NATALIE PORTMAN | JACKIE | PABLO LARRAIN

"Natalie Portman Better Than Ever"
"In The Year’s Best Movie, Jackie Kennedy Writes Her Own History"
"95 haunting minutes ― the best 95 minutes on the big screen this year ―"
"Natalie Portman's most demanding and complex performance to date"
"A fascinating, deeply committed performance—, you can’t take your eyes off of her"
"A Psychodrama of Hypnotic Intimacy"

Best Actress: Natalie Portman | 2016 WAFCA Awards (The Washington, D.C. Area Film Critics Association)
Desert Palm Achievement Award for Best Actress: Natalie Portman | Palm Springs International Film Festival 2017
Hollywood Actress Award: Natalie Portman | Hollywood Film Awards 2016
Platform Prize : Pablo Larraín | Toronto International Film Festival 2016
Prix du Meilleur Scénario: Noah Oppenheim | Mostra de Venise 2016

. . .

"In The Year’s Best Movie, Jackie Kennedy Writes Her Own History. 95 haunting minutes ― the best 95 minutes on the big screen this year ― " The Huffington Post  

. . .

JACKIE, 3e meilleur film de l'année 2016 selon David Ehrlich (Senior Film Critic IndieWire)

. . .

JACKIE, 5e meilleur film de l'année 2016 selon Esquire: "the piercing majesty of Jackie, an unconventional, hauntingly lyrical snapshot of Jackie Kennedy (played by an astounding Natalie Portman) in the week immediately following the November 23, 1963 assassination of her husband, President John F. Kennedy. Framed by an interview between Jackie and a reporter (Billy Crudup), Larrain's masterful drama uses incessant close-ups to dig deeply into the conflicted interior condition of his subject, who finds herself both battling with grief and struggling to immediately lay the groundwork for her husband's legacy. Graceful and gripping, it's a period piece character study that cannily speaks to the way in which words—and, tellingly, also visual images—are the tools by which we shape history." The 25 Best Movies of 2016 

. . .

"Powered by a transfixing Portman, Larrain's film – one of the year's best – is appropriately hard to pin down and impossible to forget. (...) Maybe you're thinking the last thing you want to see is a TV-movie–ish take on the life of Jacqueline Kennedy. Good news. Jackie is not a damn thing like that. There's hardly a conventional biopic minute in it. (...) Natalie Portman Turns Offbeat Biopic Into Major Oscar Contender" (Rolling Stone : 'Jackie' Review)

. . .

"Portman is altogether astonishing in the role. Apart from sharing a wide smile, she doesn’t much resemble Kennedy. She is however gifted with an overpowering beauty – much like the real-life figure – that Larraín makes great use of in key scenes to illustrate the galvanising effect Kennedy had on those around her. Most importantly, Portman thoroughly nails Kennedy’s breathy and docile-sounding voice, without letting the affectations get the better of her. Her accent doesn’t define her portrayal – it infuses it with a tenacious vitality.
As written by Oppenheim, Kennedy is a wonderfully complex character, bursting at the seams with contradictions. (...)
Pablo Larraín’s portrait of the first lady before and following John F Kennedy’s assassination doesn’t play to the standard tropes of Hollywood biopics. It’s a singular vision. (...)
Larraín has never told a true story in a predictable manner, and he doesn’t here. (...) – It’s great cinema."

(THE GUARDIAN - read more: Jackie review – Natalie Portman astonishes in remarkably intimate portrait)

. . .

"...director Pablo Larrain has taken that most impersonal of genres – the three-handkerchief biopic – and delivered something that is bracingly, gloriously and entirely his own. Running counter to convention at nearly every turn, and anchored by Natalie Portman’s achy-eyed performance, “Jackie” is, despite a few wrinkles at the end, about the best version of this story you can get"

(INDIEWIRE - read more: ‘Jackie’ Review: Pablo Larrian’s Experimental Jackie Kennedy Biopic Is a Unique Triumph – Venice Film Festival)

. . .

