Sunday, February 19, 2017

Sizing up the 2016 competition: Natalie Portman in "Jackie"

I finally got around to seeing Jackie, completing the Best Actress nominee list for the Oscars.  Were it not for her win in Black Swan six years ago, Natalie Portman would probably be a slam dunk for the win.  Emma Stone has sort of run the table this season, however, so it appears that Portman will end up being another also-ran.  It's a shame because not only is Jackie a great film, but Portman does a fantastic job in her role as former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy.

Following John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963, his wife Jackie is tasked with pulling herself together and managing a transition out the White House with her small children, all the while trying to figure out how she can start a narrative on the legacy of her late husband's presidency.



I have to admit, the accent was tad distracting at the beginning, but it helped to know that the real Jackie actually talked like that.  Portman went for authenticity.  With that, one risks distracting audiences and possibly even alienating them.  Ultimately I think it worked out fine.  It's a tough role, with multiple life events and motivations pulling the character in different directions.  Portman negotiated those intricacies seamlessly, and therefore carried the film.

Having seen all five nominees, I think I'd have to rank the performances as follows:

1. Meryl Streep (Florence Foster Jenkins)
2. Natalie Portman (Jackie)
3. Isabelle Huppert (Elle)
4. Ruth Negga (Loving)
5. Emma Stone (La La Land)

I don't want to make it seem like I thought Emma Stone sucked, it's just that those I ranked above her did a superior job in  my opinion  Stone did lovely work in La La Land, and it's a testament to a great year for women's roles that such a performance could be in someone's fifth spot (even though she'll very likely win the Oscar).

On to the Academy Awards next weekend.


12 comments:

  1. I just finished viewing Loving. I have now seen 4 of the 5 nominated performances, missing Huppert's in Elle. I would rank the four I've seen as follows:
    1. Natalie Portman - Jackie
    2. Meryl Streep - Florence Foster Jenkins
    3. Ruth Negga - Loving
    4. Emma Stone - La La Land
    I still wish Sally Field had made the cut for Hello, My Name Is Doris.
    Rob in the Canadian Rockies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I didn't care for Portman in JACKIE. Her mannerisms and voice were more Marilyn Monroe than Jackie-O. Ruth Negga was too subtle for my tastes. I love Meryl but Huppert should win this hands down. Stone will be a Paltrow-esque win.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've watched all 5 performances including the snubbed ones like Annette Bening's. Huppert is by far the deserved winner. I hate to say this but even Meryl couldn't touch her with her FFJ performance. I agree with everyone that Emma is the weakest of the lot but looks likely to take home the trophy. And Annette should prevail over Negga or even Portman in the nominations. David.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm guessing Stone's performance only pales beside such a great and strong range of ladies this year! I still think Huppert may have a chance of taking this but it would certainly be a big surprise!

    What does everyone think of Viola' s chances this year?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be an absolute travesty if Viola didn't take it for this performance. Huppert I think is only chance to unseat Stone, and if it weren't for Stone's current sweep, I'd almost give Huppert slight edge. However, I doubt enough Academy voters saw Elle.

      Delete
    2. It's a shame, I think it's their duty as voters to at least attempt to see the main nominees; not be put off by subject matter or language. We don't want more Brokeback unfairness!

      Delete
    3. I love Viola Davis but I did not love her Fences performance. Both she and Denzel gave great "stage" performances. For a film, I found both to be overacted. As well, I have read that Viola is in 72 minutes or 52% of Fences. That's a lead performance and she should not be nominated for supporting. I have seen all 9 of the best picture nominees and Fences is the only one I disliked. My top 3: Lion, Manchester By The Sea, Hidden Figures.

      Delete
  5. I still think viola should haver won for the Help, in a supporting actor category. This should be Michelle williams year. God, that final scene in Manchester

    ReplyDelete
  6. There is a problem with Jackie, which is to say there is a problem with every biopic. Unless the actor has an extraordinary resemblance with the portrayed person, it falls short and is unconvincing. If its done well the experience for us watching is unique. Take a look, for example, Anthony Hopkins in Nixon (one of the best biopics every made), Helen Mirren in The Queen or Meryl as Baroness Thatcher or even Dicaprio as J.Edgar . There is an exception, if we're dealing with ancient people or not massively popular or well known. In that case a good performance and a not so difficult one to pull off is enough (Emma Thomson as Pltravers, Day-Lewis in Lincoln, Kidman as Virginia Wolf, Blanchett as Elizabeth), magnificent ones but the actor is able to read the script with more freedom. So its sad not seeing an important figure as the former first lady as an object of a decent film. It reminds me Naomi Watts as Diana. A fine performance in a surprisingly decent film but unconvincing. This is my first contribuition to the blog. I really like to read it. Alphonso

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome, Alphonso and I'm thrilled you like reading the blog! I tend to agree that it can be REALLY tough to convince and audience that you're somebody extremely well know. With biopics comes the burden of having to convince us of that character's history when we already sort of know the history. Unlike fictional characters, or like you said, characters from the distant past, where that pretense isn't there. One could argue it's a more challenging acting prospect...to convince the audience of someone's history when we know almost nothing about that real person.

      Delete
  7. Yes, probably the closest comparison one could indulge comes from literature don't you think ? Some fictional characters created by writers, and therefore who live only as a subjective point of reading of a reader, perhaps that's even more difficult to create (J.Gatsby, Elizabeth Bennett, Rebecca from daphne Du Maurier). The question is, on the other hand, whether the facts are taken by the script just to create an enciting plot or narrate the historical events truthfully? Or even a marriage between both concepts (since we're dealing with money invested and it has to appeal some audiences). I read somewhere that Stephen Frears met once Queen Elizabeth former secretary and he said to him about the Mirren/ Elizabeth experience something like "you got it all wrong, but somehow you got it right". That ilustrates the heart of almost all biopics. Useless to say that Meryl's creation in FFJ is, as expected, flawless. We never really finish the subject in hands, since every year a new biopic is released. Looking forward to see Churchill played by Gary Oldman, though. Alphonso

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alphonso, Jeff and I have, ad nauseum, argued this point--what is more impressive, a biopic or a construction of a character from just the written word? All of this inspired by Annie Proulx screed in 2006: "Hollywood loves mimicry, the conversion of a film actor into the spittin' image of a once-living celeb. But which takes more skill, acting a person who strolled the boulevard a few decades ago and who left behind tapes, film, photographs, voice recordings and friends with strong memories, or the construction of characters from imagination and a few cold words on the page?" https://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/mar/11/awardsandprizes.oscars2006

      Delete