Kristen covers Architectural Digest - March 2026

Click on photos for full view. 

“Making films is a political act,” says actor-director Kristen Stewart. “You have to decide how you want to wield your presence and your voice.” These days she is making hers heard at Highland Theatre—the 1925 Highland Park movie palace and onetime vaudeville performance space, designed by noted architect Lewis Arthur Smith, whose resume also includes the Vista theater in Los Feliz, the El Portal in North Hollywood, and the Rialto in Pasadena, all from the mid-1920s. Stewart recently purchased the noble yet dilapidated building, which closed its doors and dimmed its marquee in 2024.

“I didn’t realize I was looking for a theater until this place came to my attention. Then it was like a gunshot went off and the race was on. I ran toward it with everything I had,” she recalls. “I’m fascinated by broken-down old theaters. I always want to see what mysteries they hold.”

Stewart’s vision for the Highland goes beyond a straightforward restoration. “It’s an opportunity to make a space to gather and scheme and dream together. This project is about creating a new school and restructuring our processes, finding a better way forward. We want to make it a family affair, something for the community. It's not just for pretentious Hollywood cinephiles,” she explains. “I see it as an antidote to all the corporate bullshit, a place that takes movie culture away from just buying and selling. I think there’s a huge desire and craving for what this kind of space can offer.”

The original bones of the theater, including an extraordinary mezzanine and stage, remain partially intact, but the resurrection of the space will require a herculean effort. Nevertheless, Stewart is determined to recapture the glamour of Hollywood’s Golden Age while positing a new kind of social cinema experience: “There are so many beautiful details that need to be restored. I think there’s a way to bring the building back to life in a way that embraces its history but also brings something new to the neighborhood and something new to the whole LA film community. That’s the point—new ideas.”

A native Angeleno, Stewart grew up in the San Fernando Valley and moved to LA’s Eastside when she was 20. “I absolutely f**king love this city,” she insists. “There’s a kind of unified dissonance because it’s not really a city as much as a cluster of neighborhoods, but there’s unity in that. I like the spaciousness. You can decide how you want to fill it.” Asked if she’d ever consider abandoning Tinseltown for the mean streets of New York City, the actor demurs. “LA gets a bad rap for being unserious, but there’s so much art and culture here. I find something a little heavy about the East Coast. When I come back to LA, I can breathe.”

Still, Stewart has no illusions about the problems facing Los Angeles and indeed most major cities in our country. She is indefatigable in her championing of the Downtown Women’s Center, an organization founded in 1978 that was the first in the U.S. to provide permanent supportive housing to homeless women—a mission it continues to pursue to this day, in addition to a health clinic that exclusively serves women in LA’s Skid Row community and a drop-in day center, where women can receive three daily meals and access to showers, restrooms, mail, laundry, and telephones. “LA is drowning in inadequacy in our response to homelessness. The city is at odds with itself,” Stewart laments. “There has to be a way to unearth a tender, empathetic approach to getting people off the streets. I wanted to align myself with an organization and people who’ve been doing this work for decades at a grass roots level. Amy [Turk, Chief Executive Officer of DWC] spends every waking hour helping these women. I’ll do anything for her.”

Reflecting on the future of the Highland Theatre, the film industry, and the city at large, Stewart remains optimistic yet emphatic: “The narrow path that’s been forged has to be broadened, not by tokenized diversity but by doing things really differently. We can’t keep making the same movie over and over again. And we can’t turn our backs on the people who are most in need.”

Source

Video: Kristen on All Access with Linsey Davis

 

First look at Kristen in 'Full Phil' and director Quentin Dupieux talks to Variety

Click on image for full view.

Quentin Dupieux‘s “Full Phil” has been described as a “White Lotus”-esque project based on its high concept pitch, starring Woody Harrelson as a wealthy American industrialist attempting to reconnect with his daughter – played by Kristen Stewart — during an opulent trip to Paris. Yet, the prolific French director tells Variety that his movie is “more like ‘Emily in Paris’ in hell — a fever dream, a nightmare version of it.”

A highly prolific and iconoclastic filmmaker, Dupieux (who describes himself as a “washing machine running non-stop”) says “Full Phil” was sparked by his desire to make a film in English after making 10 movies in French. At the start of his filmmaking career, he had made a few projects in the U.S. such as “Rubber,” which lensed in California with a cast including Stephen Spinella. “When you change languages, your brain enters a slightly different zone. It’s very interesting,” Dupieux says in an exclusive interview with Variety on the eve of the EFM.

