The C4 Diana Documentary Reviewed
In the end, after all the fuss, the Channel 4 documentary about the immediate aftermath of the car crash that killed Diana, Princess of Wales, turned into nothing more than a thoughtful, non-invasive essay on the role of the media before, and during, the event.
Like the Camilla film last week, it plumbed unexpected depths and left viewers better informed, especially about motives, than they may have been before.
The much-trailed photographs of the dying Diana were absent, except for one so dark nothing could be seen. All that was visible was the shape of the lone French doctor who happened to be passing and bravely went to the aid of a woman he didn’t recognize.
Confusion reigned for minutes afterwards, when even the first paparazzi arriving at the scene seemed unaware that this was Diana and Dodi. Much of the action in the film was reconstructed and simply showed photographers firing off flashbulbs.
Still shots inside the tunnel were few, but they did illustrate the sense of shock and bewilderment that prevailed. The ambulance arrived 17 minutes after the crash and was confronted with two dead bodies, a badly injured Trevor Rees-Jones, screaming in agony, and Diana, who seemed only to have concussion and superficial injuries. Many still didn’t realize who she was.
It was some minutes before a police officer became aware it was Diana and called in for backup. The criticism of the paramedics in the ambulance seems misplaced, given that they had four people to deal with in the car, not just Diana.
In terms of the “intrusion” into Diana’s privacy, the scenes in the tunnel were undoubtedly graphic and would have caused her sons and close family considerable discomfort. But they did shed much needed light on the reality behind these now almost mythical scenes. What came across was the slow build-up of shock as people gradually realized what had happened. Newsreaders, sharp at first, descended into stunned incoherence. It was as if it all happened in slow motion, surreal and out of sync. The British Ambassador, crying like a baby in the hospital, added to the sense of poignancy.
The aim of the programme was to focus on the actions of the media, and to what extent the press and photographers caused this crash.
The man Diana called “the big red tomato”, James Whitaker, summed up succinctly : “Although a few of the press pack were following,” he said, “there was no need for Henri Paul to drive so fast.” The car swerved into the tunnel at great speed, clipped a white Fiat Uno, and careered into a pillar. It was almost inevitable.
At first everyone blamed the media, even Mohamed al Fayed and memorably, Diana’s brother, Charles Spencer at her funeral. Once her death had been announced, however, the photographs taken at the scene became worthless except as evidence in the police inquiry. Ken Lennox, picture editor of the Sun, explained the process clinically. The first shots coming through, the planned headlines and layout, then nothing. Not one of the first, graphic pictures could be used.
The hysteria that followed, with witch hunt against the media added to witch hunt, showed the “wisdom of crowds” to be as flawed as any other. Whitaker got it right, Henri Paul didn’t need to drive Formula One-style around Paris that night. The paparazzi knew the couple were going to Dodi’s apartment, so what was the rush?
In retrospect it all seems so inevitable once the decision to put an alcoholic behind the wheel of the car had been taken. All that has happened since, including the long delays in the legal process, have been caused by attempts to deflect attention away from that crucial decision.
So, how did the press emerge from this often painful documentary? As a staunch believer in a free press — which often protects us more than parliaments and politicians — I think the press comes out of it better than we were led to believe at the time.
The enormous sums of money on offer to the photographers were driven by the public, not greedy picture editors and press barons. It was the public with its insatiable appetite for anything revealing about this shy, aristocratic girl, plucked from obscurity to play a role in the Royal drama.
Like Icarus, she flew too close to the sun and was burnt up in a tangle of events caused by a single flawed decision.
Absolutely. If the public didnt spend so much money for seeing Diana just walking in the street, maybe she would have been a little more happy during her short life. Like the countless photos of Middleton, who on these photos, does nothing interesting than walking and walking. The press is just a respond to the public’s requests.
As for the so mysterious Fiat Uno, it seems that France is aware of more things than UK. Maybe just because the accident happened in France? The Fiat is James Andanson’s. He was one of Diana’s favourites photographers. He told to many friends that he was in the tunnel, but always refused to help the inquiry. He died 2 years after the accident, very strangely, burned in his car in the middle of nowhere in France. It can’t be a suicide as no one can’t burn a car so much just all alone. His wife, a French, still don’t understand and can’t believe her husband wanted to die. How strange isn’t it?
By Lilyfromfrance on June 7th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Lily, if my memory serves me right, the Stevens report dismissed the photographer as the driver of the Fiat. The one in the incident was owned by a farmer who fled the scene and completely repainted his car blue. The owner has been interviewed and rejected as a suspect. He said his life has been ruined by the incident.
By John on June 7th, 2007 at 9:20 am
I also find it surprising that C4 refused a legitimate request from his future king, despite the sensational photos of the crash were nothing in the end. I find it revealing of something.
By Lilyfromfrance on June 7th, 2007 at 9:39 am
My memory of the Stevens report may be at fault, Lily, but the Fiat Uno, whoever drove it, didn’t cause the crash. It was the speed of the Mercedes coming into the tunnel.
By John on June 7th, 2007 at 9:48 am
[...] The C4 Diana Documentary Reviewed. [...]
By SYNTAGMA » The wisdom of crowds in Diana documentary on June 7th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Ofcourse the little car didnt cause the crash. People who was there told they have seen a bif light, but too enormous for being a simple flash from a camera. Thats why Andanson became blind for a few seconds and hit the Mercedes. I find it too bad that he never spoke to the police. So, if simple things like who drove the car are hidden, why still continuing an inquest? It doesnt worth it.
