Chanel Commercial

She's not flamboyant or flashy but does good, solid work with often intense, challenging, in depth roles. When looked at objectively it shows that she's indeed a very good actress, deserving of the accolades given her and also why some pundits consider her among the best of her generation of actors.

This is a point which should be hammered home every time someone criticizes her acting because of its implications. Because of her subtle and nuanced style of acting, Kristen can never be justly criticized for overacting or churning out a contrived performance. I believe this is a major reason why film critics shower her with praise, yet conversely, she is sometimes described as monotone by mainstream audiences, which I believe has much to do with their judging her by her role in Twilight. It sure seems that such ones mistake good screen acting for stage acting. On the stage, gestures, facial expressions, and manner of speaking are purposely exaggerated so that everyone in the audience can see and hear the actor perform. On the contrary, acting in such a way in front of a camera will look awkward and silly and is completely unnecessary as the camera should zoom in on the actor whenever an actor is emoting expressions. That is why comedic screen actors behave in such a manner for that exact reason, to appear awkward and silly. Serious dramatic actors, on the other hand, are much more subtle and nuanced in the way in which they speak and act. Some say Kristen doesn't appear to be acting--as a form of negative criticism--which is actually a compliment as actors are supposed to act as natural as possible according to what is portrayed onscreen, which is exactly what she does. Film, after all, is supposed to realistically portray life itself in order for the viewer to easily be able to vicariously go on a journey with her.

reply share

add reply

formatting help