January
17
Tags
Jackie (2016)
History and drama often make awkward bedfellows, as you might find in the bio-pic Jackie (2016). The assassination of JFK is one of the defining moments of the 20th century and any dramatization of the immediate aftermath is a risky venture. History buffs may fault it and others may struggle with its melodramatic interpretation of Jaqueline Kennedy’s life-defining event. But look beyond the cinematic limitations and you find a complex portrait of a remarkable person who endured an unimaginable horror with rare strength and dignity.
The film’s starts with the motorcade in which John F. Kennedy was assassinated and ends with his funeral. The narrative is framed around a journalist’s interview conducted a week after the event and a confessional talk with a priest at the funeral. It uses their questions and comments to trigger flashbacks to the short JFK presidency, with dramatisations that craft together archival footage and historical photographs. The title of the film makes it clear that this is a portrait of Jackie (played by Natalie Portman) so her words, her emotions, and her actions are the primary focus. The film’s narrative tension comes entirely from the depiction of her inner world of private trauma and her struggles with the political and public reaction to the event.
The most striking aspect of Portman’s portrayal is her ability to present several sides of the one persona as if she and Jackie shared multiple personalities. Once you recover from the distraction that Portman barely resembles Jaqueline Kennedy, she takes you on an emotional roller-coaster, from terror, anger, hate, confusion, mental vacillation and disorientation to calm resolve about her role in history. Throughout it all she remains committed to turning a tragedy into national mythology based on political heroism, the Kennedy legend, and the Camelot fairy tale. While there is a commendable support cast, this is a one-woman performance and Portman’s portrayal is a tour de force.
Some will find this film an unflattering interpretation of Jaqueline Kennedy while others will find that it helps them to sympathetically understand the person behind the mask. The film steers a fine line in avoiding judgement and it is Portman’s dramatic ability to step into Jackie’s soul and to capture her mental trauma that ultimately shines. No bio-pic is perfect. If you overlook scenes where the film struggles with period authenticity you will be rewarded with a memorable performance about an unforgettable event.
Director: Pablo Larraine
Stars: Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgaard, Great Gervig, John Hurt
CineMuseFilms 
I was wondering about this one. How Natalie Portman would fare. It’s nice to know she did a good job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems that her performance has amazed some and annoyed others. I believe its because our collective memory has obscured how Jackie really talked in real life. Portman’s psychological portrait is truly powerful.
LikeLike
I really want to watch this! When it comes to psychological interpretation, Natalie Portman is the QUEEEEEN.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Feel free to come back and share your thoughts after seeing this film mia.
LikeLike
I thought Portman nailed Jackie’s voice. But the writing was not suitable. Many things Jackie would never have said. Portman in this movie closely resembles Jackie’s sister Lee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m inclined to agree Catherine; she said several things that we would expect a First Lady might say in today’s political era but not half a century ago. Thanks for commenting.
LikeLike
So finally saw this a few nights ago, and found it fascinating. First of all, a thumbs up for presenting these events from Jackie’s point of view. She must have been in such shock, it is hard to grasp how she managed through the following weeks/months. What I found most distracting about the look was not so much that Natalie Portman does not really resemble Jackie, but that she so often look wide-eyed, and almost bewildered – especially in the reenactment of the White House tour – as if she was a fraction too young to play Jackie at that time. Although she got the voice very close, it didn’t come across with the same authority. Jackie’s accent and tone was the product of the teaching of the time, that women should have soft voices, etc, etc, not from any lack of confidence; and it had a strong undertone. Having said that, who would absolutely nail her entire persona, and it’s fluctuations during this incredible trauma? Portman did a very creditable job. Another thing that confused me was timing. I think Jackie was in the White House for two weeks, but at times in the portrayal it seemed she was trying to cram everything in to two days. The scenes with the priest, I think, took place as a result of the re-interment of the two babies she had lost early in the marriage – not sure that was completely clear; but what was made clear was her questioning, doubt, and suicidal thoughts. The bio-pic exposed the incredible expectations placed on her at a time when her mind must have been in complete turmoil. That she managed to carry herself through it, all the while in the public eye and with the internal political pressures is amazing. All in all, a good film for the thinking woman 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
An astute set of observations Gwen. I agree that if you take a forensic view there are several things that are jarring. But if you engage with the broader sweep of Portman’s portrayal, this is a very powerful film.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh yes, it kept me engrossed throughout.
LikeLiked by 1 person