The surreal black comedy, which Studiocanal will introduce to buyers at the European Film Market in Berlin, also stars Charlotte Le Bon (“White Lotus”), Emma Mackey (“Barbie”), Nassim Lyes (“Under Paris”), Tim Heidecker and Eric Wareheim.

Now in post-production, “Full Phil” shot on location in Paris and marks the first film co-starring Harrelson and Stewart. They turned out to have the perfect chemistry, Dupieux says, adding that “making the Kristen–Woody relationship believable” was key for the movie. “Even if my films are often absurd, I always want believable worlds. I wouldn’t have liked it if they didn’t feel like family,” the helmer says. “But they’re great professionals. We never questioned it. He really is her dad, she really is his daughter.”

Yet, “Full Phil” isn’t a deep exploration of a father-daughter relationship, says Dupieux, who is known for his absurdist and quirky sense of humor. The synopsis suggests a surprising subplot, mentioning “French cuisine, a 1950s horror film and an invasive hotel employee” disturbing their lavish Paris trip. “Pure emotion as an objective isn’t my thing,” he says. “What I like is fantasy, and above all, making people laugh and be entertained — but not through traditional comedy.”

“The film is funny in other ways. I started with this father-daughter story, and then there’s a second film inside the film,” he says. “I see these conceptual films like amusement parks. It takes us on emotional, comical and fantastical rides.”

“Full Phil” reteams Dupieux with producer Hugo Selignac at Paris-based Chi-Fou-Mi Productions (a Mediawan company). They have made eight films in six years together, including “Mandibules,” “Smoking Causes Coughing,” “Yannick,” “Daaaaalí!,” “The Second Act”, “The Piano Accident” and “Signaux.”

The pair are already working on another project with American actors. “There are many actors I still haven’t worked with. In France, I’m close to exhausting the possibilities. In the U.S., I’m just getting started,” Dupieux says.

What’s the origin of “Full Phil”?

I’m a bit like a washing machine that runs non-stop. Projects are born and feed off each other constantly. I know there are people who work differently, who tackle a project one day and for whom there are reasons and a strong desire. For me, it’s more like a washing machine. Right now, I’m really at the end of “Full Phil,” and I’m already revisiting scripts I had in progress, and we’re already relaunching other projects. So there isn’t this system of a project being born in my mind. It’s not a race — I do it calmly — but this project was born in my laboratory, like all my other projects, in perpetual motion. It’s very hard to find what triggered it.

Was it perhaps a meeting with Woody or Kristen?

More likely a desire to confront the English language again. When I was just starting out, I made a few small films in the U.S., in English, and I had a lot of fun. When you change languages, your brain enters a slightly different zone. It’s very interesting. Then I came back to France and eagerly made 10 French films in quick succession. I met lots of French actors, and there are many films in that group that I’m very proud of. That’s pretty much where it all started — a desire to change register through language. My films rely heavily on dialogue, and changing languages means confronting a different rhythm, a different music. That was the starting point. After that, Woody and I met because he saw “The Second Act” and “Yannick.”

How did that connection happen?

He was very taken with “The Second Act” and “Yannick,” which surprised me because those films are based solely on text. It’s hard to imagine Anglo-Saxons watching something like “Yannick,” which is an hour of subtitles and very little action. You’d think those films wouldn’t travel, but they do.

What people don’t necessarily know about Woody is that he has a very intellectual side. A few years ago, he made a single-shot film broadcast live. I didn’t see it, but he immediately told me about it because there are long shots in “The Second Act.” You wouldn’t think it, but he has that kind of thinking. His film was like live theater, and my films are quite theatrical too — very focused on actors and dialogue. That spoke to him, and we connected. At that point, I was already writing “Full Phil,” and that meeting boosted my desire to do it. Having direct contact with an American actor like Woody makes development much easier. In France, I can call actors directly, text them, get decisions very quickly. In the U.S., everything takes longer. Decision-making is slower. Given that I like immediacy — my films are short, I make several a year — that’s not always easy to combine with the American system. Here, it worked because Woody really wanted it.

What about Kristen Stewart?

