engaged with them they had the audacity to call her a mediawhore. They harassed her to the point of breaking her spirit. The way they talked about her was disgusting, like she wasn't even a human being. This documentary solidified my assumption that the paparazzi were as bad as everyone made them out be. It was quite polarized The worst was the paparazzi. That being said, it's surprisingly unbiased, there was a lot of uncomfortable dialogue from interviews with citizens or journalists who were for or against Princess Diana. Not all the information is presented, some parts of the clips shown are deliberately edited to enhance mood or atmosphere, like painting the prince or princess in a certain light. There is no narrative, at least not in a literal sense, but there is an obvious angle to the documentary. As for it "being done before" it's important to note that many docs fall to the wayside over the years and become difficult to track down, so there will always be new editions for every generation so long as Diana stays relevant. To start, yes there is a lot of low quality clips and much of what you see here has been in previous documentaries, however, it's not exactly possible to improve video quality from thirty years ago so you shouldn't judge it based on today's standards, that's just stupid. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |