Alt Film Guide: An Appreciation: Kristen Stewart 2012

Kristen Stewart 2012: Appreciating an Engaging Actress

Let me begin by explaining that I initially wrote this Kristen Stewart piece about ten days ago. I’ve kept postponing its publication because there have been numerous changes in regard to the status of Stewart’s various film projects. For instance, Kristen Stewart has been cast in a movie version of Lie Down in Darkness, with Crazy Heart‘s Scott Cooper directing. No, actually she has her name only "attached" to the indie project, which may or may not get made. Stewart is going to star in the "gritty" thriller Cali for Nick Cassavetes. No longer: she has dropped out of the project. Stewart is "possibly" going to star in a Snow White and the Huntsman sequel. No, there won’t be a sequel, but a spinoff focused on the Huntsman; Stewart will not take part in it. Scratch that: if there’s a spinoff, she may return as Snow White. Why all this now? Well, as a result of the "Kristen Stewart and Rupert Sanders cheating scandal" in late July, Stewart has become Queen of the Tabloids. Not that she had a choice. The "celebrity industry" and its rabid consumers made the decision for her, interpreting photographs — with no understanding of their background — whichever way they saw fit. Consequently, Stewart has also become Queen of the Movie Casting / Uncasting Stories as well. Film publicists will do whatever it takes to generate some extra buzz for their clients’ potential projects.

Kristen Stewart: Not Bella Swan (and that’s good) 

 The scandal — Kristen Stewart in a reported relationship with Robert Pattinson; Rupert Sanders married with little children — hasn’t helped Stewart’s image, already the object of ridicule because of the Twilight movies and the target of countless attacks because of her refusal to play "nice." An actress for about a decade, but a star for less than four years, Stewart clearly has trouble being a major celebrity. She unabashedly flips off paparazzi; she has loosely used expletives while interviewed; she was photographed (apparently) smoking pot; she seems edgy on television appearances. But what bothers so many others is exactly what I find most engaging about Kristen Stewart. She’s not Twilight‘s Bella Swan and doesn’t pretend to be Bella off screen. She’s not phony "sweet and nice" when the spotlight is on her. She never comes across as some "wholesome" apple-pie eater. She smiles when she feels like it, not when she’s supposed to. In my view, those characteristics are admirable. Neither a Twihard nor a Twihater Before I proceed: Generally speaking, it seems like either you’re a Twihard or a Twihater. Twihards love everything in any way connected to the Twilight novels and movies. Twihaters are the exact opposite. I’m neither. Although I thoroughly enjoyed Stephenie Meyer’s first Twilight novel, I had mixed feelings about the three sequels. In all honesty, at times I felt compelled to chop off Bella’s head. Or at least her hair.

Kristen Stewart ‘cheating’ photos attacks 

The four movie adaptations to date have been a mixed bag. The most effective one was Catherine Hardwicke’s Twilight, though even that particular effort was wildly uneven: moments of genuine humor and pathos interspersed with moments of Hollywood tripe and commercialism. But one thing that has been consistent is my enjoyment of the series’ actors: Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, and Cullen Clan members Elizabeth Reaser, Peter Facinelli, Ashley Greene, Nikki Reed, Jackson Rathbone, and Kellan Lutz. Even the novels’ insufferable police chief Swan is made likable by Billy Burke. Since I’m neither a Twilight die-hard fan nor a die-hard hater, I find it both troublesome and impossible to comprehend the aggressive obsession of some fans and the haters’ venom directed at those associated with the Twilight movies. Thanks to the scandal, the haters’ chief target of late has been Stewart, a 22-year-old actress with an acting background that includes nearly 30 feature films, of which only five belong to the Twilight franchise. I’ve avoided reading the raw sewage vomited by online tabloids, quoting anonymous "sources" while offering details — both lurid and ludicrous — about the various participants in the "cheating scandal." But avoiding the barrage of anti-Kristen Stewart attacks elsewhere, including among Alt Film Guide commenters, has been more difficult. For instance, when Vulture announced that Stewart had landed the role of Peyton Loftis in Lie Down in Darkness, negative reactions were fierce: Kristen Stewart instead of last year’s Best Actress Oscar nominee Jennifer Lawrence (Winter’s Bone), who was reportedly up for the role as well? Are they insane? Kristen Stewart is the worst actress ever (or at least "of her generation"). She only has one expression. She is inept. She looks perennially nauseated / constipated / bored / pissed off. And she’s a bitch tramp whore slut homewrecker who cheated on Robert Pattinson. Now, though I’m no fan of (the extremely well-received) Winter’s Bone, I have absolutely nothing against Jennifer Lawrence. Even so, I was thrilled to learn that Kristen Stewart was the one "attached" to Lie Down in Darkness. Stewart’s nervous energy — underused in the Twilight movies, but glimpsed in Welcome to the Rileys (and in her various public appearances) — could be immensely effective in the portrayal of an unbalanced character.

