Does anyone else think that Kristen was just playing herself?

Not necessarily. A great performance can also be made by an actor who breaks the mold, gets out of his comfort zone and maybe then seem effortless in the execution.
An actor who always plays himself is not always a great performer.

I've never seen any of Kristen's other work, but have been watching Clouds on cable recently. It's kind of a recessive performance. She's hiding behind hair and eyeglasses, but there is a verisimilitude about it. It's so naturalistic, I felt I was watching a documentary at times instead of a "performance." The absence of theatricality may not be everyone's cup of tea (I tend to like charismatic, command the screen performances), but I do admire her performance here. Simple and real.

I thought it was exactly the contrast between Binoche 'playing Helena' and Kristen 'playing herself as Sigrid' that made the whole scene so potent, throwing you off balance and making you jump between the film and the play in the film. It seemed magic to me, at least at the time.

Kristen Stewart is an attractive American millionaire who is a movie star, not an actress. So she gets a walk most of the time. People who say, "She's so NATURAL" often just don't understand the art of acting. Anyone can play herself; not much challenge to that, as long as she is cast in an appropriate time zone and allowed to get by with all Stewart's nervous tics. But when movie stars try to "go deeper," they find their "talents" just can't be extended that far. Julia Roberts playing an Irish rebel? What two-time Oscar winner tried to go from BOYS DON'T CRY to a pre-revolutionary French court schemer in THE AFFAIR OF THE NECKLACE? And no one looks more like a contemporary American woman than Swank. So tell me one role of Stewart's in which she goes way off the line and does really become someone completely different. (She didn't even learn any French for SILS MARIA.)

An actor can play any character, any time zone, any costume, any culture. Could Kristen Stewart play a queen, as Mirren did twice (and won awards)? Completely impossible. A famous character, like Piaf? Don't even think about it. She'd even have trouble with Theron's work in MONSTER, if she tried to do it (she won't -- too challenging). Blanchett in CAROL and BLUE JASMINE is a great example of the kind of difference a real actor can make in a character with voice, movement, look, and still be completely believable..

We love our movie stars; if we went to high school with them we'd want to date them or be their best friends. But that doesn't make an actor. The proof is not in the awards, or the fame, but in the universal respect actors have for real actors, with whom they want to work FIRST, if they can. With a Stewart dominated film it's a job because it will pay well and one can be seen in the movie. No great art will be created there; in SILS the art and creative environment is provided by Binoche. Then put Julia Roberts in as Maria Enders and think again.

Most movie stars get used to the money and the lifestyle and just make choices on what they can handle, without too much stress and risk in the career. Cary Grant did this for decades and we loved him. But he wasn't taking on HAMLET.

Thanks, Alexandra. Most of the people who responded above to the original question said they were also not impressed by Kristen Stewart's "credentials" in the acting biz. Seems to me she is in a win-win situation; either she increases her range and promotes herself into some really demanding roles, or she can just remain where she is. Neither strikes me as a loser deal.

Tell us more about 4chan.