Jackie

— I’m catching up on movies I missed and “Jackie” is one of them. I’m glad I managed to see it in a theater because the images are really important. There’s a need to see the clarity, the color, and the beauty that are on the surface of things. Natalie Portman is building a strange oeuvre but, when you see her in things like “Jackie” (or “Black Swan”) it’s clear she’s one very talented actor. I like this film a lot and recommend it, although it’s sure to churn up feelings associated with the JFK assassination from long ago. I wonder what all those people who weren’t alive in 1963 think of the film since, for those of us who were alive, our feelings from the time and the images we remember augment the film, which transports us into the fictionalized mind of Jackie Kennedy during the days immediately after her husband’s assassination as she tried to deal with grief, anger, protocol, faith, family, and ensuring her husband’s legacy (and her own). The film fits well into a niche I’m seeing more of lately, all touching on how historical “truth” is made—things like the question of who tells your story in “Hamilton”, or what story is omitted as in “Hidden Figures”. And, of course, there’s the reverse to wonder about, when a film’s artistic license stretches the truth and the viewer’s perception of an event edges farther from fact as a result.

---

[2016. 100 min. Directed by Pablo Larrain. Starring Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgaard, and Greta Gerwig.]
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/jackie-2016