Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Message
Author
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#26 Post by domino harvey » Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:01 pm

Larrain and Portman will appear on a commentary for the film... which will only be available in Digital HD, not the Blu-Ray. Camelot truly is over

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#27 Post by DarkImbecile » Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:15 pm

domino harvey wrote:Larrain and Portman will appear on a commentary for the film... which will only be available in Digital HD, not the Blu-Ray. Camelot truly is over
So they're still spending resources producing and distributing a blu-ray, but punishing people who buy the film in that format? Sounds great.

User avatar
willoneill
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#28 Post by willoneill » Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:36 pm

DarkImbecile wrote:
domino harvey wrote:Larrain and Portman will appear on a commentary for the film... which will only be available in Digital HD, not the Blu-Ray. Camelot truly is over
So they're still spending resources producing and distributing a blu-ray, but punishing people who buy the film in that format? Sounds great.
Isn't this the same as the last two Star Trek films?

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#29 Post by DarkImbecile » Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:40 pm

willoneill wrote:
DarkImbecile wrote:
domino harvey wrote:Larrain and Portman will appear on a commentary for the film... which will only be available in Digital HD, not the Blu-Ray. Camelot truly is over
So they're still spending resources producing and distributing a blu-ray, but punishing people who buy the film in that format? Sounds great.
Isn't this the same as the last two Star Trek films?
Maybe, but I didn't notice because I had no interest in buying those, unlike this film.

"First they came for the Star Trek blus, and I said nothing..."

User avatar
George Kaplan
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 7:42 pm

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#30 Post by George Kaplan » Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:52 am

Michael Kerpan wrote:But then maybe my judgment is skewed by a lifetime of opera fandom -- where the stock in trade is suffering along with (and or tryong to understand) suffering heroines.
Michael, you likely are already familiar with Wayne Koestenbaum's "Jackie Under My Skin: Interpreting an Icon", but if not it is a fascinating look at its subject, very much through the lens of being an ardent opera fan.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#31 Post by Michael Kerpan » Sun Feb 05, 2017 6:17 pm

George Kaplan wrote:
Michael Kerpan wrote:But then maybe my judgment is skewed by a lifetime of opera fandom -- where the stock in trade is suffering along with (and or tryong to understand) suffering heroines.
Michael, you likely are already familiar with Wayne Koestenbaum's "Jackie Under My Skin: Interpreting an Icon", but if not it is a fascinating look at its subject, very much through the lens of being an ardent opera fan.
No, never heard of this. Will check it out...

j99
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 10:18 am

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#32 Post by j99 » Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:21 am

Black Hat wrote:Have to say I'm surprised at how polarizing this one's been for critics, specifically those down on the film.

Personally I went into this with very low expectations thinking it was going to be your standard biofilm puffery, but instead found myself blown away by how wrapped up in it I was. Larraín's use of subtle edits with extreme close ups was a perfect way to express the introspection a story like this needed. This wasn't a biopic it was about showing how arguably the greatest shock of the 20th Century impacted the woman most intimately connected to the event. The woman being a person who after this trauma largely left the public eye keeping herself and her children a mystery. It's a challenge to have an audience connect to a character study of a well known public figure famous for her unwillingness to be studied. The trickiest aspect is to do this while keeping your character's integrity to the real life person intact. To this end I thought Natalie Portman, who I've never thought much of, gave a magnificent performance. Her portrayal, far from an impression, struck me as a perfect mix of absurd high class dignity fighting against real emotions — what people of her class should never show — of indignation and anger. Micachu's score while to some bombastic I felt only amplified what were the rawest of nerves, it was supposed to be jarring. I'm no Kennedy buff, nor was I anywhere close to being born at the time of his assassination, but for all the articles & books published, documentaries, news specials and films produced outside of the same few anecdotes I don't recall ever hearing much of what it was like for Jackie or much about her personality after watching Larraín's film I now feel connected to her.
I completely agree. I have never seen anything relating to JFK in the aftermath of his death from Jackie Kennedy's point of view, so it was refreshing in this regard. I too was blown away by how brilliant this film was. I thought it was a superb study in grief, particularly when one is in the public eye. I went into the film half heartedly, and came out wanting to see it again. I think it is an extraordinary piece of work, and the soundtrack by Mica Levi is exceptional.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#33 Post by domino harvey » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:24 am

Not just the best film of 2016, but the best in years and years. JFK wasn’t much of a president, and I can’t pretend I ever spent much time thinking of Jackie O., but Jackie is a masterpiece, full of richness in its themes and approach, anchored by a transformative central performance, and so beautifully shot and scored that the film itself as a whole reflects the deck-stacked existence of its subjects.

