The idea of “Camelot” during the Kennedy years captivated the country. During and after the Kennedy presidency, then Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy (later Onassis) continued to capture the attention and admiration of not just Americans but people over the globe. Her strength, her story, and her iconic glamour continue to fascinate us.


The forthcoming film “Jackie” offers an intimate portrait of Mrs. Kennedy in the days immediately following the assassination of J.F.K. as a wife, a mother, and an American icon. A trailer for the film, directed by Pablo Larraín and starring Oscar winner Natalie Portman in the title role, was just released today.

“Jackie” opens in select theaters on December 2nd. I, for one, am really looking forward to seeing it.


  1. Great actress – wrong actress for the part. But Hollywood has to have a strong draw actress for these historic homage epics. Case in point Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher. I have to think – Alan Ladd standing on a stool to measure up to his co-stars – that stature and bearing MUST account for something in a famous person’s demeanor and comportment. It isn’t like these movie efforts are HUGE acting stretches, pun intended.

    For Jackie (granted these are older actors), can fit the bill in size and overall wide eyes and-faced “Jackie” look – Jill Hennessy, Stephanie Romanov – both 5’8″+. maybe even Jennifer Lawrence if she would dip that far..
    For Jack Reacher – a LOT of hemp has been thrown at Lee Child about accepting little Tommy Cruise as the actor for movie versions of his recent books…. with good justification – Child makes a clear point in every novel that Jack is 6’5″+, 235 lbs, with hands “the size of dinner plates”. Cruise can pump hisownbadself up all he wants, but he will never see even 5’8″ or 170 lbs. on the best of days.
    I suggest David James Elliot, Dolph Lungren or Daniel Cudmore as much better suited to the aura of Jack Reacher. They can looks the part, have the stature and build and can likely deliver for a lot less that Mr. Cruise demands.

    Thoughts welcome. All the best to you on the trip to the land of Cleve..

  2. It’s harder for us older Americans to buy into today’s actors’ portrayal of Jackie. We remember the look, (wide set eyes, square jaw) the bearing, her distinctive voice and speech, (quite Marilyn-Monroe-ish!) I adore Natalie Portman, but judging from the clip, she doesn’t begin to measure up to the task. (Is it her fault? …the director’s, or that of casting?)

  3. I saw this tonight at the NY Film Festival, with low expectations which normally accompany my viewing of biopics which portray iconic figures of the last century. Natalie Portman doesn’t look like Jackie (who could?) but she captures her – the voice is uncanny (initially too much for director Pablo Larraín we learned in the Q&A) as are her movements and gestures. I have found such portrayals easier to take when one is as familiar with the actor as with the subject, and Portman I felt succeeded in transforming her dark-eyed familiarity to the well known visage of Jacqueline Kennedy. It was shot on film (not digital) which gives it a celluloid richness and helps successfully integrate vintage color segments of the Kennedy funeral procession. The context is an interview Jackie gives to a journalist (Billy Crudup) the week after the assassination (based on partly redacted interviews she gave contemporaneously to Arthur Schlesinger Jr). In flashbacks, we see Jackie giving her famous televised White House tour, interacting with staff and family members in Dallas and Washington after the assassination. We see her chain smoke and drink vodka as she changes clothes and begins packing. We see a lightbulb go on over her head as she listens to the “Camelot” soundtrack while wandering around the family quarters and smoking some more. The production values are excellent, the musical score is beautiful. Peter Skarsgard is fine as Bobby Kennedy, as are Greta Gerwig as Jackie’s social secretary, and John Hurt as a priest. Some dialogue exchanges and situations seem unlikely or at least historically suspect, but that’s how it goes with biopics. I was more impressed than I had anticipated. This will be most enjoyed by those familiar with the Kennedy administration and its players, and particulars of the assassination and its aftermath. Do see it in a theater. And try going with low expectations.

    • George

      I was there! I felt much the same way you did. I thought it was great filmmaking, and Portman blew my expectations out of the park.

  4. Charles Gliha

    Was 9 when Nov 22 1963 happened, remember the spot I was in Sr Eunice’s 5th grade classroom in Cleveland OH when it happened, still have notes we were encouraged to take of the entire wknd.
    Have no interest in compromising these memories with a mediated experience however fine the production values.
    Jackie the movie is fine for younger audiences. Not for older ones.