Against the Dying Day of Light

I don’t where these gifs come from, I guess it’s from Karl’s Chanel movie short, portraying Stewart as Coco Chanel. 

Just from that sequence I can tell Stewart is doing the meta within a meta industry/culture social commentary similar to what was interwoven in CoSM (comes to no surprise since Chanel donated some clothes for production). I haven’t seen the entire short (or mabe it’s Asyass’ film) but I’ll call it right now: It won’t say anything enlightening about the “serious” artists vs the supposed commercial money hungry producers.

Within this film, I bet Stewart plays the actress honored to get the role of playing fashion legend Coco Chanel. The producers want to change the story and maybe even the integrity to the script and narrative to make it more commercial. Stewart’s character thinks it’s unfair and greedy, shows up the producer in front of paparazzi’s (meta within meta Stewart’s actual life) and shows the world the battle that “serious” so-called artists face when it comes to financing and creating art with integrity.

This is all inspiration from CoSM. The producers, the real ones - not the ones in the linked sequence, want to make Stewart the star and actually help shape her public image as a take-no-shit-badass-actress, pretty much Stewart’s actual PR narrative for most of her acting career.

It’s basically Stewart living out her own projection of herself. Stewart being sorta like the real Stewart, but not really since she’s playing a role.

Here’s what a Stewbot said when complaining that Stewart was robbed of her industry nominations for CoSM.

“The general consensus opinion held by film critics say Kristen churned out one of the best, supporting actress performances of 2015--yet her peers in the industry don't see it that way. Why is this?”

Even despite the bizarre humping from the critics (since the debut of of CoSM in May 2014 and up till early 2016) she wasn’t nominated for a Broadcast Film Association Award, which is the majority of professional critics voting on the acting categories. Doesn’t that tell you something is off?

Either critics’ didn’t really mean what they said and only said it in order to help her career distance herself from Twilight (and the critics and her fans tend to bring up Twilight as if her talents where too great for it) and the Sanders Affair, or they just “forgot” about their verve for her CoSM performance. My guess is the former.

She also missed the BAFTAs and you’d think she’d favor a nom there from her British peers, not too entrenched with American media focusing on celebrities and whatnot, and with the vibrance of the Cesar win, just a few hours a away via underwater tunnel, but no BAFTA nom.

Stewart’s acclaim for the CoSM is mostly a sham. It’s manufactured. Her wins for NYC, LA, and National Film Society is more so a win because they have a soft spot for Stewart. They feel bad for her. They want her to transform into a “serious”, well-respected actress. They are aware how she’s not well-liked in the public eye so what better way to prop Stewart as a misunderstood person who can act, and act with great talent (the constant “standing toe to toe with Binoche” talk). They don’t do this on the same level with Robert Pattinson. They definitely don’t do see Taylor Lautner the same way (compare the projects he does with Pattinson -- it’s obvious that producers want to transform Pattinson’s career into a more respectable one).

Don’t believe me? See this review on Camp X-Ray: http://www.amazon.com/gp/review/RC1BLYW9E372U?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl

The writer is a BFCA and WAFCA member, as well as a writer for several movie sites. The title showcases the favoritism, “Kristen Stewart Shines Over Simplistic 'Camp X-ray.” Near the end of the review he praises both Stewart and Moaadi, but in a strange way, saying,“Dressed down in a way we've never seen her before, Stewart's riveting, tough and vulnerable performance may be the finest of her career.“ What? Is this man serious?

Another poser, as a response to the writer’s review, says this about Stewart - “A point of agreement: Kristen Stewart is a fine actor who should stop being penalized for having done the "Twilight" franchise.“ Now this is even more strange because, as you see in the response, it comes at the very end after a long disagreement of the thoughts expressed by the movie critic. Why didn’t he mention Moaadi? Oh, because he doesn’t have a hard-on for him. My bad.

I don’t believe anyone is blaming Stewart for doing Twilight. My understanding is that people thought she was horrid in it, not her agreeing to star in the movie franchise. So again, strange comment, as if the poster “Darren” went out of his way to compliment Stewart as if he had some special interest in her (ironic since my entire tumblr account is dedicated to question her acclaim and the genuineness behind the goodwill). He didn’t comment on Moaadi who seems to be almost a forgotten aspect once we analyze what is said by every other critic when it comes to commenting on the performances. My guess Darren is just the typical Stewbot (after all his Amazon profile shows no signs of other reviews, just the Camp X-Ray one).

Seriously, what the fuck is up with critics thinking Stewart is a “sure talent” and her fans thinking that all the less-than-kind words exist because she partook in Twilight? It’s the same with Pattinson’s fans. Twilight made both Stewart and Pattinson, but each actors’ fanbase think both are highly more skilled than they actually are, and the critics are pushing for both Edward and Bella to become “prestige actors.” I do sense that the bigotry is towards Twilight, the general concept of it and Stephenie Meyers.

Is having a meltdown because Stewart wasn’t nominated for an Oscar.

Follow link:

http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000005/thread/252657723?d=252657723#252657723

It’s clear that the critics, for whatever reasons, were head over heels for Stewart in CoSM. But, wait ...

No BFCA. That’s strange. Out of all of the precursors you’d think she’d be a lock. Nope. Missed it.

No GG. Huh? The GG tend to have more interesting nominations. If not the BAFTA or Oscar, then at least the GG.

No BAFTA. Okay, what’s the deal? I mean, didn’t the Cannes acclaim and the supposed uber prestigious Cesar nomination AND win say anything to the British voters? Guess not.

No SAG. Her peers didn’t see what the critics saw. Maybe they did but they didn’t nominate her.

No Oscar. Some entertainment journalists had her as a surprise nomination or a “dark horse.” She missed it as well.

It’ll be interesting on how the critics will pump up Stewart’s performance in Woody’s film as well as Lee’s and even Reichdart’s.

Can the producers and directors STOP casting Stewart in these films and cast unknowns and actresses of better talent? Can the critics stop humping Stewart’s leg because it’s obvious they have a hard on for her for no good reason besides them feeling sorry for her -- that she was caught in an affair and that they want to see her “reach new heights.”

Film critics have tried really, really hard to make Kristen Stewart into something she’s not: A talented actress.

She simply isn’t. Her amount of talent as an actress is the same when she started Twilight and the same before. Extraordinarily limited.

It’s rather strange that Stewart is being singled out for critic acclaim for Clouds of Sils Maria ... Like she was the only one acting in it. How about Juliet Binoche? Seriously. If you’ve followed the movie since its Cannes premiere, Stewart’s performance has been sung to the high heavens.

Now, you’re probably wondering if I saw it. Yes I did. I thought Stewart’s performance was decent to good. Nothing near the acclaim that the critics showered upon her.

The critics circles have started releasing their nominations and Stewart has been nominated for most of them so far, and has won a few (major ones were the NYC where she won and a runner-up for LA, as of 12/9). She’s probably a lock for the GG nomination come tomorrow morning.

See: http://www.awardstally.com/

As for the Oscar nomination, count Sils Maria as her ticket to the show and in the circle of five. As the critics nominations shape up, it seems like only five actresses are seriously being looked at and a couple that were initially thought to be put in Best Supporting Actress are being put in Best Actress.

Add to the fact that it’s not a strong year for Best Supporting Actress.

Stewart’s acclaim back in May 2014 will accomplish what her handlers want: A complete career turnaround. Do you know any other actor with this type of career turn around, at least this young? I don’t.

Now she can’t be “touched” because of this single movie where her performance was, if you were honest, underwhelming. But hey, she didn’t bite her lip, pull her hair and swear. Yay. /sarc

obliviateme