I don’t think it has to deal so much with her participation in the Twilight series, but rather with how she has allowed the series to define her as an actress. Granted I haven’t seen much else with her or anything that seemed to actually challenge her in any way. I’ve yet to catch on to this whole Jennifer Lawrence thing myself. I believe she has the ability to demonstrate some depth to the characters she plays, but I’d sure like to see a film where the camera doesn’t take advantage of he looks.
I don’t think she allowed the series to define her at all, in the midst of twilight movies she made the yellow handkerchief and welcome to the rileys, too many in the public Chose to define her by twilight.
Now I don’t think Stewart was better in Cake Eaters than Lawrence in Winters Bone, but that both were quite good, though Stewart’s role was a more physically challenging role.
Um no.
I walked out of The Cake Eaters. After about 45 minutes, I couldn’t take it anymore. One of the few films that I’ve actually walked out of a theater (Canvas being the other one – where I embarrassingly ran into Joey Pants , yikes).
And Twilight had nothing to do with it. People have been baggin’ on Stewart for years.
In terms of acting style, I definitely think that the Twilight series has, in a way, defined her. I think she’s just going to role with that same emotionless expression on her face in everything she’ll do. Hopefully she’s done something different in On the Road.
Jennifer Lawrence’s performance in The Burning Plain really caught my attention, and I hadn’t known about her at all at the time. It was an okay story and cast, but her acting was very true to life and memorable. And (at least personally), her physical appearance wasn’t advantageous at all in that film.
KRISTEN STEWART IN THE CAKE EATERS IS BETTER THAN JENNIFER LAWRENCE IN WINTER’S BONE
Completely different films, completely different roles, completely different actresses. I have no idea where this comparison even comes from.
And Twilight had nothing to do with it. People have been baggin’ on Stewart for years.
Since roughly 2008, which is when Twilight came out. Or were people actually criticizing her performances in Zathura and Catch that Kid?
In The Runaways she was pretty damn good as Joan Jett. She was also very effective in “The Yellow Handkerchief” and “Welcome to the Rileys” as well, neither of which were great. In those three films she more than held her own against Dakotah Fanning, Michael Shannon, William Hurt and James Gandolfini. Two of those films were post-Twilight.
I don-t think there is an actress alive who could have delivered a good performance of the Bella Swan character, as written, in the Twilight films. If anything, kudos to her for underplaying it.
Kristen Stewart is so criminally under-appreciated. Both as an actress and as a celebrity/person, due to her below-mentioned behavior….
Kristen’s general demeanor, body language, and delivery are so far removed from what people are used to seeing out of a female actress. She’s pensive and slightly pre-occupied. Stumbling to find the right words. Clearly caught-up in thought. Well beyond just parroting the words of the script (or a PR team in interviews). I just find it so bizarre how guys can get away with this personality type — and be celebrated for such behavior — but a girl is accused of being on drugs or a total b****. It’s nonsense. Borderline sexist when criticized on those terms.
I think Twilight is garbage. But I see them in the media so often that I’d go so far as to say that her Twilight co-star, Pattinson, always goes to great (..ly contrived) lengths to somewhat pass himself off as being the overly pensive and sensitive type, as well. Women love him for it. Ok, so that may not be saying much. But his attitude is never questioned by the media or audiences for being out of line. Kristen Stewart’s constantly is. Constantly. She far more natural and original about it, too.
Also, she’s done quite well in films that are far removed from her regular personality (The Runaways, Cake Eaters).
Not counting Panic Room, the only two films of hers I can stomach are Into the Wild and Adventureland. Essentially playing herself, she does ok.
I thought she did alright in In The Land of Women although she still pretty much played herself, for that role, it worked perfectly.
I haven’t seen Stewart in anything but Twilight. I don’t get the impression that Bella is a two dimensional character and I don’t think that is Stewart’s fault.
I haven’t seen Stewart in anything but Twilight. I don’t get the impression that Bella is a two dimensional character and I don’t think that is Stewart’s fault.
One-dimensional might be more accurate.
transparent is the most accurate ^
Seriously, the term is Mary Sue
—PolarisDiB
@ Hellshocked
“One-dimensional might be more accurate.”
