A slow, forced fit of a lot of amazing historical stuff into a psychological pretzel

Rating: 6/10 (4 June 2017)

Jackie (2016)
This is such moving, important material, historically and emotionally, it's hard to separate the movie from the subject of the movie. You might appreciate the movie just for its bravery, going into material that is by necessity subtle. And uncertain.
What really did Jackie say in that week after her husband's assassination? And more importantly, how did she say it?
This brings us to Natalie Portman, who is everything here. She tires, she gives a difficult role a lot of focus. And it's not completely her fault that the performance ends up being stilted, or unconvincing, or you might say incomplete. She must have studied Jackie's mannerisms, but that's not really a way to excuse their exaggerations here. Slight exaggerations, but this is a movie about subtlety and conviction.
The other historical figures are oddly cast—and I know it's an impossible job trying to cast JFK or Bobby, or even Johnson (who is more convincing when Bryan Cranston does it). And where was Ted? All of these things wear the movie down.
The writing and direction raise questions. They are solid here, for sure, but they also contribute to a slightly lugubrious feeling. It's slow. It forced its obvious weight on us. Chilean director Pablo Larraín may have the disadvantage of not having lived through it (and not being from the U.S., even). Yes, there was a Camelot, and maybe it was created deliberately, but idealism doesn't come in cans.
But back to point one—this is moving, important, amazing material. It is almost worth watching for that alone.