“Jackie”, directed by Pablo Larrain, has given me fits and starts as far as purpose. Was the purpose to show Jackie Kennedy as a 60’s Stepford Wife, who after her husband’s assassination decided to try to assert herself, only to feel defeated? If so, then, Jackie decides to preserve the fantasy of Camelot through an interview with Theodore White? Ok, fair enough.
The fog horn like monotone sound track, as Jimmy Pardo’s minions just reported on his Never Not Funny podcast was a character in itself. Not since Jaws have I heard a refrain quite that strong. This isn’t necessarily a positive comment. Movies are meant to have substance as well as style. There wasn’t a scene in Jackie that I cherished as much as the many in Jaws, notably two: the dining room scene where Roy Scieder makes faces with his son, or the galley scene where Schieder, Dreyfuss and Shaw share scar stories.
Probably obvious that I can’t recommend this movie. Two major reasons are it’s sensationalized gore porn, and there’s just not enough new information (like Jackie says they didn’t sleep together the night before the parade….ok, more, where was he?) Let’s get out some facts. If we’re going to hang out Jackie’s braziers and panties, meaning showing her as a cigarette smoking, pill popping neophyte, why be unfair and preserve JFK? We know the rumors, so what’s wrong with some facts?
Natalie Portman is capable of a better script and I can’t believe Bobby Kennedy (Peter Sarsgaard) would be pleased that he looked like quite the dullard, which from watching his speeches, he was anything but.
So, on behalf of Jackie and Bobbie, What’s the frequency Pablo?