/tries to imagine just one-dimension. Can’t do it.
@ Brentos
“I thought she did alright in In The Land of Women although she still pretty much played herself, for that role, it worked perfectly.”
‘In The Land of Women’ was the first time Kristen Stewart stood out to me. I saw it on cable. After the film I looked it up on IMDB to see who she was. I was rather taken aback when I saw that this was the same girl from Twilight (she looked quite different w/ blond hair). Ironically, I saw Twilight just a few weeks before…I thought the entire cast was awful as was the film itself.
Oh goodness…
Kirstin Stewart is just… awful.
Granted, Lawrence in Winter’s Bone was nearly as dead-faced as Stewart has been since she was twelve.
David Myers @
Granted, Lawrence in Winter’s Bone was nearly as dead-faced as Stewart has been since she was twelve.
Hmmm….
Yup. I’d say the above captures the general sentiment that I was alluding to previously.
Co-sign everything Shocked said. I wouldn’t say Robert Pattison is contrived, but his open disdain for the series I in interviews over the past 4 or so years is as roundly applauded and given pats on the back because he is a “master troll” as they say. Kristen on the other hand is constantly criticized regardless of how she is. The public still believes all actresses should have the public demeanor of Marilyn Monroe or Audrey Hepburn. Any type of anxiousness in their behavior means they are a bitch. :/
@ Malik
The public still believes all actresses should have the public demeanor of Marilyn Monroe or Audrey Hepburn.
Absolutely.
“Personality,” in Hollywood, is anything but for an actress. Big smile. Cheerful demeanor. Positive answers in interviews. Confidence. Healthy sense of self-esteem. It’s like the only room for difference in personality is the choice between being wholesome or seductive (as long as it’s with class…sometimes). Kristen Stewart, in terms of personality on-screen and off, really doesn’t fulfill this obligation. To make matters worse, it seems like females are even more stringent about actresses fulfilling this obligation than men. How sad. Since Kristen Stewart doesn’t go for that, she gets criticized.
What’s worse? That people actually believe Kristen Stewart cannot act simply because she’s not displaying these characteristics. As if she must be trying to fulfill this inherent obligation (cause what else could an actress ever do? /sarcasm)…but cannot. So, she must be a poor actress. A poor actress who is “dead-faced.” Or all the other ways in which people claim Kristen Stewart lacks any personality, on-screen and off.
Why? Because she’s introspective. Hesitant. Not making eye contact. Almost distracted by her own thought. Struggles to express it. Doesn’t fill silence with empty words. Doesn’t walk like she’s on a runway. So? That’s personality. Natural personality. Original too. To me? It’s a very interesting personality. But it’s as if people simply cannot fathom that an actual female is capable of this. Yet, even when they can? Well, apparently, it’s just not that appealing. How sad.
interesting ^
What a load of crap.
Michelle Williams and Carey Mulligan are two actresses that are also shy, are uncomfortable in front of the media, and shun the spotlight. But they don’t need to justify being good actors by blaming the media for not being a good personality.
They let their work speak for themselves.
And they haven’t been under the tween focus internationally that Stewart has been (dawson’s creek wasn’t that big). Stewart had way more tabloid scrutiny than either Williams or Mulligan, and Lawrence is gonna be hassled with it too.
Now Williams and Mulligan are better actors, but be can’t hold a grudge a person because of media bullshit, it just makes us look like petty sheep.
Ok, if we have to drag in the media to make a point about talent, I will say this – I think Lindsey Lohen is a better actress than Stewart. That ain’t saying much because Lohan certainly isn’t the next coming of Meryl Streep. But she’s faced more scrutiny than anyone and yet people consistently applaud her potential as an actor.
In other words, I don’t care what anyone says about Stewart, how she acts in public, who she’s dating, who her mom is – I don’t follow that stuff and all I’m looking at when discussing her ability as an actor is what’s up on screen. And to be honest, there ain’t much there.
