Posts Tagged ‘Megan Fox’
Love the Way You Lie
Posted on: August 10, 2010
I don’t know how to feel about this song. I would normally have an aversion to it just because it’s Eminem. But is it trying to bring awareness to domestic violence or glorifying it? And what about the fact that Rihanna, who was part of a largely publicized domestic violence assault, is the featured artist? Or that Megan Fox donated her fee for appearing in the video to a domestic violence shelter?
Thoughts?
As a purely personal side note, when I was really disappointed in my dear, lovely Charlie (Dominic Monaghan) when I first heard that he was appearing in an Eminem video, and that was before I even had heard the song. Dominic Monaghan and Megan Fox both actually did a good job in just acting the video, no matter what my conflicted thoughts on the subject matter are.
Tuesday Link Love!
Posted on: November 17, 2009
So, this is going to be yet another week where I will be pretty absent from the online community. I’m working tomorrow and then I will be out of town Thursday through Saturday to visit some friends. In other exciting news, Sarah Palin will be starting her book tour for Going Rogue right here in my hometown of Grand Rapids at a local Barnes & Noble. “Sadly” not at the B&N that I work at and I will also be working when she’s going to be here so I don’t get the lovely privilege of going to her book signing. You can tell how upset I am about this.
Anyways, here are some of my favorite posts of the past couple days, as always. Don’t forget to leave links to what you have been writing/reading in the comments!
FWD/Forward: Glee: “That’s why we call it dismissing legitimate concerns instead of acting”
[Before I go any further: I didn’t feel “empowered” by Glee, nor did most of the women with disabilities that I know. That said, my goal here isn’t to tell you or anyone you know how to feel about the show. My objection to the above is not only the condescending tone and dismissal of everything that people who actually work in the industry are saying about representations of disability and how that affects their work, but also being told how I should feel about the show.]
Women & Hollywood: A Tale of Two Young Actresses
The NY Times ran two very different stories about two very different young actresses – Megan Fox and Kristen Stewart – who both appear in huge franchises, Fox in Transformers and Stewart in Twilight. Both women had cover pieces, Stewart in the Arts & Leisure section and Fox in the Magazine.
Both these women are big tabloid fodder. Their faces are everywhere but there are a lot of differences between these women and I think it illuminates some of the issues facing young women in the business today.
The Sexist: Chris Brown: “I Love Women”
It assumes that all women are the same. I’m a heterosexual woman with plenty of men in my life. I love my father, my brother, and my boyfriend. I do not love Tucker Max, Tom Cruise, or the skeevy guy in The Continental. How could this possibly be? Because I understand that even though my boyfriend and Tucker Max share a couple of pronouns, they have little else in common. Men who announce that they “love women” fail to recognize us as individuals.
Sunday Link Love!
Posted on: November 15, 2009
Happy Sunday everyone! Don’t forget to leave links to what you have been writing and reading in the comments!
this ain’t livin’: How We Watch
Yet, I often hear people say “if you have such a problem with it, don’t watch it,” or “why do you keep watching it if you hate it so much”? Since when did criticism and discussion turn into “hate”? Criticism of creative work, creators, and the motivations of people who engage in such work is actually a rather ancient practice. I think it’s human nature; when we encounter something we like, we want to explore it more. We want to engage with it. We want to get inside it and wriggle around. Because it’s so good. Because the work itself is finite, but the potential readings and explorations are infinite.
The Undomestic Goddess: Hey PW, Suck on This!
Publisher’s Weekly recently came out with a list of the Best Books of 2009 and not a single woman author is on it. It’s not that women aren’t writing. It’s not that women aren’t writing anything of merit. It’s that women’s voices are continuing to be silenced; that our experience continues to go unrecognized.
The Sexist: Sexist Beatdown: Megan Fox’s Fake Bodies Find Their Voice
Megan Fox, everyone’s least-favorite super-hot chick, gets the New York Times Magazine treatment this week. We all know Megan Fox as that hot sassy vixen who claims to be female-empowered (“I would eat Robert Pattinson”) as she poses in wet bikinis for men’s magazines. And we know that that combination, uh, usually doesn’t go over so well among feminists. But here’s where things get trippy, you guys: Like, is it all an act? And what does it all mean?
