What it might have been?

Rating: 6/10 (9 March 2017)

Several aspects to this film were very well done. The casting of Portman as Jackie was very good, the actor chosen to play President Kennedy, Caspar Phillipson, was a great look-a-like, though lacked the physical size of JFK. The film is done as an interview that relies on a flashback element. These flashbacks are not done in a linear manner however, the very nature of the well known subject does not require it to be done that way. I have always wondered what Jackie must have endured during that horror, & how she remembered it. She had given a detailed interview that included her experience setting next to her husband, our President, but it was not given over for publication. One wonders how much of this was true to that interview, but I do not recall seeing anything that says if it was directly taken from that interview. It was presented in a fashion that one could reasonably presume that it did. The various events & circumstances after the assassination that the public was not privy to added to the tumult that Jackie was thrust into & which she had to deal with as grieving widow, mother & first lady. For those who question her strength, you must consider the man JFK was, the overbearing nature of the Kennedy family, the repressive nature of those people that surround the Presidency, the unrelenting intrusiveness of the press. It's not a stretch to imagine for Jackie to function in that environment she had to be a person of formidable inner strength. Also, if one recalls how she guarded her children for many years following the assassination, and throughout her life that followed, you also see a woman of great resolve. I thought this aspect of the portrayal of Jackie was more likely true than not & is fairly well presented in this film.
The question throughout this picture is how much of it is creative license of filmmakers, and how much is based on actual knowledge & record from those who would have witnessed these events that the public did not. One such event presented in the film was the confrontation Jackie has with RFK/Bobby after she discovers that he withheld from her the killing of Oswald. This is a powerful scene partly because it followed an equally powerful scene in which RFK takes control of a room that included the then President, LBJ, and other key members of the Presidents staff & family, essentially ordering them to do as he instructs, which was to not reveal to Jackie the killing of Oswald that they had just witnessed on television. This also succinctly told of the tensions between LBJ & RFK. Follow that with this scene in which Jackie reproaches the powerful Bobby for his attempt to control the information Jackie needs in making her decisions. As an act of creative license by the filmmakers it was a powerful scene, if it is indeed an event that truly occurred then it is all the more powerful and revealing as to Jackie's strength.
Further commenting on casting, Peter Sarsgaard is a fine actor and has an impressive portfolio. His work here as RFK some how falls short. There are well written moments throughout the film for him, and he doesn't exactly botch them, but I was left with the feeling that they could have been better. The effort to make Portman as much like Jackie in appearance, in vocal style as well as physical likeness, coupled with the physical resemblance that one has to feel was of the utmost importance in the casting of Caspar Phillipson as JFK would have naturally lifted expectations that the casting of other crucial people, such as RFK, would have been equally emphasized. But it was not, especially with Sarsgaard as RFK. I don't generally require actors to be dead-on look-a-likes and/or sound-a-likes, but if you set that standard with other casting, it becomes noticeable if others are not. I'll also mention that aside from this, the portrayal of the priest by John Hurt was very good and the lines he had were well written & of course well delivered. The question again arises, were these created or were they included from some true record? There is a lack of involvement within the story line of the children, Caroline & John F. Kennedy Jr. Given how guarded Jackie always was regarding her children, it is no surprise. It's to bad because that would have been an element that would have been very interesting & perhaps would have made Jackie seem less distant as has been suggested. I do not agree with that assessment, but I admit there is some quality lacking here that serves as an injustice to her memory. I can not quite grasp what it is, but it is a feeling that one is left with. That is a true shame since so many people who lived during this tragic time so admired her courage and how she gave strength to a stunned & deeply saddened nation. One other little bit that was missed in this film was the scene so many recall of John Jr. saluting his Father as his coffin passes by. It would have been a good piece to these events to have been included & to have also had some insight as to how it came about or the reaction to it by Jackie.
Why What Might Have Been? Because of some missed opportunities & omissions. Also because in the DVD special features it mentions that other filmmakers had optioned at various times to make this picture. One of those was Steven Spielberg, & I was left wondering how this film would have been presented if he had been at the helm. I have no experience with Pablo Larraín, and I am sure he has made some quality films. I just feel he missed some elements to this story line that perhaps some one such as Spielberg would not have.