I. Plot Synopsis
The movie Jackie is only partially about the title character, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy. (Natalie Portman) Ironically, it is categorized as a historical biopic when in fact it is an exploration of public relations, image vs. reality in politics, and, in some ways, the nature of Truth itself.
That does not mean Mrs. Kennedy is not featured prominently–she is in nearly every scene, and often in extreme close-ups. Especially in the film’s opening half, we see her raw emotion in response to the assassination of her husband.
But as the film makes clear from the framing device–a reporter, (Billy Crudup) interviewing Mrs. Kennedy in the days after the assassination–it is focused on the role of media and appearance in politics, and ultimately in history. During the occasionally combative interview, she explains not only her emotional state, but also the ways in which she sought to shape the perception of her husband’s legacy.
This segues to flashbacks, first to a televised White House tour given by Mrs. Kennedy in which she discusses various historical Presidential artifacts which she has restored to the White House. This tour really did take place, and the filmmakers clearly went to some trouble to recreate it.
From here, the film next shows us the fateful trip to Dallas, and Mrs. Kennedy’s grief and horror in the aftermath. But even in these circumstances, political intrigue continues, as we see glimpses of the tension between Robert Kennedy and the newly sworn-in President Lyndon Johnson.
As Robert and Jackie ride with JFK’s coffin in Washington, she asks staff members if they know anything about Garfield or McKinley. They don’t. She then asks what they know about Lincoln, and they respond that he won the Civil War and freed the slaves. She then decides that she will model her husband’s funeral on Lincoln’s, to ensure his memory lives on as Lincoln’s did.
In one memorable sequence, we see her wandering the empty halls of the White House, listening to John Kennedy’s favorite record, the recording of Camelot, while drinking and taking pills as she is overwhelmed with grief.
Planning for the funeral continues, and Jackie makes clear her desire to have a long procession–a grand spectacle, that will capture the attention of the entire nation watching on television, and preserve Kennedy’s legacy. However, the Johnson administration is hesitant to do so, because of the security risk.
When Oswald is shot by Ruby, it confirms the risk to Mrs. Kennedy, and she decides not to have the procession on foot and go by motorcade instead. She shouts at Robert Kennedy in frustration, berating him (and by extension all politicians), for being unable to know what’s going on or keep anyone safe, despite all their power.
But later, as they are sitting in the empty White House, it is Robert’s turn to rage in frustration at the apparent wasted opportunity of his brother’s tragically ended administration. As she listens, Jackie makes up her mind that his death will not be in vain, and goes to Jack Valenti to tell him the procession will be on foot after all.
Valenti tells her that the problem is that foreign dignitaries–specifically, Charles de Gaulle–are afraid of the risk. Jackie replies that she wishes to let it be known that she will go on foot, but if de Gaulle wishes to ride “in an armored car, or a tank for that matter” she will understand, and pointedly adds that she is sure the national television audience will as well.
Bowing to this implied threat of public humiliation, they accede to Mrs. Kennedy’s wishes and proceed on foot.
Interspersed with all of this, in addition to her exchange with the reporter, are scenes of Jackie conversing with her Priest. (The late, great John Hurt). She is understandably having a crisis of faith, and pours her feelings out to him. He tries to console her, but in the end even he can give no satisfying answer to why God inflicts such suffering as has befallen Mrs. Kennedy and her family.
As their interview concludes, the reporter assures her that she has preserved Kennedy’s legacy as a great President. She tells him there’s one more thing, “more important than all the rest”, and relates the late President’s love of the musical Camelot, quoting the lines: “Don’t let it be forgot/That once there was a spot,/ For one brief, shining moment/That was known as Camelot.”
The film ends with this song playing over flashbacks of the White House tour and the Kennedys dancing together.
II. Review; Praise and Criticism
The film is very powerful, but also strangely disjointed. It can be hard to keep track of where action takes place even in the narrow time frame the film covers, so quick are the cuts to different moments.