No boobs for you!
Posted on: September 21, 2009
This post is cross posted with the permission of RosieRed23 of Spare Candy. RosieRed23 is a feminist and a liberal who lives in Ohio, where being either of those isn’t usually received well. She follows politics, tries to stay up on pop culture, loves reading and live music, and gets through each day with hope and lots of coffee. You can also find her on Twitter as @rosiered23.
Hey, have you heard that Megan Fox has a new movie coming out?! Yeah, it’s called Jennifer’s Body, but you probably won’t go see it because Fox doesn’t show her boobs in it, so forget I said anything.
That’s pretty much the gist of this (oldish) Cinema Blend article that I came across last night:
According to FilmGecko the latest rumor surrounding the movie is that this topless scene, the only real selling point of the movie unless you are a die-hard Diable Cody fan (Are you? Really??), has been cut from the final print. Are the producers attempting actual live movie hari-kiri? Has Megan Fox suddenly come over all shy? This move makes no sense from a marketing point of view because at worst it’s better to be known as “the movie where Megan Fox shows the goods” than to be “the Diable Cody vampire flick nobody saw.” Presumably on a more practical plain they’re aiming for that predictable and, to be frank tiresome, PG-13 theatrical/Unrated-DVD switch-back to boost sales.
Stop editing for content Hollywood in your slimy manipulative attempts to boost sales. Boobs sell too! Keep them in! Or… should that be, keep them out, so to speak.
Note to this guy: You don’t have any actual right to see Megan Fox’s boobs, okay? So stop acting like you do, and poor Hollywood has stifled this “right” of yours. (And note that it’s bad to take boobs out of a movie and add them back in on the DVD to boost sales, but it is not bad to put boobs in a movie to make money on the movie.) I’m surprised Fox’s kiss with Amanda Seyfried isn’t enough for this guy, to be honest.
And then there’s this absolutely horrendous headling (and story) in the New York Post a couple weeks ago:
Megan Fox’s nipples sadly still underwraps
The first sentence:
“Last May it looked like foxhounds all across this great globe would finally be able to lay their eyes on the prize: Megan Fox’s bare breasts.”
Hey Jarett Wieselman, Fox’s boobs, or any other woman’s boobs for that matter, are not a “prize” you get to win. Ugh.
Nudity can add a whole other, meaningful layer to movies. I think we can all agree on that. But this is a scenario I have never, ever EVER understood, and I suppose I never will: the fascination with gratuitous nudity in movies or TV shows. But it’s not just any nudity; no one talks about som no-name actress who shows her boobs in an indiem movie. It’s celebrity nudity. It’s Megan Fox nude, or Halle Berry nume (Swordfish, anyone?), or Angelina Jolie nude (remember all the buzz about her nude scene in Beowulf, which wasn’t true, and makes no sense anyway since she’s been nude in movies a number of times before that), or Anna Paquin in True Blood, or whichever Star of the Day is exposing, especially if it’s the first time she has done so. I understand people are curious, but the countless online discussions about whether Megan Fox will show her goods in Jennifer’s Body go way beyond curiosity and reach a certain feverishly obsessed level that isn’t healthy for anyone involved.
Plus, are you really going to a movie just to see someone’s boobs? Even if you hate everything else you know about the movie, you’re still going? As in, no way would you see the movie unless it had SoandSo’s boobs in it? If you are so desperate or excited (both?) to see someone’s boobs that you have said yes to this — and are, in fact, a grown man — may I suggest counseling? Or, you know, waiting a day or two when said boobs will be available for viewing online? And would you mind keeping your fascination to yourself, while you’re at it?