"“Jackie” is a biopic that is actually interested in its subject, and not just in what happened to her. This means Portman’s performance in the title role is not just foregrounded, it’s everything. And yet it’s hardly naturalistic — she is, in fact, with her exaggerated breathiness and excessively precise, well-bred diction, extremely mannered. But is it Portman being mannered or Portman playing Jackie being mannered or Portman being mannered playing Jackie being mannered? The genius and the lunacy of Larraín’s eternally idiosyncratic approach here is that he doesn’t run from these mannerisms. He doesn’t cut around to reaction shots or macros or inserts to try and apologize for them. To the contrary, many of his shots of Portman (photographed to glowing luminescence by Stéphane Fontaine) are straight-on close ups, so we can see everything that is real (her expressive eyes, her changeable moods) and everything that is affected (her mouth working those over-enunciated words, the way she smokes as though she’d never lifted a cigarette before). Larraín seems not just unafraid of the moments of kitsch but fascinated by them, amused by them, wanting to investigate and play with them.

It may even be that Portman would not have been right for the role had it been anyone but Larraín directing — physically she is different from Jackie, not that physical resemblance is particularly important in a film that sees Peter Sarsgaard play Bobby Kennedy (very well, incidentally). Portman, whom you do really get to think about as an actress during this film with its many lingering close-ups, has an ethereal, elusive quality, a face that sometimes seems made shy by its own beauty, as though she might run away from it if she could. The historical Jackie exuded a different quality, just as glamorous, but despite her carefulness and rehearsedness onscreen (as in her famous “TV tour of the White House” which is recreated here), somehow more embodied, more of-this-earth. “Jackie” is so intelligently involved in the difference between a private person and a celebrity’s constructed public image that this dissonance between actress, character and actual historical personage somehow enhances that investigation. It makes Portman possibly the perfect actress to be ever so slightly miscast in the role."

(THE PLAYLIST - read more: Natalie Portman Is Better Than Ever In Pablo Larrain’s Kennedy Biopic ‘Jackie’ | Venice Review)

. . .

"Oh, right, and there’s Natalie Portman as the grieving, shellshocked First Lady. Her presence in the movie is probably the biggest draw for many, and it is indeed a fascinating, deeply committed performance—to use another hackneyed cliché, you can’t take your eyes off of her. When talking about Portman after the premiere last night, I kept calling her performance “huge,” which people took to mean over-the-top or inhumanly outsize. It’s not. But it’s expansive and detailed and rendered with intensity, the most invigorating and significant piece of acting she’s done since 2010’s Black Swan. (...)

Portman doesn’t do an exact imitation of Jackie’s birdy, breathy affectations, her curling downspeak at the end of sentences. But she does something that’s smartly evocative of it, while also delivering a compellingly modulated performance beyond all the mechanics of voice and bearing. In Larraín’s watchful aesthetic, Portman’s intensity works rather perfectly—together they create something transfixing, a film that washes over you as it loops and lingers.

That said! I’d have to imagine that not everyone will like Portman’s performance, though it seems to have gotten mostly raves here in Toronto. It’s such a daredevil piece of a work, a tightrope gig that demands an actress play one of the most iconic figures of the 20th century. That’s bound to have some people thinking that the attempt crashes and burns. Which, hey, Portman could have played it safe and gone for something more restrained. But she doesn’t; instead, she puts it all out there with trembling conviction. I found her captivating, and think that if the movie lands a distributor and comes out this year (as I hear it will), Portman is bound for another run at awards glory".

(VANITY FAIR - Read more: Natalie Portman Is Riveting as a Grieving First Lady in Jackie)

. . .

 "Natalie Portman éblouit tout le monde. Elle apporte toute sa fragilité, sa sensibilité et sa force à ce personnage complexe et imposant. Ce ne serait pas surprenant qu’elle ait, au minimum, une nomination aux Oscars. (...)