No was one of the best films of the year it was released, but Jackie takes Larrain to the plane of all-time greatness. I can't even fathom how he pulled off what this film achieves, melding historical accuracy (the film is fully transportive to the era without indulging in period fetishization— this alone qualifies it for deification) with an honest face-value appraisal of grief as filtered through the public eye (one always there, even in private). But beyond even that, the film is a reclamation of the surface, a film that sides with the pretty people, but without empty ego flattery. Jackie deeply understands our social betters (be they beautiful, rich, powerful, or all three) and is honest about it. No wonder the film is so polarizing, we still live in a world where many of us are immunized to even acknowledging there is such a thing!

The film gives us the strains and stresses of always being on, of living the life of the eternal deb and how the shifting spotlight is itself a second death. These are different concerns than the grief that inhibits, say, Manchester by the Sea, but no less valid. Natalie Portman, in a performance that perhaps can only be embodied by someone who herself grew up in the public eye and never left, is tremendous at being Jackie Kennedy, in the same way Ben Kingsley was Gandhi-- it stops being representational and becomes reality. Any historical drama could give us the facts or a fair narrative conjecture of what did or did not really happen. Who cares, this film says, here’s how it all felt, as experienced by someone primed by life to be the First Lady, yet lacking the emotional resources to be the First Widow. It is a film that sells the powerlessness of death better than any I’ve ever seen, and it does so in a fashion of rescuing the Better Thans from the easier vantages of superiority, phony “understanding,” or necrotic idol worship. There is not an ounce of false sentiment, not a speck of misplaced reverence, and yet the end result is one of cemented legacy all over again. Camelot was and briefly is again.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#34 Post by knives » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:45 am

domino harvey wrote:Jackie deeply understands our social betters (be they beautiful, rich, powerful, or all three) and is honest about it. No wonder the film is so polarizing, we still live in a world where many of us are immunized to even acknowledging there is such a thing!
What?

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#35 Post by mfunk9786 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:47 am

Didn't you hear the man? We are scum.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#36 Post by domino harvey » Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:26 am

Well, that's true, but nothing I wrote said so

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#37 Post by knives » Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:53 am

Seriously though, what did you mean. I literally don't understand your point beyond there being a suggestion of some vanguard thing about beauty and wealth.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#38 Post by swo17 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:05 am

He means that famous people are better than the rest of us, and that most people refuse to acknowledge this.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#39 Post by mfunk9786 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:06 am

I refuse to acknowledge this.

cdobbs
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:45 am

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#40 Post by cdobbs » Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:31 am

Feeling better now about the Films That Deeply Understand Your Social Betters category that popped up on my Netflix.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#41 Post by domino harvey » Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:13 am

I hate to disappoint, but "our social betters" is a common synonym for "the 1%" or however else you want to describe the upper echelon of any societal value based on external factors of the individual (wealth, beauty, etc). It is not necessarily a sincere value judgment on my part, though I would argue the strong revulsion some feel to the validity of this concept plays against the sincere treatment the film gives this group, which may explain some of the variance of responses to the film

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#42 Post by DarkImbecile » Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:43 am

If I squint I can see where Domino is coming from on that point, as I do think the film intentionally plays up the contrast between the aloof, high society existence that Jackie Kennedy personified and the universal humanity she displays in her grief, doubt, and resolve.

That said, this portion
domino harvey wrote: Jackie deeply understands our social betters (be they beautiful, rich, powerful, or all three) and is honest about it. No wonder the film is so polarizing, we still live in a world where many of us are immunized to even acknowledging there is such a thing!
leaves me curious as to whether you mean that Americans are so tone deaf to class issues that they don't see the stratification of American society as real and applicable in the differences it creates, or that some people refuse to acknowledge that there really is a class of people objectively better than the masses.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#43 Post by domino harvey » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:30 pm

I think a bit of both there. The film shows how at this time and place, the enormity of the societal pressure from all sides on Jackie Kennedy added unimaginable depths to an already tragic event, and the film plays real with the concerns of those who “have it all” and suddenly find their position shaken. If one denies that the Kennedys were important and a symbol of “Better” to much of the American populace at the time, this film is doomed to fail. There’s no real equivalent since to the position they held in American society— it was a right time, right place scenario. I keep coming back to that great outburst in the film by Sarsgaard’s Bobby Kennedy worrying that they’ll all just go down merely as a bunch of pretty people. That gets at the heart of the anxiety of the film, of knowing you have privilege, enjoying the benefits of that privilege, but always playing a part and being aware of how others see you. For as narcissistic a society as we’ve become of late, I believe this is still one of the defining characteristics of those in positions, real or constructed, of “Better”: all eyes are on them, at all times. There’s an old joke that you can always spot an actor, because they’re the ones who behave at all times as though someone were watching them. I think the same is transferrable to the whole class depicted here. Just look at Portman’s superb recreations of the First Lady’s anguished TV walkthrough of the White House. Jackie Kennedy was tasked with presenting herself not as she was but as she should be, and there’s clearly something soul-deadening in that. Jackie Kennedy herself is still synonymous with “First Lady” in the same way Lincoln or Washington is with “President,” and while some of that is due to the aftermath of her husband’s assassination, even those elements play into how she was packaged and sold to the people as a concept, a placeholder for the Ideal. And Jackie does a tremendous job exploring these ideas.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#44 Post by mfunk9786 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:45 pm

