Without further ado, our recent discussion about Kristen Stewart (acting quality and general thoughts on young actors.)
Name me three movies you have seen Kristen Stewart in.
Not going to beat a dead horse - but it seems to be a too cheap shot to me - and just a tired reference to the chorus of whiners regarding Twilight.
You named three films, where she was 12, 15, and 17 respectively. Out of those three, I only saw the Panic Room, and had no issue with her work there.
I would suggest that, like many actors, she has good and bad work out there - and I have seen some that is quite good; The Cake Eaters, The Runaways, and Welcome to the Rileys, where she plays opposite James Gandolfini are examples of work I really enjoyed - and she was past being a teenager.
She is currently 23 and has already been in 33 films - which is a fairly large body of work for someone her age. Some are good, some not so good.
I guess I defend her just because she has been subject to so many emotional kinds of attacks - and, contrary to many people, I find her to be physically beautiful.
I also suggest that actors can only attempt to rise above bad material - which is what I view as the largest weakness in the Twilight series. I honestly think that time will tell how good her work is, considered as an entire body of work.
I also think I could rattle off a list of other actors that are equally if not more uneven in performance, considering the material they had to work with. Another member of the Twilight trio, Taylor Lautner, comes to my mind.
But nobody knows who he is.
ASIDE from being in Twilight.
Is it true to say that he hasn't been in any other movies? No. He was just in some action movie (last year?) He was an unsuccessful child star (Shark boy.)
Is he worse of an actor? Possibly. (Probably.)
But does telling anyone that matter? No. Because he's not a going concern.
If I told you that Stephan Petrucha is a terrible author, you may not know who I'm talking about (he's a local guy & really isn't bad - just an example.)
But if I told you that William Shakespeare is a terrible author, you'd (not only) know who I was talking about but you would also (probably) have your own opinion on the matter, and thus your own experience with him.
THAT is how criticism generates conversation and makes it relevant.
Is Kristen Stewart an easy target? Hell yes.
And before her it was Megan Fox.
And before her was Tara Reid.
And before her was Madonna.
And before her was
Does that make her any less of a target? Fuck no.
Do I give a crap (personally) what the media has to say about her? Nope.
Is she maligned, misrepresented, slandered, and any other "mean thing" you can think of? Probably.
Do I feel bad for her? Not even a little. Fame, in this country, carries the price of being scrutinized, judged, and constantly talked about VERY PUBLICLY.
It also carries a hefty pay check. So I'm thinking she'll get right the fuck over it.
Honestly, the worst thing about Kristen Stewart isn't that she's a horrendous actress, it's that she's a mediocre actress.
Our cultural standards for greatness have seriously dropped over time (thanks to?) things like American Idol and the fact that we're so focused on protecting the feelings of the lowest common denominator.
I think it's annoying that she's "simply okay" at what she does but people keep patting her on the back (a.k.a hiring her) and saying, "you're great!"
Well, she's not great. She's okay. We need to stop giving A's the C students to protect their feelings. We need to give them C's and help them earn A's.
Just a couple of comments - you missed Lindsay Lohan ~~snark~~
I don't have any emotional attachment to this person; just think she is a garbage dump for people in an emotional irrational reaction.
Did I think YOU feel that way - hell no. So while I get what you say about criticism, you are talking about it in an educated fashion, unlike so many who spout opinions and should really just shut the hell up.
Also, there are some out there who are head and shoulders above the rest - I don't think acting quality is dead - Jodie Foster comes to mind as one who worked her way up the ranks from childhood and is quite competent. I don't feel as warm and fuzzy about Dakota Fanning or Kirsten Dunst, although I do think their work is reasonably competent as well. Are there actors out there comparable to Katherine Hepburn and Marlon Brando?
Well...perhaps a few - but I think that quality is always a rare one, which makes those great ones so very special. It gives all those fledgling actors something to aspire to, ha.
I'm thinking movies are still a business above anything else, so someone out there thought she was box office at least 33 times so far...if she is NOT, I am quite certain that she will cease to have work. Then she has her paychecks to help her along another path I suppose. And, yes, that is a big boost for someone so young.