Kristen Stewart’s problematic apology
Click here if you missed my article last week about Kristen Stewart’s embarrassingly beggy public apology last week. As noted then, I think it was a mistake. A totally unnecessary mistake. And it ended up being an invitation to ask more questions, question more details, demand more information, a tacit agreement that her private life is fair game.
And then to be so specific about the incident...
“A momentary indiscretion”...
That’s when everyone goes in search for the birth certificate, you know what I mean? They all need to see if she’s legit. The problem is that there’s nothing in the photos to suggest anything “momentary” about what happened. And now Liberty Ross, Rupert Sanders’s wife, has a chatty brother who claims that Stewart and Sanders were affair-ing each other for months:
Leopold Ross told UK tabloid The People that:
“It was from the last half of filming and all through post-production, clear into last week. (Liberty) made some sacrifices for something she thought was worth it, now she knows, right? Five minutes from her home. Doubt it was worth it but it’s life. It might actually make things better in the long run. She wasn’t that happy for a while, but our family is close, she’ll be all right.”
The People is a super sketchy source, one of those British sites that gets a lot of sh-t wrong but many outlets have already picked up the story using it to directly contradict Stewart’s assertion that what happened was fleeting and not habitual, putting her apology, yet again, under the microscope.
That apology was a mega, mega tactical error, a new case study for Public Relations Management - What NOT To Do. It reminds me too of that line from The Dark Knight Rises, when Selina Kyle is pleading with Batman not to go back and fight for Gotham:
You don’t owe them anything. You’ve given them everything.
Not everything. Not yet.
Like I said last week, these fans? These fans want everything.
So what will she give them next?
It’s a bit of a scramble right now as Stewart’s team tries to decide on how to proceed to rehabilitate her image. One approach that some are pushing for is to sell her as the young, silly girl who was preyed on by the older piece of sh-t prick of a man - which, obviously, Sanders totally is. If that’s the case, you will be asked to RE-see Kristen Stewart: she’s not actually the finger-giving, cigarette smoking, bad ass, foul-mouthed, Faulkner reading, anti-Lohan but a naive 22 year old inexperienced woman vulnerable to the evil charms of a horrible dude. Fine. I suppose that’s one way to play it. But if that’s the way you play it, Kristen Stewart fans, you’ll have to then re-examine everything that defined her, all those attributes that you loved about who she was supposed to be. Was she supposed to be the girl who succumbed to seduction in violation of her values?
God to be part of these strategy meetings. I’d be on the shouting side of those, the few, who would argue that she should just eat sh-t for a while, bend over, silently, and take it. Anything else will be interpreted as self-serving. That’s the last thing she needs to be accused of right now.