I don’t know if Jennifer’s Body will be good, okay, bad, whatever. Maybe Bust’s review is right: “this film is so radically and refreshingly both funny and scary for a female perspective, the boys simply don’t know what to do with it.” I haven’t seen the movie, and probably won’t until it’s on DVD or cable. I know a lot of people will go solely because Megan Fox is in it. That’s fine, I get that. What I wonder is how many people would have gone if only her boobs were in it, too. (I probably don’t really want to know the answer to that question.)
For the record, Fox has said she won’t do a nude scene on film. And judging by how many people are demanding she do, I can’t blame her. But if she ever does do a nude scene, I hope it’s her choice, and not pressure to do so. She certainly doesn’t owe her fans a glimpse of her naked body, that’s for sure.
I’m not the biggest fan of Megan Fox. But I hate to say it, she is starting to grow on me. However, this is only because she gets a lot of criticism from Hollywood for not being the silent pretty girl that she is supposed to be. The media attacks her because she says what’s on her mind and she’s not this silent hot girl that a lot of young actresses are nowadays.
While I don’t know if I agree with her statements about how she uses her hot-ness to her advantage, she knows what she’s doing, she knows how Hollywood works, and she’s not afraid to speak up about it.
In a new post at Women & Hollywood, Melissa looks at the letter that anonymous crew members on Transformers wrote to Megan Fox because of some statements that she made about the film’s director, Michael Bay. Now, Megan Fox’s statements about Bay were a little harsh, but Bay didn’t seem phased by it and has spoken out against this letter from the crew members. Basically in this letter, the crew members called Fox “dumb as a rock” and a bitch.
While I do not know Megan Fox personally, so I cannot speak to the validity of these statements, it seemed entirely unnecessary and just another part of Hollywood and the media’s hatred of Megan Fox for being outspoken. I think that Fox has proven that she is not “dumb as a rock” from earlier statements. She knows what she’s doing. She knows that she is playing up her sexuality in order to “make it” in Hollywood. And she’s not ashamed of it. While I certainly don’t agree with all of her choices and have big problems with some of the roles that she chooses (cough, Transformers, cough), I can respect her decisions to do this, especially since she calls people out for being jerks and speaks to the use of sexuality by Hollywood.
And when I said earlier that she is starting to grow on me, this is what I meant: I’m still not a big fan of her as an actress. I don’t think she’s that great of an actress and I think that in some (or most) of the roles, she is just meant to be pretty and not much else (I am anxious to see her in Jennifer’s Body; I’ve heard mixed reviews of her from different sources, but I’m not sure when I’m going to get the chance to see it). But as a person (that we see through the media’s lens), she is starting to grow on me. I like that she talks about Michael Bay being a sexist jerk (even if it is kind of a fun back and forth for Fox and Bay). I like that she talks about the use of sexuality by Hollywood, that Hollywood doesn’t respect women for their talent, but rather for their looks.
This Week in Blogs: August 2 – 8
Posted on: August 9, 2009
My has this been an eventful week. On the good news, Judge Sotomayor was finally confirmed to be a justice on the Supreme Court. A definite piece of history. Then there were the misogynistic and racist shooting in Pittsburgh. Horrific. And the loss of one of my favorite 80s icons, John Hughes. Bloggers have been busy this week, reporting and analyzing this news as well as creating fantastic blog posts. Honestly, posts from everywhere this week were fantastic (not that they aren’t always). I had a hard time choosing posts to feature here. The list is especially long this week, but these are some really great posts, so make sure to read through them! And leave links to what you have been writing and reading this week!
50 Books for Problematic Times – Deeply Problematic
There has also been some other great things going on at Deeply Problematic this week, so I suggest that you just go on over there and read through her posts. If I had to pick one to display here, I guess I would pick her feminist defense of Megan Fox. But seriously, just go over there
Movie Posters: A Bitch Flicks Verbal Beatdown – Bitch Flicks
Stephanie R looks at how women are represented in movie posters.
Am I a”good woman”? – Choice Campus Blog
Ellen asks what it means to be a “good woman” and why people can’t just be “good people.”
Girl Politics – Small Strokes
A new series examining why girls (and women) often “turn on” the most successful one of their peers.