That’s an extremely disingenuous comparison because Michelle Williams and Carey Mulligan are both actresses not movie stars. Even when Williams husband Heath Ledger died surrounding one of the biggest movies of all time the media hardly even talked to her. The same goes for Carey Mulligan who outside of An Education that public has no idea who she may even be.
The comparison between Stewart and Monroe/Hepburn was deliberate because she has constantly been within the media’s eye and the public open about her demeanor outside of films has frequently slipped criticisms of her work regardless of whether or not you pay attention to it.
@Shocked Watch Zathura and rectify your overwritten opinion. She has no range at all. She’s like Keanu Reeves, basically. Keanu doesn’t get shit, and neither does Stewart. They both ham it up, but at least Reeves can pull it off. If the media hates her for something it’s that.
@ Uli Cain
But they don’t need to justify being good actors by blaming the media for not being a good personality….
…But she’s faced more scrutiny than anyone and yet people consistently applaud her potential as an actor.
Thank you for unintentionally backing up my previous point about people who simply cannot grasp a woman with a different personality….
We’re talking about the public perception of Kristen Stewart’s personality. Perception. ‘Perception’ of a personality does not equate to the ‘shaping’ of her personality. So, I cannot help but find it odd that you read a few posts in defense of her personality. Yet, interpreted those posts as if we were making an excuse for her personality on account of the media. Defend =/= Excuse. When I, and others, defended Kristen’s personality; we were expressing our appreciation for it. This is what I was getting at before when I spoke about people who simply cannot grasp the idea of a woman acting as Kristen Stewart does. You seem, to view her personality as being inherently “not good.” As such, you walked away from the exchange automatically thinking that people were trying to ‘excuse’ Kristen’s personality. To blame it on the media. Cause there is simply no way we could ever like a woman who acts like that, right (/sarcasm). As if we were trying to argue that it’s the media who made her “not good.” I find this sentiment so perplexing, yet I’ve come across it before….
So her personality is largely criticized for being “not good.” Why? The reasoning behind it? I’d say it’s little more than basic social conditioning. We’ve come to expect big smiles, warm demeanor, and positive self esteem from our actresses. They have to act that way; on screen and in interviews. So, we expect it. When we see an actress who doesn’t fit that mold — like Kristen Stewart — people find it overly jarring. As if it’s an inherently “not good” personality.
It strikes me as being multi-tiered and circular nonsense…
People don’t seem to get that Kristen Stewart’s personality is of her own accord. It’s as if some people cannot understand that a woman is indeed allowed to be as Kristen Stewart is. They automatically assume that Kristen Stewart must be, like, trying to smile and act warm (how could she not be trying?). But she isn’t smiling. So, they assume she’s ‘coming up short.’ She must not have much of a personality. She failed to meet her societal obligation. She failed. So it’s her fault. So, we can criticize.
So, why criticize for not displaying those traits? Well, people automatically act as if all those superficial “positive” traits are somehow the Platonic ideal of a “good personality.” Big smile? Warm demeanor? Hmmm. But it’s so skin deep. It’s superficial. Doesn’t amount to much. So, how does not displaying those above traits automatically equate to a “not good” personality? Again, that’s superficial. There is nothing inherently “not good” about Kristen Stewart’s personality. Yet, people cannot get this. It’s as if they cannot grasp how any woman could act in such a way.
Oh, but this Platonic ideal only exists for women. Women have to act that way. Men? Not so much. They even get praised for not doing it. Women? Nope. We have no problem with a guy who doesn’t display those traits. In fact, we often make screen-idols out of them. We love angsty screen idols. Oh, and teen idols too. Like, Pattinson. Girls love it when Pattinson simply cannot bring himself to smile or act warm. Kristen Stewart? Oh, she’s just “dead-faced.”
Shocked, I don’t have an issue with Stewart, nor with Lawrence, but Williams and Mulligan are better.
OH MY GOD who the fuck cares
Tervarian
People have become excessively unfair to Stewart. All on account of her physical tics and her participation in Twilight (which has at least two intriguing films with New Moon and Breaking Dawn part 1, although Eclipse was atrocious). I like Jennifer Lawrence too, but this judgment seems pretty obvious.