If the inquest must be prolonged then at least it would be better if it comes from France. I never believed in a conspiracy and Im always interested in facts only, not in theories. Too ridiculous. But UK seems afraid of something and makes crap reports. Why?
By Lilyfromfrance on June 7th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Lily, the Stevens report was very like the French inquiry and reached the same conclusions.
I don’t know why the Al Fayed legal team’s objections are being allowed to put off the inquest. The judges seem to be determined that justice will be seen to be done, which is right, but the longer it drags on the more people start to suspect things which simply aren’t there. The C4 documentary at least showed the events in their true light without the testimony of the nutcases and psychos who are being taken seriously by the conspiracy theorists.
By John on June 7th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Oh the French inquiry was crap too
They opened the tunnel few hours after the crash and then today they can close it all the day (sometimes for 2 days!!!!) when the TV wants to make a documentary! 
Thats not what I call being effective. And Im not a hysterical paranoid conspiracy theorist! 
Just a simple Parisian who live 10 minutes from the tunnel and who find it weird that simple things who could be showed to the public turn into mysterious theories that some people want to hide. The “truth” will never known. It’s like Marilyn Monroe’s case. Now the only people who want to know what happened are the same who like to watch Inspector Columbo.
By Lilyfromfrance on June 7th, 2007 at 10:40 am
[...] The C4 Diana Documentary Reviewed. [...]
By Aristocracy Anecdotes - Secrets of Aristocrats and Toffs » Diana death documentary reviewed on June 7th, 2007 at 10:40 am
John I agree with lily both reports are crap!!!! There was not much of an investigation and as for the Farmer no one has heard his name and for that matter why did he have a need to paint the car blue after the accident? I fail to see how his life was ruined as a result.
By Trudie on June 7th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Trudie, it all boils down to a long-term alcoholic put behind the wheel of a powerful Mercedes late at night. The result could almost be predicted. The rest is history.
By John on June 7th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Occam’s Razor is rarely wrong.
By John on June 7th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Trudie and Lily, I agree with both of you. Regarding the information Lily has told us about the Fiat Uno, my cousin, who is a French National, corroborates Lily’s version. I will wait and hope for a fair and complete examination of all the evidence and every witness at the inquest. This rush to judgement becomes more suspicious every day. I have a very bad feeling about this entire process, which, however long it has taken, is anything but thorough. It reminds me of the Warren Commission, which was just as agenda driven, just as spurious and, to this day, quite as controversial. In the end, no one believed the conclusions it drew.
By Gigi on June 7th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
John, Occam’s Razor only works when everyone concerned tells the truth. Therefore, it is often wrong, which is why it is not given much creedence in jurisprudence.
By Gigi on June 7th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
But if it’s the truth, what people say doesn’t matter — it’s the truth.
By John on June 7th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
The truth cannot be considered in a case (trial, inquest) unless it is testified to, which cannot happen unless people called to testify tell the truth under oath. It always matters what people say, John. That is why cases in law are judged on testimony.
By Gigi on June 7th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Gigi your right even the Warren Report was crap and everyone had their agenda. Look at President Ford he was on the commission and went on to become our first non-elected President!!!
By Trudie on June 7th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
…so all the hoopla about the photographs was really all for nothing? People missed what seems to be a very good documentary because of all the fuss made over photographs that amounted to a very dark photo showing next to nothing?
I’m glad it wasn’t the shockudrama that seems to prevail these days but it’s too bad that the lead-up to it was worse than it really was.
By On The Outside on June 7th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I have just watched the second half of the documentary on Diana which I taped. Although this was not a pleasant documentary it did show that people were with Diana constantly and they cared. The press reports gave the impression that she was not given the medical help that she needed and was not taken to hospital in time. That medical staff and the hospital were somehow negligent. We now know that a doctor was on hand, helpers and the ambulance personnel were giving her medical help in preparation for the hospital. She was being attended to every minute and second that she was trapped in the car and in the ambulance. It gives me great comfort to know that during her last hours on earth she was not alone and people did care and it showed.
Thank you once again for showing this documentary. I feel comforted on Diana’s behalf after seeing the truth. I know that the Princes were not happy but for all those who loved Diana it must have served as some comfort to know that the people caring for her loved her as we do. You showed it as it happened and that on its own is worth noting.
Well done for researching and making a documentary on a very difficult subject, one which you were fully aware would create a lot of critisism.
By Maureen from Midlothian on June 7th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
It would be interesting to know how many more people tuned in because of the phony hype and how many people chose not to tune in because of the phony hype. A new twist on broadcasting bait and switch. There just seems to be no depth to which these people will not sink.
By Gigi on June 8th, 2007 at 4:12 am
Channel 4 is getting good audiences these days because of PR hype. It’s a shame that a lot of people may avoid excellent documentaries because of it.
Gigi, scientific evidence is almost always more accurate than testimony, given the known distortions of witness statements in moments of acute stress. The evidence now is so monumental that you have to be looking the other way to miss it — as many people are.
By John on June 8th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Maureen, absolutely. The film showed no disrespect and put a lot of things in their context. I hope the two Princes watched it with open minds. It will have brought back painful memories, but it filled in many gaps about what really happened on that night.
By John on June 8th, 2007 at 8:24 am