MovieChat Forums > Clouds of Sils Maria (2014) Discussion > Was Kristen Stewart cast after the scrip...

Was Kristen Stewart cast after the script was finished? Parallels

posted 7 years ago by ca31
3 replies | jump to latest

It says in the FAQ section that Kristen was cast after the script was finished, but there are some massive parallels between Val and (what seems online to be) the real actress. I've only heard of her within the last few days, by watching Twilight and then reading about her online and coming across this movie - which I really enjoyed. So here are some things that stood out, spoilers everywhere!

- young across thrust into fame and fortune, to be fair she isn't the one playing this role here but it's a huge aspect of the movie
- questioning Maria about the attraction between her as a younger actress and the director, when Kristen had an affair with a director (which we all now know really upset the President ;) )
- talking about acting with truth and sincerity independently of the setting of the movie, e.g. even in a ridiculous context like a futuristic setting/aliens etc. That basically summed up Twilight for me - it was totally ridiculous but at times I felt the acting between the leads was really sincere (despite some of the worst lines imaginable) and I was surprised (and even embarrassed) to feel genuinely moved by their romance independently of the crazy circumstances. I liked hearing her character here defend that intention.
- someone else here posted that she basically just seems to act like her real life self in this. Who knows what that's really like, but I don't think that's necessarily a negative. I mean that could be a sign of bad acting but it didn't feel that way to me - I think it's really artistically valid in this context if there is supposed to be a level of reflection on her own life.. You still feel like you're watching a movie, not a documentary or an interview, so surely it's harder to 'act' like yourself in a way that's actually acting and not just conversational. Then there's that you often can't tell between when she's Val and the character in the play - if you add in parallels with real life that's 3 levels of character, and then I felt like there was movement between the different characters in real life, the movie and the play. This was pretty ingenious really!
- attracted to women. It's not so clear in the movie, more implied subtly - someone here posted that there was a sexual tension during the swimming scene but I didn't really notice that, more during the drunk scenes later on as the characters in the movie and play began to get more intertwined. I'm reluctant to think there was a sexual tension just because they took their clothes of to go swimming, that's pretty lame - although thought there were hints towards attraction in the dialogue there when Maria makes out that she's lying about having a boyfriend. I quite enjoyed that they both casually accuse each other of lying about little things like that (e.g. Val quickly just accepts that Maria is lying about not being able to get out of the play contract), that's got a sweet real-life quality about this kind of awkward attraction.

I really enjoyed this movie! Binoche is unbelievable, but the fact that I came on IMDB and started talking mostly about Kristen even though she was a supporting actress kind of makes me wonder if this interest in the new, young actress who has recently risen to fame and fortune is part of what this script wants us to consider here - I found her captivating!

[–] kvc2 7 years ago

Buzz at the time was Stewart was offered the Jo-Ann role but didn't want to play it because it would remind the audience of her wooden TWILIGHT days and bad publicity. So SHE wanted to play Val. Again, the word "captivating" is generally used for movie stars, whose natural charisma and looks help them in their careers. This has nothing to do with "acting" where the audience is drawn in by a performance developed through technique and personal skills (and usually more than one role or part, each different from the last played). What's stalling Stewart's rise into the "actor" pantheon is her strange body movements, particularly in the hands, and her reliance on a series of tics and mumbles, which is not a "style" but a lack of control. Just watch her monologue on SNL last weekend (2/4/17, on you.tube) and you'll see what I mean. The sharp movements with the body and the twisting and flapping of the hands are really a turn-off. Is she personally nervous? You betcha. But amateurishly revealing personal emotions does not a good actor make. It's the CHARACTER'S emotions we're interested in, and to show them one needs control of the body and focus of concentration.

Personally I wouldn't think this director would choose Stewart just for her "star power" (the ability to get people in the theaters and thus make money). Many cinephiles don't like her work. So he couldn't have cared less about whether the script reminded viewers of Stewart's personal life. That's Hollywood stuff. Assayas more likely took her because she was willing to cut her price hoping that working in a European art-film would help her declining credibility as an actress. As someone else on these boards wrote, "the part was tailored for Stewart's strengths," an assessment also voiced by several top critics.. Binoche provided the floorboard security of experience and talent which helped Stewart in this project.

[–] ca31 7 years ago

Hey kvc2, thanks for the info on the casting. That was a smart move to switch from Jo-Ann to Val, that'd probably be much too obvious. I like how that connotation of the real life/character links is there but it's intermixed between characters.

Kristen's mannerisms don't spoil anything in my mind, I completely get that this probably differs depending on the viewer though. I saw the SNL sketch and she just seemed like someone who'd be fun and 'genuine' to hang out with, not a freak (so she moves her hands a bit, it's not that excessive, I wouldn't really notice it) and not a diva celebrity. I think if anything those qualities add to her performances (from what I've seen so far) and lead to a character that is more real and relatable.

I agree to an extent about the idea of a captivating actor/actress but don't see charisma and acting ability as separate - natural charisma is an element of what draws you into a performance. Many people can be trained to act and can get so far, but you need that special something to be exceptional at drawing somebody into a story and there are no rules for what that can be, no rights or wrongs.

I play music for a living and as much as I feel deeply moved by a masterpiece like say Rachmaninov's Symphony no. 2, I can still feel love for some of the most cheesy pop music imaginable (although to be fair, not much), still shake my head to death metal and can still dance to techno - they're all art in my mind, if it 'moves' me it's real and valid art. Of course it'd probably be embarrassing talking about my love for the Backstreet Boys at a table of jazz musicians.. I wonder if that's the deal here. Maybe Kristen strikes a chord with more people than care to admit it, and because it's such a fundamental allure that is hard for some who are serious movie-goers and used to seeing something a bit more complex. Maybe her style is so simplistic/subtle and natural that some people reject it as popular trash. Or maybe she just genuinely annoys some people! All I know is she was next to this amazing actress Binoche and they both emanated a presence and created something which moved me.. Love it or hate it, that's art!

It's strange, I'm wrestling with why I even care, I'd vaguely heard of Twilight but didn't know anything about it (thought it was a TV show) and don't normally come on IMDB. Maybe part of the interest stems from going from having never heard of her to finding out she's massively famous and insanely rich for someone near my age - couldn't help but wondering what that lifestyle must be like whilst watching this movie, it's intriguing.. But also distracting and sadly impeded on the performance a bit, in that sense it would be nicer if indie movies kept away from Holywood stars... Although this one in particular can probably be forgiven as that 'obsession over celebrities' is a key concept.

[–] kvc2 7 years ago

Well said. I'm delighted this film intrigues people enough to think about it and analyze it. I'm no fan of Stewart, whom I see as undisciplined and very LA/Hollywood in her work (doesn't like to rehearse, or study her scripts). It's time for her to do a play, if she wants to prove her acting chops. Otherwise, she'll just remain a "movie star," which is not exactly like being beaten by a chair. As you mentioned, it's nice to think about, but wild horses couldn't drag me into that fame thing.