Pablo Larraín filme au plus près. On a l’habitude de le voir filmer au plus près des corps. Il fait beaucoup de plans rapprochés, plans américains voire gros plans de visages. C’est une façon d’immerger les spectateurs dans son récit, qu’ils aient de l’empathie pour les protagonistes. C’est quelqu’un qui a un sens inné de l’image, en témoigne la très belle (une fois encore) photographie que l’on doit à Stéphane Fontaine, chef opérateur ayant travaillé dernièrement sur Elle, Captain Fantastic ou encore Samba, Jimmy P. et De rouilles et d’os. Larraín a l’art de créer des ambiances en donnant un rôle prépondérant à la musique. Cette dernière, constituée essentiellement de piano et de cordes est omniprésente, à la limite d’être oppressante. Le film prend une dimension très entraînante à cause du montage et du jeu sur les temporalités, non linéaires, effectué par Larraín et son monteur Sebastián Sepúlveda (qui avait déjà monté El Club)."

(CINEPHILIA - Article complet : JACKIE DE PABLO LARRAÍN)

. . .

Natalie PORTMAN | JACKIE | Pablo LARRAIN | Natalie Portman Better Than Ever

. . .

Natalie Portman: “I think the way that Pablo, the director, allowed the film to be explored, where there's all these sort of fragments of a person, pieces of a person in different situations with different people, different roles, it allowed for a very complete portrait of a woman, I think it is very unusual to let a woman be many different things, because we are different people in different situations.   We each have many different people inside of us, men and women.  But I think often it's not explored as much with women -- and rarely with men too. There's the public person even for someone who's not well known. There's who other people think you are, there's the way you want other people to see you, there's who you really are, there's who you want to be, there's who you should be. I mean there's all of these aspects and at different moments you are different things and you aspire to different things. That was definitely a big part of the thinking with it -- with how to be and which of these characters you show different things to in which situations".

. . .

Quand Darren Aronofsky propose à Pablo Larrain de réaliser JACKIE, Larrain pose une condition : que Natalie Portman soit Jackie. "Sinon je ne fais pas le film". Pourquoi Portman ? Pablo Larrain explique : "It was her mystery. You sit her in front of the camera, dress her however you need to dress her, get her to look however she has to, ask her to describe everything she feels and everything she’s thinking, and you will still wonder what’s going on. That’s her mystery. That’s a resource in cinema. You never get all the answers. If you do, the game is over". (FilmComment)

. . .

Réécriture pour Natalie Portman

"Pablo Larraín told Natalie Portman he would ask the writer, Noah Oppenheim, to cut every scene in the script that didn’t include her. “I remember she sort of opened her eyes wide,” he says. “I guess that’s frightening for an actor. But at the same time it’s challenging, and Natalie’s a real artist and she takes risks.” "I wanted so many close-ups.”  (New York Magazine, November 28, 2016)

Pablo Larrain: "We have another draft in which I had [screenwriter] Noah [Oppenheim] remove all the scenes without Jackie. Natalie accepts. I honestly didn’t expect someone like her to work with someone who made the movies I made. But this says a lot about her, that she’s willing to take risks with people" (Film Comment

. . .

Natalie PORTMAN | JACKIE | Pablo LARRAIN | Natalie Portman Better Than Ever

. . .

FilmComment - Do you see your films as being personal in that sense, as a way to explore darker parts of yourself?

Pablo Larrain : "You wouldn’t believe how fast it happens. You’re telling a story that has nothing to do with you, and then suddenly it gets down into something extremely personal".

FilmComment - I ask because there’s a deep perversity at the heart of your films.

Pablo Larrain : "If there’s no perversion, there’s no beauty. Forget it. The word perversion comes from Latin. It means to see the reverse. Per-version: a different version of the story. It doesn’t necessarily refer to the actions of what we typically call a perverted, evil person. A bad priest, say. Or Donald Trump. It’s an oblique way to understand reality. And it becomes personal. Cinema is personal, man. The filmmakers that you or I admire were very personal".

. . .

 

 

Bérangère MCNEESE | Agence ADEQUAT

 

Bérangère MCNEESE

. . .

