Jackie

Being a history and film buff I had to see "Jackie" as it's a historical film of the memories and times of the life and assassination of President John Kennedy, as told thru flashback and grief trauma memories from the elegant and class act first lady Jackie Kennedy(in a beautiful performance from the wonderful Natalie Portman). Starting like an interview style of a film told by flashback flashback the movie takes place after the death of "JFK", as Jackie is interviewed about the experience and the memories of the death and the impact of the administration, all of this brings out sorrow and emotions from Jackie(as Natalie showed the grief and anger on screen so well)it's just like you as the viewer feel the pain of the first lady. Overall good film that's a showcase of memories showing how tragedy and loss can affect a strong lady along with a nation, this picture is a watch for any history or film buff.

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.

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.

POSITIVES:

1) Natalie Portman is incredible. Mark Kermode was astute when he said that she is mostly doing a performance of a performance, but it means that the moments where Jackie is truly being herself are even more emotional 2) Billy Crudup is always fantastic and Greta Gerwig was an incredibly important presence in the film as she humanised Jackie 3) The score is mesmerising; it's incredibly operatic which adds to the drama and emotion of the film 4) The exchanges between Jackie and Crudup's reporter were very well done and engaging

NEGATIVES:

1) Despite being a relatively short film, I still felt like it could've lost another 15 minutes 2) A large part of the drama seems to hinge on whether the funeral guests would walk or go in vehicles; I didn't find this to be a compelling narrative 3) The scenes with John Hurt were incredibly weird. His accent is all over the place and the camera work in these scenes was very bizarre as there were lots of off-centre shots and shots which appeared to be too zoomed in.

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.