The 20 Life-Changing Lessons in September’s Cosmopolitan – Glossed Over
What you can learn from reading Cosmo.
Esquire Writer Explains It’s Okay To Watch Chick Flicks – Jezebel
While I have objections to the term “chick flicks,” do you think that men can enjoy them? Esquire and Jezebel do!
Race and the White Man – Womanist Musings
All about racism
Breastfeeding doll will lead to horny 5 year olds, pregnancy – Feministing
Because about caring for a baby can lead to 5 year olds having sex. Have these people ever played with a doll, that’s what they’re all about.
EWW! Is That Period Blood? – Jump Off the Bridge
About the creation and beauty that can come from menstrual blood.
Another magazine another photoshopped woman – Feministe
Self magazine photoshopped Kelly Clarkson to make her more skinny.
On Hollywood’s Strong, Self-Hating Women – NPR
Strong business women in movies still hate themselves because they are unsuccessful in their love lives. Heaven forbid a woman succeed in business and be happy in her personal life.
Once more with feeling: Media Must Report Gender Motivation for Mass Shootings – WIMN’s Voices
Some more on the misogynistic shooting in Pittsburgh.
Who’s your favorite John Hughes heroine? – Salon Broadsheet
Pretty self-explanatory and and read through her posts.
Books for the Anti-Princess Girl-Feminist – Bitch Blogs
A list of children’s books for the feminist-minded girls.
New Hosts for At the Movies – Another Couple of Guys – Women & Hollywood
Why is that movie critics are generally male? Women know stuff about movies too!
A red band trailer for the movie “Jennifer’s Body” was recently released and a lot of people are talking. This movie is written by Diablo Cody (yes, Juno fans, Diablo Cody), directed by Karyn Kusama, and the two leads are played by Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried (that’s right, two female leads).
I have to admit, I can’t stop watching this trailer. I’m really intrigued by it. Mainly because I can’t decide how women are being portrayed. But also because in all stages of making the movie, amazing women were involved.
Now, I have some problems with Megan Fox and the characters she plays…and I’m not the only one. Her character in “Jennifer’s Body” has some interesting implications. Basically, Jennifer (Fox) is high school cheerleader who is possessed by a demon and starts killing the guys in her high school, by what seems like sexually provoking them. This is an interesting concept to me. I can’t decide if her killing of these guys is a commentary on the patriarchal view of female sexuality or if the movie is just going to play into the normal sexist horror movie format.
Sady at Tiger Beatdown comments that…
THE SUBVERSIVE CRITIQUE OF PATRIARCHAL SEXUALITY starts, in this trailer, right around the point when Naked Megan Fox, Professional Hot Lady, extends her mouth to about five times its natural size and eats a dude with it. Because: female sexual desirability is simultaneously prized and demonized. Female appetites, sexual or otherwise, are unilaterally feared and shamed.
I’m right there with you. This movie very well could be commentary on the fear of female sexual empowerment in our society. But I’m still kind of weary. Honestly, mainly because it’s Megan Fox and she’s hyper-sexualized…again. Is this just another excuse to see her in skimpy clothes and even…gasp…naked? Or is she using her sexuality to prove a point about patriarchal society? (note: yes, I realize it is not actually Megan Fox making these decisions, it’s the writer and director…it’s just easier in the terms of this post to place the agency on the character Megan Fox plays.)
Bitch magazine, like me, is still a little torn, but it seems like they are leaning toward the anti-feminist side. In their anti-feminist column, they have:
– Appears to be a vehicle to allow Megan Fox to flash her bod and be ogled by horndogs
– Makes women look like either femme fatale crazy killers (Fox) or uber-nerds (sorry Amanda Seyfried, you are really great but the beanie and glasses indicate that your character is supposed to be a dork)
– According to the plot synopsis, looks like this might be another attempt by Hollywood to punish women for liking sex by turning them into demons, putting them in insane asylums, and murdering them
Also some good points.