Kristen Stewart’s ‘mannerisms,’ ‘limited range’ 

 I should add that those who say Stewart has only one expression have surely never watched her on screen. Even in something as pre-fabricated as Chris Weitz’s New Moon, she manages to convincingly display a wide range of emotions in key scenes: lightheartedness, fear, passion, anger, regret. Only someone blind — or blinded by prejudice — would think she looks "her usual sullen self" when confronted by Dakota Fanning in the Volturi’s palace or while watching Taylor Lautner’s werewolf disappearing in the forest at the end of the film. As for those never-ending complaints that Stewart relies on the same mannerisms no matter the role … Well, how many actors don’t rely on personal "mannerisms"? Just watch the revered Lillian Gish, one of the earliest movie stars, in Broken Blossoms, The Scarlet Letter, or The Wind — Gish is Turner Classic Movies’ "star of the day" today — and tell me if she doesn’t have a whole array of acting "ticks." (If you don’t believe me, watch Marion Davies brilliantly perform a Gish caricature in The Cardboard Lover.) Does that mean I think Lillian Gish was a bad actress? Hardly. Mannerisms and all, Gish could be and often was an outstanding performer.

Kristen Stewart: Hot, capable, refreshing actress 

 Lillian Gish, of course, wasn’t the only one. Check out Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn, Edward G. Robinson, Gary Cooper, Cary Grant, Miriam Hopkins, Clark Gable, Humphrey Bogart, John Gilbert, Montgomery Clift, Deborah Kerr, Anna Magnani, Burt Lancaster, Gene Tierney, Marilyn Monroe — the list goes on and on. All those actors had their trademark mannerisms and "limited ranges," but that didn’t prevent them from delivering superb performances in the right roles and when working with the right directors. With the appropriate guidance, Kristen Stewart should be no different. Ah, before anyone says: "How dare you have Kristen Stewart’s name next to those of Katharine Hepburn or Joan Crawford or Bette Davis?" Well, I dare. And for a very good reason: check out the Crawford, Davis, and Hepburn ("ran the gamut of emotions from A to B") notices in newspapers and magazines of the ’20s and/or ’30s, before they became legends. Kristen Stewart could well have more admirers today than they had back then. And if Stewart wishes, she could end up just as big a legend as well. In sum, I find Kristen Stewart not only a highly capable actress, but a highly refreshing one as well. And very hot and quite beautiful. Unlike psycho fans or psycho haters, I don’t feel the urgent need that others agree with me. That’s merely my personal opinion. Feel free to agree or disagree.

Driving haters nuts 

Ah, and I do hope Lie Down in Darkness gets made with Stewart as Peyton Loftis. And if so, that the movie is a success and that she gets a Best Actress Oscar nomination. That’ll drive the psycho haters up the wall. That should be fun. And while I’m at it … I’m fully aware that chances are slim, but I’m rooting for Robert Pattinson to get a Best Actor Oscar nod for Cosmopolis — since there’s no chance he’ll get one for his excellent star turn in Bel Ami. That should give well-deserved seizures to another set of haters who dismiss Pattinson merely because of his Twilight connection.

Dangers of the Morality Police

Note: For those wondering if I "approve" of what Kristen Stewart and Rupert Sanders did. All I can say, as I’ve already stated in answer to a commenter a while back, is that I’m appalled by the moralizing, judgmental, and vicious reactions to the Stewart-Sanders “affair.” Once again: Never, ever trust those taking the moral high ground in matters that don’t concern them. The Morality Police would be truly useful only if they spent their time policing their own lives. P.S.: Feel free to deride Alt Film Guide as a Twi-site if you wish. But you’ll be wrong. We get many more visits to our articles about The Dark Knight Rises, which have been quite frequent in the last month or so. In other words, "Bat-site" would be a more appropriate putdown. But let’s be real, no one complains about "guy-oriented" Batman-related articles. Fanboy stuff is to be taken seriously.


 Source