Jackie

As someone who loves history, I thoroughly enjoyed Jackie. For the most part, the facts were historically accurate as far as I am aware. I also really liked the score, I thought it was very refreshing and simply different. The film was slow-paced but I find that's to be expected with historical films. I liked that the cinematography was simple to give a real sense of the era, and the costume design was great. I also liked the ending.

Essentially this is a film where I liked everything, but didn't love much. The only things that I absolutely loved was Natalie Portman's acting as Jackie Kennedy. She really exuded her character and became Jackie Kennedy. it was great! The other thing I loved was John Hurt as the priest which was a lovely surprise.

Overall, this was a simple film but it wasn't daring. It didn't risk take like other films would and therefore in that regard may be a bore for some.

The Kennedy assassination was one of the defining moments of history, probably the most internationally shocking one until 9/11. Pablo Larraín's "Jackie" focuses on the widowed Jackie Kennedy during the few days after the assassination, as she tries to cement her late husband's legacy. I wasn't alive then, so I don't know what Jackie's voice sounded like, but Natalie Portman affects a breathy mid-Atlantic accent to play the stylish first lady. Quite an impressive performance.

We could make the argument that JFK didn't have much of a positive legacy, given his poor record on civil rights (upon which Johnson sought to improve) and an undeclared war on Cuba. Even so, the era was seen as the culmination of the possible. I recommend the movie.

Larraín also directed 2012's "No", about the TV campaign that led to Augusto Pinochet's defeat in the 1988 election.

OK, yes, Natalie Portman gives a good performance as Jackie Kennedy. But everything else in this long, boring film is badly done. The worst two examples are the actors playing JFK and RFK. The actor playing JFK is way too short for the role, has his voice dubbed by actual JFK audio footage, and prances around like a gay munchkin. Peter Sarsgaard is a good actor, but make no effort at all to look or sound like RFK. It's as if you're watching a version of history with pod people taking over the roles of these famous men.

From the first awful note, the music of Mica Levi is intrusive, jarring, and totally wrong for this type of film. It even drowns out dialog it's so loud. Aside from the clip of Richard Burton singing "Camelot," the film seems to exist in a time warp, with zero cultural references allowed to intrude other than old news footage.

We are told Jackie is being interviewed in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts, but the house and surrounding grounds look nothing like the famous Kennedy compound or Cape Cod. Even footage filmed in Washington, DC looks oddly phony since the city has changed so much since 1963.

The scenes where Jackie spars intellectually with the journalist (Sarsgaard as Theodore H. White, but they never use his name) and the priest (John Hurt) are so foolish they almost seem like comedy skits. There's also a long and needless scene with Richard E. Grant as a designer working with Jackie as she obsesses over interior decoration for the White House.

During the long screen time devoted to recreating Jackie's famous televised tour of the White House in 1961, she talks about the stage that was built in the music room when Pablo Casals played there, but the following scene shows him seated and playing not on a stage.

Other historical characters from the Johnsons to Jack Valenti are glimpsed as being generally unfriendly and outrightly evil, but nothing is developed. It's as if all this history is just a vague backdrop for Jackie to emote in front of. Perhaps it's an accurate comment about a woman who is so self-obsessed, her hours after the assassination are spent worrying about what will become of her and where she will live.

And that's the main issue here. We're shown a Jackie who is constantly self-obsessed rather than self-assured. She's a heroine for the selfie generation rather than a real and accurate product of her time.

I mostly fell for this exploration of grief, grace and mythmaking. Even when it was a bit too on the nose (the faults mostly lie in the wraparound story). It's concerned with how someone copes in the spotlight, how someone can make a legacy from the idea of a thing, how a person is more important than their legend but also how their legend shapes how that person is forever perceived.

It's telling in the universe of the film that Jackie herself is first obsessed with redesigning the White House in what is ostensibly a superficial act of decorating, but then is revealed to be, in reality, attempting to reflect more than the legends of past presidents but also the men who shaped them. A reminder that all legends start with a simple human being doing things only a person can do. A grandiloquent gesture of political humanity for a house full of ghosts.

There's a lot else to like here. Natalie Portman's performance does indeed capture Jackie Kennedy's persona, but also the legend of her and the real woman behind it all. Watching the real White House tour video on YouTube showed me how accurate Portman's breathy accent and meticulous demeanor really were. Beautifully composed, with notes of elegance and grotesqueness in equal measure. And a wonderful, tragic, near other-worldly score by Mica Levi.

I'm not really familiar with Pablo Larraín's work. I hadn't seen any of his other films prior to watching Jackie. And yet I was still very excited for it because it sounded like something that was absolutely my cup of tea. Hearing reports that Academy members weren't liking it very much, and then hearing exactly why (because it wasn't your usual biopic and seemed to be more "out there" than most biopics) just got me more excited. It didn't disappoint at all. It was basically everything I wanted it to be. One of the finest, truest character studies of the year, completely driven by explorations into Jackie Kennedy's psyche. That sounds kind of pretentious, but I do think this film more than any other of the year deserves to be described that way. I would absolutely not be surprised if the Academy doesn't go for this at all, but I do wish it was popping up in more critic awards than it has been. More than any other film of the year it rests completely on its lead actress. Portman is just completely engaging and mesmerizing, and she adds to the film's poetry-like storytelling. Having seen both Portman and Emma Stone, I would be surprised if they gave the Oscar to Stone simply because Portman is basically her entire film and she's also completely immersed into the character in a way that Stone doesn't need to be. The latter's role may just be too light. Regardless, it's a performance to be talked about and remembered.

I appreciate when I leave a film feeling as though there's still so much left to unpack and to uncover about it, meaning that I wasn't able to completely discover all of its aims and goals in one viewing. To me that's the sign of a very well thought out film, a film that will leave a lingering impact. That's exactly how I came out of this. I'm sure not everyone here will take to it, but count me as one of its fans.