"Je me sens parfois envahi de doutes et de scrupules moraux et idéologiques, je me dis qu'il serait grand temps d'en finir avec la représentation complaisante ou angoissée du négatif, le miroir inquiétant du désordre et de la décadence, trouver enfin la force de proposer quelque chose - un personnage, une idée, une fantaisie - qui recharge l'énergie vitale du créateur et de l'homme... (...) Le "positif" vient du "négatif", a-t-on l'habitude de dire, mais on parle depuis si longtemps et seulement du "négatif" qu'il est devenu une dimension exclusive et morbide."

FEDERICO FELLINI

. . .

JEAN-LUC GODARD - LE MEPRIS

"Dans Le Grand Escroc, se résume l'art de filmer de Godard. Il faut savoir jusqu'où on peut prendre et à partir d'où il faut cesser de prendre : à partir de l'instant où l'on est tenté de donner une forme définitive, d'anéantir la vie sous une signification unique, d'écraser la réalité brute sous une idée. "Il faut laisser les gens vivre leur vie, dit Godard, ne pas les regarder trop longtemps, sinon on finit par n'y plus rien comprendre." C'est à cette dernière tentation que succombe (littéralement) Camille, l'héroïne du Mépris : elle a jeté sur Paul un regard définitif. Il n'est plus pour elle qu'objet de Mépris. "Pourquoi est-ce que tu me méprises ? lui demande Paul. - ça, je ne te le dirai jamais, répond Camille, même si je devais mourir". Elle le dira un jour pourtant. Et elle mourra." (Jean-Luc Godard, par Jean Collet)

Jean-Luc Godard : "Ce qui est grave, c'est le malentendu, c'est que les gens se fâchent quand quelqu'un dit "oui" et pour peu que l'autre dise "non". Alors qu'il n'y a pas de quoi se fâcher. Ce n'est pas grave de dire "oui" quand un autre dit "non". Mais quand le malentendu est déclenché, alors c'est grave. C'est l'histoire du Mépris, qui part d'un malentendu. Au départ, rien ne devait être grave. A la fin, c'est une catastrophe. Au fond, je crois qu'il y a plus de catastrophes qui se fondent sur des bêtises que sur des choses vraiment importantes. C'est le malentendu qui est vraiment le mal."
"Paul (...) veut éblouir moralement Camille, et lui prouver qu'il est un être dix fois plus extraordinaire qu'elle ne l'imagine, alors que son seul tort est de croire qu'il y a quelque chose à prouver, car Camille ne lui demandait rien".

JEAN-LUC GODARD

. . .

ARIANE LABED

"...Chercher des langages qui ne sont pas préétablis… Je crois que le cinéma en a besoin. C’est un art encore très très sage, on ne devrait pas alors qu’il est si jeune. J’aimerais bien qu’on puisse se reposer des questions sur les structures narratives du cinéma. Ce sont des questionnements que j’ai".

"Je crois que le cinéma peut tout se permettre, il peut tout inventer, et c'est des gens qui le savent (ceux avec qui j'aime travailler), et qui s'en servent, et qui créent des nouvelles formes. Moi c'est la raison pour laquelle je fais du cinéma. C'est un des arts les plus jeunes qui soit, et qui peut intégrer toutes les formes d'expression, il me semble... Après on se limite à se dire que c'est juste là pour refléter une réalité, moi je pense que ça peut être beaucoup plus que ça, le cinéma... ça peut offrir un milliard de langages et un milliard de formes possibles, il n'y a absolument rien d'inscrit. Je pense qu'on peut tout se permettre et qu'on peut tout chercher. Et moi, en tant qu'actrice, j'ai ce passé-là de danseuse, et c'est quelque chose que j'aimerais pouvoir aussi vivre et traverser à travers le cinéma... (...) J'aimerais bien garder une logique de danseur plutôt que d'acteur, dans mon travail d'actrice... parce que je ne travaille pas de façon psychologique, mais je fais tout passer en priorité par le corps".

ARIANE LABED

. . .