We embarked on the film as soon as Woody came on board. He accepted without reading the script, which is extraordinary for an American actor. He was so enthusiastic about the two films he’d seen. I finished writing, and we had to find the character of his daughter. We always start by checking availability, because I like immediacy. We set dates right away — we don’t say, “We’ll see in a year.” That’s the DNA of my projects. They’re very prepared and very written, but we do them quickly. We started looking for a young woman who could play Woody’s daughter and who would be available, and we quickly came across Kristen. It was a great choice. The combination works perfectly. We’d never seen them together, but something was immediately obvious. She took a weekend to consider it and accepted within 48 hours, which is rare. I think there was a challenge in the film that excited her. She joined just like that — very brave of her.

Why brave? Is she doing stunts?

You don’t know it yet, but there’s a delicate aspect to what she does in one part of the film. There was a whole thing about cuisine, but I can’t say more. Sometimes the difficulty is physical transformation or stunts or shaving your head. Here, it’s something completely different. I’ll leave the mystery unresolved.

Is it a film about cooking?

Not at all. I’m dissecting a father-daughter relationship in a complicated situation. It’s about a widowed father trying to reconnect with his daughter, who’s about 30. There’s a very emotional, grounded part with real characters. And then the film slips — inevitably — into something more fantastical.

There are often fantastical elements in your films.

That’s because a straight film about a father and daughter isn’t my thing. Many people do that very well — I’m thinking of “Sentimental Value” recently. That’s not my specialty. I dabbled in it, but inevitably I ended up doing something else. Pure emotion as an objective isn’t my thing. What I like is fantasy, and above all, making people laugh and be entertained — but not through traditional comedy. The film is funny in other ways. I started with this father-daughter story, and then there’s a second film inside the film, which is also a surprise. You can guess it from the synopsis: Kristen and Woody’s film is mixed with a 1950s horror film. It’s done in a very playful way. I see these conceptual films like amusement parks. The film takes us on emotional, comical, and fantastical rides.

What worked in particular? The chemistry between Kristen and Woody?

That was the major challenge — making the Kristen–Woody relationship believable. Even if my films are often absurd, I always want believable worlds. I wouldn’t have liked it if they didn’t feel like family. But they’re great professionals. We never questioned it. He really is her dad, she really is his daughter. That was a great success.

Another gamble was integrating a 1950s horror film into a modern story. On paper, it sounds crazy. The synopsis is mysterious. But that ingredient worked too. It makes the film joyful, special, and quite new.

There’s also the theme of Americans in Paris, which can feel artificial. We shot in real locations. The film could have been partly shot in a studio — it would’ve been easier and cheaper — but we refused. It really takes place in Paris, in real streets and buildings, and that gives it real charm.

Some people compared your film to “White Lotus” based on the pitch. Do you see that?

I recently watched a few episodes of the latest season with Charlotte Le Bon, who’s also in my film. I don’t really see the similarity. “White Lotus” is quite realistic. Yes, there are two people in a hotel, but there’s much more than that. And we don’t stay in the hotel the whole movie.

Did you ever think of setting “Full Phil” in L.A.?

I could have told the story anywhere, but I’d never filmed in Paris before. I usually escape — deserts, sea, mountains. I live in Paris, so I need dreamlike places. Recently, I made “L’accident de piano” in Haute-Savoie. Here, it was interesting to invite Americans into the cliché of Americans in Paris and actually shoot in Paris. It was part of the DNA from the beginning. And the cooking element wouldn’t have worked anywhere else. It’s more like “Emily in Paris” in hell — a fever dream, a nightmare version of it.

Do you let actors improvise?

No, that’s not my system. The script is a score, and it must be followed. But within that, I’m completely open to real life. I love being surprised by performances. I work by ear. I listen to rehearsals or the first take, and I know what to tell them. Sometimes it works immediately; sometimes there are misinterpretations, and I correct them. When a line sounds wrong, it’s like music — I ask for another tune. The rhythm is musical work. We explore. Sometimes we get stuck on three lines for no reason. That’s part of the job. It’s not improvisation, but it’s not robotic either.

Kristen Stewart is also a filmmaker. Did that influence the collaboration?

She was very nice and let herself go. She immediately saw that my method was unique and not conventional. Because I write everything myself, I’m behind the camera, I decide when we stop and start — it’s a little wild. She understood it quickly and trusted it completely. The same with Woody. For the first two or three days, they were spectators of a method they’d never encountered. It was a very serene set. I think it made an impression.

What defines your method?

Speed. We shoot very quickly, but without stress. The team is extremely professional. Actors often tell me that on traditional sets they spend their days waiting. On my films, Woody and Kristen were on set all day.

You also edit during filming?