I think that it’s hard to determine exactly how this movie is going to turn out from one trailer. And it can be interpreted many ways by different people. As we can see, Tiger Beatdown and Bitch used Jennifer’s killing of men by sexually provoking them as both a positive (commentary on fear of sexuality) and a negative (punishment for sex).
I love that Amanda Seyfried is playing the protagonist. Not only is it a woman protagonist in a horror movie (not unheard of, but pretty uncommon), but I can’t wait to see her kick Megan Fox’s ass (I’m just hoping this happens).
And can we just pause on the “I go both ways” comment at the end of the trailer
for a moment? Seriously? I don’t even know how to respond. I feel like this comment falls in the anti-feminist category. It’s pretty much there to appeal to some men’s lesbian fantasies. And it pokes fun at bi-sexualtiy and lesbianism. Not cool.
So what do you think? This movie is made by and stars great (eh, Megan Fox, maybe) women, but is that all it needs to be feminist? The jury seems to be out on how to interpret it. I guess we’ll just have to wait for more trailers and until the movie comes out. I’m sure there will be more great commentary as we get closer to its release date.
And a couple of side notes that don’t really pertain to this specific conversation:
-LOVE the music in the trailer!
-I’m really happy Adam Brody is in this movie. I love him and have missed his acting.
-I also really like how the poster for “Jennifer’s Body” (see above) is eerily similar to the posters for “True Blood”
-The first time I watched the trailer I laughed out load at the “I’m killing boys” comment. Haven’t decided how it fits into the feminism argument, but it was funny.
Where's the Empowerment?
Posted on: June 30, 2009
- In: Feminism | Pop Culture
- 1 Comment
Something I have been thinking about lately is the female empowerment (or lack there of) in young Hollywood. Looking around at the young women singers and actresses, there aren’t a lot of good examples of empowerment, even though they might like to think so.
As I have discussed earlier, Megan Fox is becoming increasingly known as a sex symbol. Fox herself finds being a sex symbol empowering. This Us Magazine article says,
Megan Fox doesn’t mind that she’s viewed as a sex symbol.
“I think it’s wonderful. I didn’t decide I’m gonna be an actress cause I wanna be respected for how I play chess,” she tells Entertainment Tonight. “Part of Hollywood is being perceived as attractive.”
While Fox may be ok with her sex symbol status, what kind of example is this setting for all of the teenage girls and young women that idolize her? According to Fox, the only way to be valued in Hollywood (and society) is to be attractive. You cannot be valued for your talent. Is this empowerment? Being valued just for your looks?
Another prominent example is the music icon Lady Gaga. She’s all about sexual empowerment, as she calls it, but is this a beneficial form of empowerment? Lady Gaga’s lyrics are all about sex and her taking control. While this may be great, Lady Gaga is not necessarily setting a good example. In an Entertainment Weekly article, Lady Gaga describes her lyrics as, “sexually empowering women.”
But Lady GaGa is not a feminist. ”I think it’s great to be a sexy, beautiful woman who can f— her man after she makes him dinner,” she says. ”There’s a stigma around feminism that’s a little bit man-hating. And I don’t promote hatred, ever. That’s not to say that I don’t appreciate women who feel that way. I’ve got a lot of gay women friends that are like, ‘Put your clothes on.’ People just have different views about it. I’m not wrong. I’m free. And if it’s wrong to be free, then I don’t want to be right. Things are changing. We’ve got a black president, people.”
What are these things that Lady Gaga says are changing? Women being valued for purely for their sexuality? I don’t think that’s anything new (see Jessica Valenti’s book, The Purity Myth). 
And what is her deal with feminism? She seems to be greatly misinformed if she thinks feminism is all about man-hating. There are many things about this quote that bother me (like why is it important that her gay women friends tell her to put clothes on?), but it seems clear that Lady Gaga’s form of empowerment is all about valuing women purely for their sexuality.
Just look at her lyrics. The song “Love Game” centers around her wanting to “take a ride on your disco stick.” And “Poker Face” declares “and baby when it’s love if it’s not rough it isn’t fun.” And that’s only a small selection of her lyrics.