Early on, there are many tight close ups on the face of the grieving widow, and long scenes of her cleaning the blood from her face and hair. These scenes are shocking, but seemed unrelated to the film’s larger theme.
The best scenes are those of the journalist interviewing Mrs. Kennedy. There is a tension between the two, who seem to strongly dislike one another, and Mrs. Kennedy’s harsh editing and commentary on what the reporter is and is not allowed to print starkly make the point about using the media to create a narrative–a point that seems especially relevant in light of recent political events.
In general, the acting is quite good. Peter Sarsgaard as Robert Kennedy is terrific, Hurt is very good, as he always was, and Billy Crudup is excellent as the journalist. The only actor who did not really seem right was John Carroll Lynch playing Lyndon Johnson, and this was not really an issue of his acting–which was quite fine–but simply his extreme non-resemblance to Johnson. There were times when I did not know who he was for parts of scenes.
This brings me to the star of the piece. Faithful readers know that Portman is my favorite actress, and it is because she is in this movie that I have followed it so closely.
Her performance is very good, and her Academy Award nomination is well-deserved. That said, all the talk that this is the greatest performance of her career is overblown–indeed, I would argue it is not even her greatest performance in a movie released in 2016. Her roles in Jane Got a Gun and A Tale of Love and Darkness (which Portman also directed) allow her far more range and depth.
There is however one very notable feature of her performance which, despite all the press about it, I have not seen mentioned in any reviews. That is the difference between how she plays Kennedy in the flashbacks and in the “present day” interview with the journalist.
In contrast to the panicked, grief-stricken widow of the immediate aftermath, in the interview scenes she seems about 20 years older, even though only a little time has elapsed. Her tongue is sharper and her attitude more bitter. The contrast is very noticeable, and quite effective at conveying the pain Jackie endured.
The single biggest problem with the film is its script. It is not uniformly bad–it is not even mostly bad–but when it is bad, it is absolutely dire. This might be worse than if it had been bad throughout, because it makes the really terrible lines stick out all the more.
At one point, someone advises Jackie to take her children, leave the White House quietly, and “build a fortress in Boston and disappear”.
Who the hell talks like that?
At another point, Robert Kennedy says that walking by the Lincoln bedroom reminds him that “one ordinary man signed an order that freed millions of people.” This is a rebuttal to Jackie saying it feels “peaceful”.
One scene was so bizarre I almost wonder if it really does have some basis in fact: aboard Air Force One, after the assassination, Jackie is asking about the bullet that killed her husband. “It didn’t sound like a .38” she says. “It sounded like a bigger–what do you call it?–caliber, like soldiers use.”
First of all, I find it hard to believe she would talk about the bullet. Second of all, I find it even harder to believe she would be able to tell if it was a .38 or not. And thirdly, if all that did happen, I think she wouldn’t then say “what do you call it” and be unsure of the word “caliber”.
Another example: when Jackie and Robert are walking through Arlington cemetery to select the grave site, Jackie is obviously having difficulty walking through the mud in her high heels. Robert asks her what’s wrong, and she says her shoes are getting stuck in the mud.
There’s no reason for her to say this. It was clear enough to the viewer; so why include the line?
The Priest says lots of things that I highly doubt any Priest would ever say, least of all to the President’s widow. Even the scenes with the interviewer, strong as they are, have some ham-handed lines, such as when he awkwardly raises the subject of the White House tour film that introduces the flashback.
The musical score is just flat-out weird. It is primarily a growling, synthesized noise that is sometimes appropriately foreboding, but at other times is just annoying. Sometimes it overpowered scenes of the grieving Jackie in instances where silence would have been far more effective. (As if to drive this home, later in the movie many scenes have no soundtrack, and these are much better.)
The cinematography, on the other hand, is very good throughout. There are some beautiful shots of Washington D.C. and the White House interior, and the scenes at Arlington are appropriately grim. And best of all is a scene of Jackie and Robert talking about the funeral in the gloomy November twilight. The scenery, make-up, costumes and acting all make it feel very real and immediate.
