Princess Diana wanted to star in Bodyguard 2

Note: This is NOT really news. It was reported at the time of the Princess of Wales’s death in 1997. But it has hit the headlines again this week.

This article is from the Guardian.


Powered by Guardian.co.ukThis article titled “Princess Diana wanted to star in Bodyguard 2, says Kevin Costner” was written by Ben Child, for guardian.co.uk on Thursday 12th April 2012 13.05 UTC

Princess Diana was in line to take the Whitney Houston role in a sequel to 1992 romantic blockbuster The Bodyguard shortly before her death, Kevin Costner has revealed.

Speaking on the US talk show Anderson, in a recording due to be broadcast in May, Costner said he received the screenplay for the proposed project on 31 August 1997, the day before the princess was killed in a car accident in a Paris tunnel at the age of 36 while trying to escape chasing photographers. The film, tentatively titled The Bodyguard 2, would have seen Diana take a familiar role, that of a princess who requires protection from paparazzi and stalkers. Costner would have reprised his role as former special agent turned bodyguard Frank Farmer, who is charged with keeping her safe.

“Diana and I had been talking about doing Bodyguard 2,” said Costner, who produced the first film. “I told her I would take care of her just the same way that I took care of Whitney.

She wanted me to write it for her. I said: ‘I’ll tailor it for you if you’re interested.’ She goes: ‘I am interested.’”

The Bodyguard was one of the highest-grossing films of the early 90s, with a worldwide return of 0m. More than 42m copies were sold of the soundtrack – a world record – thanks largely to Houston’s rendition of the Dolly Parton number I Will Always Love You. In the first movie, the latter played a singer in a role written originally for Diana Ross. Her performance, and the film’s success, briefly made her one of the highest paid actors in the world in the mid-90s, commanding m a movie. At the time of her death at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles on 11 February, hours before she was due to attend a pre-Grammy awards party, Houston had not appeared on the big screen since 1996′s The Preacher’s Wife. However she is due to make a posthumous return in the forthcoming musical remake Sparkle, scenes for which were filmed prior to her death.

Deadline revealed in February last year that a sequel to The Bodyguard was once again in play at studio Warner Brothers, though no cast details or director have yet been announced. It would have focused on the dangers presented to famous figures by the threat of cyberstalking.

Princess Diana was not previously known for her acting ambitions, but a version of her will soon be seen on the big screen. Naomi Watts is to play the princess in the biopic Caught in Flight from German film-maker Oliver Hirschbiegel, director of Downfall, a film about the last days of Hitler. It reportedly focuses on the last two years of her life.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Queen and Kate make speeches, & other news

Why Kate Middleton is no Princess Diana

NOTE: This article is from the Guardian.


Powered by Guardian.co.ukThis article titled “Why Kate Middleton is no Princess Diana” was written by Ros Coward, for The Guardian on Tuesday 20th March 2012 19.30 UTC

Kate Middleton has given her first speech. Cue enormous excitement in the media and huge praise. According to one source, she delivered an “assured” performance to “rave reviews”. The speech in fact was a few tremulous sentences in which she thanked the charity for inviting her, described its important work, and mentioned missing William.

But while the publicity for the very worthwhile children’s hospice can’t be faulted, the attention to Kate herself is more problematic, especially in reviving such strong memories of the early press adulation and scrutiny of Princess Diana. On this occasion the media homed in on Kate’s dress (borrowed from her mother) and her body (worryingly thin) and drew attention to her natural “gift” with children. It was pure Diana re-run.

Diana had only to turn up at an event to trigger an avalanche of speculation about anorexia or to bend down among the children to be endowed with elements of compassion bordering on the saintly. All this was on display with Kate. Her pencil-thin appearance has led to speculation about whether it is her separation from William or her childlessness that is the cause. As for her compassion, parents who had shaken her hand queued up to vouch for her exceptional talents in this regard. The desire to find a new Diana was palpable.

The media’s scrutiny of Diana is thought to have played a part in the disintegration of her marriage; so should we be concerned that the focus on Kate might have similar consequences? In fact, beneath superficialities, the differences between the two women are more striking than the similarities. When Diana set out, she was much younger than Kate and emotionally vulnerable. Her solo appearances came as her marriage was disintegrating and she was desperate to find a role. On occasions she betrayed her turmoil, as with her “everyone needs a hug” speech.

There’s no immediate danger of Kate Middleton going off like a loose cannon, because the biggest difference with Diana is just how closely aligned Kate’s every movement and utterance is with the “firm”, as Diana used to call the royal family. Unlike Diana, this is a woman well-briefed, and carefully supervised.

In this diamond jubilee year the Queen is reaping the enormous benefits of longevity. Just by surviving this long, she is now revered, whatever she does and however difficult she might have been in younger days. She is also benefitting from the amnesia that has settled upon a carefully managed nation, who have forgotten their anger at the treatment of Diana. This amnesia even extends to Camilla, who with the occasional well-planned charity appearance – and a charm offensive on the media establishment (she has recently hosted dinners for the Women of the World festival) – is presented as an acceptable consort for a future King. There have been repeated photo opportunities showing Kate with the Queen or Camilla, or both, like a recent Hello cover showing the three on an outing to Fortnum & Mason. The emphasis is on mutual acceptance and unity.

These photo opportunities tell what’s at stake with Kate’s public profile. We are used to the monarchy being matriarchal. The symbolism the Queen carries is of “soft” power: she is the head of a family – her own and the nation. She has devoted her life to doing her duty, while keeping her opinions to herself. She is the embodiment of tradition and continuity. These are “female” attributes, and less likely to arouse resistance than a patriarchal embodiment of royal power.

However, the Queen’s longevity also arouses anxiety about the future. The next generation of women are pivotal in making monarchy acceptable to Britain in the 21st century. It’s the women doing their duty, keeping their heads down, devoted to their husbands and children, who will present the acceptable face of monarchy – not a querulous, tetchy, demanding male.

Kate is too valuable to be left alone as Diana was. The press are giving Kate celebrity-sized attention and with that comes celebrity-sized pressure. But this time, it seems, the firm are ready for it.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Edward, Sophie, and Harry on Jubilee tours

The truth about the Queen and Diana

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy