Jack Schlossberg has not held back in his scathing response to Julia Fox’s recent Halloween costume, which mimicked his late grandmother, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. The actress wore a blood-soaked ensemble resembling Jackie O’s iconic pink suit on the anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, drawing sharp criticism from Schlossberg. His remarks illustrate a deep-seated disdain for what he perceives as flagrant disrespect for a national tragedy.
The costume itself was a grotesque homage, featuring not just the pink tweed skirt suit but also a pillbox hat and handbag, all drenched in fake blood. This choice of attire was meant to evoke the haunting image of Jackie Kennedy’s appearance on that fateful day in Dallas in 1963. Fox framed her costume as a “statement,” arguing that it addressed themes of bravery and resistance. She referenced Jackie’s choice to remain in her bloodied clothes after the assassination, claiming it was a form of protest against the brutality of the event.
However, many, including Schlossberg, have vehemently critiqued Fox’s portrayal, branding it as tasteless exploitation. His condemnation is steeped in the belief that Fox’s actions trivialize the horrors faced by those affected by political violence. In his words, “Julia Fox glorifying political violence is disgusting, desperate and dangerous.” This frank assessment captures the essence of the backlash against Fox, rooted in a profound respect for the Kennedy family’s legacy.
Fox’s comments on the outfit emphasized the dual nature of Jackie’s image—beauty juxtaposed with devastation. While many can appreciate the emotional weight behind her words, Schlossberg’s reaction serves as a reminder that the line between artistic expression and public sentiment can be perilously thin. The Kennedy family’s experiences are etched deeply into American history, and those like Schlossberg feel a moral obligation to protect that legacy from what they deem irresponsible portrayals.
He also noted, almost as a personal touch, “I’m sure her late grandmother would agree,” adding weight to his argument by suggesting that such a stunt would not be something Jackie Kennedy would endorse. This familial connection adds another layer to the narrative, showing how deeply entwined personal and public identities can be, particularly for figures from prominent historical families.
In a time when performers often push cultural boundaries, the reaction to Fox’s costume sheds light on the potential consequences of such choices. Schlossberg’s comments resonate strongly, given their context—an iconic figure’s legacy should not be exploited for shock value or fleeting fame. Instead, it should be remembered with the dignity it deserves.
Julia Fox’s silence amid the backlash only adds to the intrigue, leaving many to speculate on whether she will address the criticism or continue to pursue her own brand of controversial expression. As the cultural conversation evolves, it remains to be seen how figures like Schlossberg will continue to respond to perceived affronts against their family’s history. The clash between celebrity culture and historical reverence illustrates a broader struggle over how we interpret and represent our shared past.
"*" indicates required fields