The female empowerment that seems to be coming through in young Hollywood is the “empowerment” of sexuality, where these “role models” are valued purely for their looks and sexual knowledge (or perceived sexual knowledge).
What does this form of “empowerment” say to teenage girls and young women? The message that I get is that you have to be attractive to do anything in life and be valued in any way at all. What about the majority of teenage girls that have body image issues that don’t see themselves as attractive? These teenage girls will think that they are not valued by society because they do not see themselves as attractive (even if they are).
I guess I should also address what I see as empowerment. To me, empowerment is about being a strong, successful (in a way that the woman herself is proud of what she’s done), confident woman. Being able to take care of oneself and knowing what you want in your life.
Now, you may ask: if empowerment is partly about a woman knowing what she wants in life, can’t being valued for your sexuality be empowering if that’s what the woman wants? Empowerment can definitely be about sexuality. But when empowerment becomes solely about one’s sexuality and valuing someone purely for their sexuality, then we have a problem. Seeing sexuality as the root of empowerment devalues women because women are so much more than their sexuality. Empowered women are strong, successful and confident, as well as sexually empowered.
As I was writing this, I was trying to think of a woman in young Hollywood that would be a good example of empowerment, but I could not think of one off the top of my head (what does that say about young Hollywood?). Does anyone have any examples of young singers, actresses, etc. that could be seen as an empowering example for girls and women?
I saw “Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen” for the second time last night when I took my neighbors to see it. I was interested in seeing it again not only because I like action movies but also because something about it bothered me the first time. I thought that seeing it a second time would help me get past the explosions and loud noises to help me better understand what bothered me about it the first time.
It was obvious, even the first time, that there were racial stereotypes (even though Michael Bay, the director, claims it’s just comedic relief) and it was also obvious that Megan Fox’s character didn’t really serve a whole lot of purpose, at least not to me.
I’m not going to talk too much about the racial stereotypes, there has been a lot of discussion of that (see Newsday and Valley24 – for a more positive review of the movie). What I do want to talk about is the obsolete character of Mikaela Banes, played by Megan Fox.
To me, it seems like the only thing that Fox seems good at in this movie is having pouty lips and wearing low cut shirts while running in slow motion and falling cleavage first in front of the 
camera. And the main storyline surrounding Mikaela Banes is her trying to get Sam (Shia LaBeouf) to tell her that he loves her.
The first time she tries to get him to say those three words she changes into a white dress to look like the hot, innocent girl. Throughout the movie, she brings this up numerous times and threatens to leave him if he doesn’t say it. The message that I got out of this is that to get boys to love you, you have to look hot and wear low cut shirts and very high heels and this is your whole purpose in life. You can’t contribute meaningfully to saving the world from killer robots, you just have to get the guy to want you. What kind of message is this sending to the teenage (and younger) boys and girls that are populating the theaters in the thousands (or more, I don’t know exactly)?
When I saw this last night, I took four children (1 girl and 3 boys) all under the age of 12. I didn’t know what to tell them when they asked why I didn’t like Megan Fox’s character. Do I tell them that she’s only there as a sexual object whose only purpose is to have teenage boys stare at her for hours on end (and Fox likes it that way)? What I did end up telling them was that she was setting a bad example for women and teenage girls. But they didn’t really understand what I meant.
How do we talk to children (especially ones that aren’t your own, in my case) about what Megan Fox and her character mean for women? How do we expect these children to grow up to have healthy relationships if they keep seeing these types of ones in the media where girl is desperate to be desired and the guy refuses to say “I love you” until the girl says it first? Not to mention how do you discuss the racial stereotypes of the Transformers with them?
Maybe it’s just me or the fact that these children aren’t my own (I don’t want to step on the toes of their parents), but it was a really awkward moment for me when they asked why I didn’t like Megan Fox. If they don’t understand why this character is harmful to women, what does that mean for them when they grow up?
Fighting with the Sky 