I pre-edit during filming. As soon as I have a doubt, I lock myself in a dressing room and check if the editing works. That way, I avoid shooting unnecessary footage. Many directors would keep shooting “just in case.” I don’t. I check. It means I don’t exhaust the actors by repeating things endlessly.

What stage is the film in now?

I’m finishing the editing now, and I’m very happy with it. I’ve never done anything like this before. It’s new, even for me. And I’m delighted it’s in English with Woody, Kristen, Charlotte Le Bon, and Tim and Eric. Cinema is often compared to cooking. There are ingredients. Sometimes recipes don’t work. In this case, I found a recipe that really worked.

Did this experience make you want to make more English-language films?

Absolutely. We have other projects in the works. One was written even before “Full Phil.” It’s like changing music. English has a different rhythm. I saw it during editing — it’s new music, very enjoyable. I’m not tired of French at all, but this is a musical respite. And the U.S. is a wonderful playground. There are many actors I still haven’t worked with. In France, I’m close to exhausting the possibilities. In the U.S., I’m just getting started. So I’ll absolutely continue developing projects in English.

Your producer Hugo Selignac says many American actors want to work with you.

Yes, we are in demand, which is very pleasant. It reinforces our conviction. But actually making it happen is complicated — schedules, huge stars, timing. My method is fast-paced, and I can’t project myself two years into the future. I live in the moment. So I’ll end up working with those who accept that speed. Woody and Kristen were the first to try it. They loved it. It went very well. And we hope to convince others to go just as fast.

Source

Kristen and Imogen Poots talk to The Guardian for 'The Chronology of Water'

The movie is to be eaten alive and re-metabolised and shat out differently, from everyone’s perspective,” says Kristen Stewart, bracingly. The actor’s directorial debut, The Chronology of Water, has been doing the rounds at film festivals, and when we meet in London the reviews are coming in. Stewart knows that this impressionistic, arthouse collage of a film – adapted from an experimental memoir about a woman’s pain and loss, the elusive nature of memory and the reclamation of desire – is not going to be for everyone. “My favourite Letterboxd review is: ‘The Chronology of what the fuck did I just watch?’” But it matters to her that people respond to it. “Whether it’s your least favourite movie or your most favourite, it’s not lying, it’s genuine. And I’m so fucking proud of that.”

Stewart is sitting next to the film’s star, a slightly more sanguine Imogen Poots. Watching Stewart talk, her leg bouncing, her vocabulary ferocious, feels a bit like being sandblasted. It is invigorating and strangely galvanising, but you don’t go into a conversation with her half asleep. The same can be said for the film itself. “Language is a metaphor for experience,” writes the author Lidia Yuknavitch, at the beginning of the book on which it is based. “It’s as arbitrary as this mass of chaotic images we call memory.”

Stewart first read the book in 2018, while on the set of the movie JT LeRoy. She saw the visual potential in this mass of chaotic images and quickly decided it would be her first feature-length film as director. “Forty pages in, I was so rallied and so viciously adamant that nobody else could make the movie but me,” she says. “It was so physical. So vital. Such a permeating secret. There’s an unearthing quality to the way that [Yuknavitch] talked about trespass, and how your desires are carved into your body. As a woman, we have these seeping birthplaces that are our orifices, and it’s where we hold our power, but it’s also where we’re taken advantage of.” At this point, less than two minutes in, it’s fair to say that it isn’t quite turning out to be your run-of-the-mill movie-star promotional chat. “We’re all so muzzled,” Stewart says. “And it just felt like the muzzle was off. That’s the fun part. It’s got a loud mouth. A big, wide-open mouth.” So she sent Yuknavitch an email.

“A wildly exciting email,” the author says, from her home in Portland, Oregon. “She was explaining to me why I could never let this book be a regular biopic movie, and how I had to let her make a piece of art out of it. The language she used went under my skin immediately, because it wasn’t regular-person language.” Yuknavitch, obsessed with films since she was five, was, of course, familiar with Stewart’s work. “I even wrote a novel with her in mind, a while ago. She was younger. She had just punched through the Twilight experiences, and she was moving toward independent art films, and I pictured her in my brain when I wrote this novel.” It is called Dora: A Headcase. It sounds like a spooky connection, if she believes in that kind of thing? Artists, Yuknavitch replies, have a tendency to find each other. “They run across each other’s work, and these threads or streams we don’t entirely understand touch each other. And I think that’s what happened.”