This all adds up to a wildly uneven picture. Just when it gets good, some jarring line throws it off, and just as it seems about to run off the rails completely, the cinematography or acting grabs your attention again.
I would be tempted to say it’s a mess with great acting and cinematography. If that were all there was to it, I could end the review now and just say, “See it if you are a Kennedy history buff or a Portman fan; otherwise, skip it.”
But that would ignore something. Which brings me to the third and most complicated aspect of this thing…
III. Thematic Analysis
As I said at the outset, the primary theme of the movie has to do with public relations, and how politics involves creating a public perception of events. Towards the end, Jackie says, “I believe the characters we read on the page become more real than the men who stand beside us.”
This theme of “perception becoming reality,” of the press creating the truth, is the core idea of the whole movie, and it is repeated over and over again, like a leitmotif. From the shots of Jackie’s assistant coaching her from behind the camera during the White House tour to her managing the funeral for maximum symbolic power, everything is ultimately about how people in power write history and in so doing shape others’ perception of the world.
I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes from Napoleon Bonaparte:
“Everything on Earth is soon forgotten, except the opinion we leave imprinted on history. There is no immortality but the memory that is left in the minds of men.”
Bonaparte, it should be noted, was remembered by history as a great strategist partly because of his memoir and other efforts at propaganda. How much of his legacy was rooted in his own skill at burnishing his legend?
Back to Jackie: there were several scenes–wide shots of crowds, mainly–that I’m pretty sure were actual scenes from the funeral. But I wasn’t always sure what was actual footage and what was re-created for the film. The filmmakers had planted this doubt in my mind early on by taking pains to re-create the White House tour film, right down to the bad sound and grainy black-and-white film. After that, you don’t know what is and isn’t real.
And that is the ultimate trick of Jackie: while it demonstrates how what was shown to the public differs from what was real, it is also itself a work of fiction for public consumption. We aren’t seeing what Jackie really did, we’re seeing what Pablo Larrain, Noah Oppenheim and Natalie Portman think she did–or what they want us to think she did for the purpose of a good story.
The kaleidoscopic nature of the various narratives leaves you, like Jackie herself at the end of the film, wondering what it’s all about. In a world where we hear terms like “fake news” and “alternative facts” used frequently vis-a-vis politics, I don’t think I need to explain how relevant this is.
For all the hype and buzz about Jackie, I don’t think the movie industry or the entertainment writers really understand what it is. Most of the press about it is just “OMG, Natalie Portman is wracked with anguish just like in Black Swan but now she’s Jackie Kennedy!!!”
Again, while Portman’s performance is very good, and definitely Oscar-worthy, it was not the most memorable thing about the movie to me. And let me repeat for emphasis: Portman is the reason I went to see it in the first place!
The sub-text and implications of this movie are damn near subversive, and it makes its point using much-beloved icons of American history. Combine that with the shocking re-creation of the assassination itself, and I’m frankly surprised this movie isn’t a lot more controversial. I think the public just has no stomach left for exploring politically-motivated untruths.
Ever since the credits rolled, I’ve been trying to come up with something else comparable to Jackie. It’s deeply fascinating, and yet in some respects amateurishly ham-fisted. It’s shockingly disturbing at times, and annoyingly predictable at others. There are parts I thought were brilliant and parts I thought any halfway competent editor would have immediately cut or re-done.
I keep thinking of Ross Scott’s review of the cult classic video game Deus Ex. Deus Ex was (and still is) revolutionary in the depth, scope, and complexity of its narrative, yet laughably poor in basic elements of graphics and sound that contemporary games could easily outperform.
Yet, in spite of its maddening inconsistency, Scott considered it a truly great and significant game. The reason for this, he said, was that woven into its utterly fantastic narrative was an eerie relevance to, and even prescience of, geopolitical realities.
Scott summarized his justification of the game’s merits in five words that would have served well as a tagline for Jackie:
“Some of this is real.”
Hmmm, interesting. I love anything with a historical or political theme, so I’ll be on the lookout for this one.
I would love to hear your thoughts on it!