Hi Readers!
It's been some time since Valerie and I have reviewed films. We got a bit busy with life! But I am back, and I hope you enjoy some of my thoughts.
SPOILER ALERT: There is NONE! haha Yes, just a reminder that I never give away plot details in any review. I can't tell you how annoyed I get reading other reviews that give away details I would appreciate learning on my own when watching the movie! My other goal: To make the reviews SHORT. So with those parameters in mind, I resume the blog and hope you find the comments fun and useful.
By the way, Valerie and I have covered hundreds of films over the five or so years we've been doing this project, so please feel free to browse our titles.
JACKIE: Oh my, what an enigma she was. Before saying anything about the film, we recall some of her conflicts. She was well-educated, having attending Vassar and studied at the Sorbonne. But as First Lady at a time when being literate as a woman was not prized, she developed the stereotypic wispy, Marilyn Monroe-esque voice and affect of a dingbat! She loved Jack, but he played around. Later, after the assassination, she felt insecure financially and married an old magnate twice her age! That's why the headlines of the 80s read: "Jackie O! " or "Jackie OH!" Yes, she was an enigma.
On to the movie. There is one major reason to see this film. Natalie Portman does an exquisite job of capturing Jackie. The mannerisms are uncannily accurate. The voice, the face, the gestures...pure Jackie. Think of Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin. Yes, viewers, you will rarely see acting brilliance like this.
Unless some other actress comes along with a whopper of a role, consider Natalie Portman a shoo-in for Best Actress.
This would be her second one! Wasn't she great in Black Swan? If you did not see it, rent it and watch her enormous talent. By the way, go back to when she was a young teen if you want to see her great acting ability in its infancy, in a film called The Professional.
What about the film itself? Pathetically empty. I had hoped to learn something of the times. I wanted to learn new things about JFK, about the marriage, about the assassination...about something! I can't say the film gave me one new piece of information.
Yet the times were entrancing! JFK and Jackie did create Camelot in the White House. They epitomized youth and vibrancy. Who can forget the music soirees they presented? Who can forget the wonderful pictures of little John-John running around under the president's desk? Or Jackie wowing Charles De Gaulle by speaking French?
So why didn't the film capture some of the magic? Why didn't it show us the charm and wonder of the JFK years? Why didn't it get deeper into the marriage? Why didn't it give us some Jackie history via flashbacks, say when she first met JFK?
No idea. Maybe the director did not want to portray any of the joy of the times. Or maybe everyone just wanted to focus on Natalie's acting.
Without giving any spoiler details, I'd simply label the film DOUR. Sad, depressing, bleak, dark...like a two-hour funeral. You'll get to see just that: lots of shots of the funeral, folks in black, folks with tears, folks in shock.
Sure, the terrible days when JFK was shot, the ensuing funeral, the murder of Oswald, and the transition of power were daunting and heart-wrenching. But there was so much more to the story! In fact, the major question I'd have addressed is this: Why did America love this couple so much? Why did they love Jackie?
So my grade for the film is C-. That's generous, because I'm a former teacher, and I hate to give failing grades!
However: A+ for superb acting.
Welcome back to theatre-going, David! I refrained from reading this post until I had seen the movie; I work better with this blog when it is a post-viewing discussion and we have no bounds. I had zero expectations re this film before seeing it - that's probably a good thing. But I was surprised at the narrowed focus of it. I probably thought it'd be about her life. But I tried to take this film as it was clearly intended, and not what I intended. It was a close look at the newly widowed First Lady. I agree with you that it felt like a 2-hour dirge (when actually was much shorter than that). I did not care for the final shot and Camelot theme, as the film had not captured or set that tone. I agree Portman’s performance was excellent; not an easy role or shoes to fill. I did learn new things – little details on those first miserable hours and days. I’ve always been a BIG devotee of Jacqueline, mostly for her profound dignity and grace under pressure and grief. So I appreciated this film’s fearlessness in showing her humanity as a new widow in extraordinary circumstances. Only makes me like her more. Yes, this film was dark, sobering and heavy. But that was the story they were telling (artfully embellished by the scoring). In the end, I feel like I know J. and her experience better. I found the film artistic, honest, and penetrating.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, so much for your "short" post, David. Hahaha
ReplyDelete