It was not an easy film to finance. Poots and Stewart, both big readers, get into a meaty discussion about how confessional literature is taken seriously when men write it, and “belittled, constantly”, Stewart says, when it comes from women. “There are so many examples within modern literature of men laying it all bare, but as soon as you do something overtly personal as a woman, it’s less serious,” Stewart continues. “We’ve just been fully X-ed out of modernism in the canon. It’s like we don’t exist in it whatsoever. And it’s such a fucking crock of shit. You have to be Virginia Woolf to be considered a good writer.” Reese’s Book Club, this is not.

Did they come up against those attitudes when making the film? “Yes, because I think when people read it, it was reduced to how to sell it,” says Stewart. “OK, well, what’s it about, incest and rape? Fun!” It was not an easy pitch, she admits. “It’s about the gouging out of desire, and the reframing of that, and how empowered that is. In a slug line, it’s a really tough sell.” It took eight years of development before they finally got to work, mostly on location in Latvia. In the meantime, Stewart continued to act, and directed smaller projects: a couple of short films and a music video, for the band Boygenius. Chronology ticked away in the background, sometimes unpromisingly, until eventually it somehow came together. Even Stewart’s longtime producer, Charles Gillibert (On the Road, Personal Shopper), had told her that he couldn’t finish the script. “And he’s not the only one. He really encouraged me not to make this movie,” she smiles. “I was like: we’re gonna cease being friends if you keep saying this to me.”

Poots plays the adult Lidia with bodily gusto. The film is a collection of fluids and fragments. Poots read Stewart’s screenplay, and then the book, and then sent Stewart “a really pretentious email, which she lapped up”, she teases. Was she nervous about taking on a role that is so stark and exposing? It pulses with sex and drugs and violence. Bleeding and sobbing and grief wash over it. “Any actress I know would have wanted to play this part,” says Poots. In fact, she explains, casting her as the lead meant that the film was harder to make. “If Kristen had hired a massive movie star, then it would have made getting the money a hell of a lot easier,” she says.

Poots is a best-kept-secret kind of actor, and her performance here is immense, but I ask Stewart why she felt so loyal to her. “She’s my favourite actor, and everyone else sucked,” she shrugs. “There was literally no one else, and she’s been a fave of mine for ever.”

“And we have the same teeth,” says Poots, showing them off.

Stewart flashes hers in unison. “Because we have the same teeth, I thought: this is my girl. Bucktooth!”

The film also stars Kim Gordon, Thora Birch and Jim Belushi, who plays the late One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest author Ken Kesey. It is a merry band of misfits. “What’s really cool, and you wouldn’t have been aware of it, is that these people, who have all been at the centre of these incredibly creative community movements, wanted in on what you were doing,” says Poots to Stewart.

Did she pull in any favours to get them involved? “Nobody did me any favours, trust me,” Stewart says, gravely. “In fact, we got fucked. In the face. Over and over.” She pauses. “Like a real woman!” she jokes. To be honest, she says, Belushi came on board after a couple of other actors dropped out. “I don’t think it was an easy yes. But the feeling of him supporting you, a nice pat on the back from Jim Belushi, could make you cry. He’s kind of a radical, and he’s a hippy, and he was perfect to play this part.”

As the film deals in memories, it rejects any sort of conventional narrative structure. Men come in and out of Lidia’s life, which meant that actors would come on set briefly and leave again, “sort of like a conveyor belt”, says Poots.

“Or chapters,” suggests Stewart.

“These insanely brilliant, talented actors,” says Poots.

“And they serviced you,” grins Stewart. “It was fucking incredible to watch male actors come in and have it not be about them. I would be like: sorry, but we’re actually not gonna shoot you. We’re just gonna shoot her. But talk to her. You’re here, kind of, but this is about her.”

Poots cackles. I’m guessing this is not a typical experience? “Mmmm,” says Poots. “For so many reasons.” Both say they plan to make “a lot more movies” together.

A few weeks later, Birch video calls from her home in Los Angeles, her dog lounging happily in the background. “You cannot enter a conversation with Kristen Stewart without coming locked, loaded and ready to go,” she laughs. “It’s intimidating!” Birch plays Lidia’s older sister, Claudia, in a brief but mighty role. In one of the film’s earliest scenes, she holds a sobbing, grief-racked Poots in the bath, following the death of Lidia’s stillborn baby girl. “Imogen is just a knock-down, one-two-punch, hazelnut-popping actress out of the Brit academy if I ever saw it,” Birch says, brilliantly.