Our societal narcissism is only seen as such because "regular" people have so many avenues with which to share themselves with one another, when that sort of visibility was reserved for a select few prior to that. There's a built-in aversion to the change in society, but I think that despite the growing pains, it's ultimately a good thing that fewer and fewer people are in the position of being "betters," and that things like social media and an endless amount of exposure have sort of torn down a lot of walls between "regular" people and their "betters". The fact that I can pop onto a famous actor's Instagram account and see the cup of coffee they're drinking this morning, or their dog - but that I can also do that exact same thing with my friend who lives a couple of blocks away - is a pretty tremendous cultural shift. If there's an entry point into Jackie that some people can't find, it's because the sort of class system that the film explores is almost unfathomable now, or at least eroded to the point of being unrecognizable.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#45 Post by domino harvey » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:57 pm

mfunk9786 wrote: If there's any entry point that people can't find into Jackie, it's because the sort of class system that the film explores is almost unfathomable now, or at least eroded to the point of being unrecognizable.
That's an interesting notion. I think class distinctions have become more jumbled than they once were, in part due to some of these "Betters" acting like "Just Folks" on social media, not vice versa, but I'm not convinced this has led to any actual leveling of the playing field. Your neighbor's cup of coffee won't have the same import or impact as a famous actress', because only one comes prepackaged with an entire set of expectations that factor in to more than one's immediate social group (friends, family, co-workers-- people we directly interact with, not observe). But I think you're onto something about how the accessibility of some "Betters" has led to a demystification of their class value or worth

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#46 Post by mfunk9786 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:11 pm

I think my only argument with that would be that they are "Just Folks" unless they give credence to those expectations that others have and try to tailor their image to please as many people as possible. But in this era, usually that body count is going to increase whether someone is manufacturing a plastic persona for themselves or not since there is literally nowhere to hide from anyone or anything you're interested in anymore. To give an example to try to explain what the hell I am talking about: Consider Leif Garrett and Justin Bieber. Garrett was incredibly famous for many of the same reasons Bieber is, until the limitations on the degree to which he was exposed to the public worked against him, his popularity waned and he, for all intents and purposes, went away. Nowadays, is there even a remote possibility that someone like Bieber would disappear in that sort of way? Just become unpopular? Those who have a vested interest in him likely view him as a far flung friend or family member because of the amount of ways they have to be exposed to him in a passive way (like, you're not notified every time he tweets or posts something on Instagram, but you see these things when you're going through your feed). There was likely a good deal of nonstarter, flop sweat-coated, B&W negative Behind the Music 3rd act efforts made by a Garrett to get his audience back in the fold, but all Bieber needs to do is just continue to be "Just Folks" and let people keep coming to him. Availability and accessibility has led to a leveling of the playing field that wasn't there in the early 1960s, but these were always "Just Folks" and will always continue to be. The amount of effort that Jackie Kennedy had to put into crafting the way she and her husband were seen by the public would not be necessary any longer in the same ways that it was then, her mere existence would be the attraction today, not the way she dresses that existence up.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#47 Post by domino harvey » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:25 pm

The Billy Crudup interview sequences in the film go a long way towards addressing these concerns as well. The film takes what is a rote biopic crutch— famous person recounts life events to third party— and imbues it with symbolic meaning for the themes at play. Crudup’s reporter is the “just folks” stand-in, a non-participant who is still an active party in observation but who at various times embodies the myriad of responses most of us have to the famous— he’s reverential, he’s skeptical, he's dubious, he’s inquisitive, but above all he buys into her import wholesale, regardless of personal qualms or misgivings. Three great moments from these sequences: Crudup coming to realize that anything the First Lady says that pulls back the curtain too far will not be allowed to run, leading to him eventually self-censoring Portman's words without instruction; Portman telling Crudup that after this interview, he himself will become famous, and thus her "Better"ness is still so potent that class ascension has occurred just by close association; and the final scenes of the interview, where Portman doesn’t just approve Crudup’s notes, she appears to write portions of his story herself and stands by listening while he phones the whole piece in for publication. It’s an incredible show of the power of image manipulation and its role in the class distinctions she embodied.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#48 Post by DarkImbecile » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:27 pm

domino harvey wrote:... it was a right time, right place scenario.
Not a concept often applied to the Kennedy family.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#49 Post by domino harvey » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:29 pm

DarkImbecile wrote:
domino harvey wrote:... it was a right time, right place scenario.
Not a concept often applied to the Kennedy family.
A+

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Jackie (Pablo Larrain, 2016)

#50 Post by knives » Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:12 pm

That makes a lot more sense. I'm not entirely sure if I can agree with your fundementals, though that might just be on semantics. It certainly makes the film sound interesting as a piece of anthropology.

Post Reply