Birch and Stewart had met at an event where they did some “mutual fangirling”. A few months later, Stewart called and said she was making a movie. Birch signed on straight away, and then she read the script. “I’m not going to lie, it was a little bit of a daunting process,” she says. “But I just trusted her already.” Partly, she thinks, that’s because they have some shared experiences. Both became famous as children. Stewart was 12 when she starred in Panic Room, while Birch’s run of 1990s and early 2000s films – from Hocus Pocus to Now and Then to Ghost World – defined adolescence for a whole generation of girls.

“Maybe I related to her because we’re both performers who started out very, very young, and so we had a common language. I say she’s my spirit animal. She does a lot of things that I do, but just way better,” Birch says. She had followed Stewart’s career from afar. “Different times, different generations, but the way she handled [getting famous young], I was just like: dude, that’s with aplomb. You knocked it out of the park, because you held on to your individuality and your point of view, which can really be difficult to hold on to.” She waves a hand. “But let’s not get too far into that.”

In its boldness and experimental form, The Chronology of Water may well be a surprise to those more familiar with Stewart, the movie star, who might not expect a film like this from her. “I sort of did,” counters Birch. “This is a very Kristen Stewart movie.”

She is glad, she says, that this is the story Stewart chose to tell. “She will hate me for saying it, but I’m sorry, this is emblematic of a female experience that not a lot of people are ready, willing or even able to dissect and talk about.” The movie covers some “heavy shit”, Birch says. “We’re talking about period blood and stillborns and familial sexual abuse. Nobody wants to talk about this stuff, and yet she presents it in such a way that it marries fantasy and poeticism, and but also the human experience. It’s a punk rock arthouse movie that is like a non-psychedelic ayahuasca trip.”

It makes sense, then, that Birch had no idea how it would turn out. She just had to have faith in what they were doing. “And then when I saw it, I was like: oh, that’s what she’s doing. One reviewer said: homegirl can direct. And coming from LA, I was like: yeah, that’s it. Homegirl can direct. She knows what’s up.”

 The Chronology of Water is released in UK cinemas on 6 February

Source

Video: Kristen's interview for 'The Chronology of Water' with British Film Institute (BFI)

Source 

Video: Kristen on the 3rd and Fairfax WGAW Podcast for 'The Chronology of Water'

 

Kristen attends a post-screening Q&A for 'The Chronology of Water' in Portland, OR - 16 January 2026

 

Click on photos for full view.

Author Lidia Yuknavitch, producers Dylan Meyer and Maggie McLean and production designer Jen Dunlap also attended.

Video (Compilation, some with no audio)

----

Lidia Yuknavitch: "well well well.

i just had the greatest art experience of my weird life.

i mean the ZENITH of art experiences.

no, not a publication. not any fancy award. not a big bag of money, or fame, or attention.

just me with my witch dawgs and soul sisters Janice and Ravyn and a squad of brilliant, fearless, valkyrie women in a private screening of The Chronology of Water.

so yeah. i finally saw it. i'm glad it was now. with Kristen and all those spitfires in the room.

a film dreamed of, conceived, brought to vision by the singularly perfect Kristen Stewart, in the face of all those NO's, in the face of fuck.

the ZENITH for me is witnessing the art of others when you yourself try to make art into a portal. it’s my reason for being—that

art begets other art, unstoppably, unapologetically.

i sobbed, i laughed my ass off, i ground my teeth, i shouted you motherfucker, ate a little paper (what. i’m still me), i swooned, i cheered, i saw miraculous strength in girls on screen bloom from violence and grief.

when the credits finished rolling i just shouted FUCK.

there is not a man on the planet who could have directed this film. the image intensities. the patterns. the forms. the accumulations. the repetitions. the juxtapositions. the recursions. the sounds. the environments. the waves of story.

there is only Kristen Stewart and Imogen Poots taking the dare.

I’m for them. All of them. Try to stop them. I dare you. Won’t happen. They are insurgent.

shout outs to Jen Dunlap, Maggie Mclean, Dylan Meyer, Paris Hurley, Corey Waters, Imogen Poots (oh my fucking god), Thora Birch, Jim Belushi (dude. so. accurate), Earl Cave, all the actors and every human who worked their asses off to make this film.

and thank you water."

Source 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Kristen at the post-screening Q & A of 'The Chronology of Water' in Boston. MA - 14 January 2026

Click on photos for full view.

Videos

Moderated by Jen Dunlop, production designer on 'The Chronology of Water'

Source 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9