Can Feminism and Box Office Mix?

by Melissa Silverstein on September 22, 2009

in Box Office

JENNIFER'S BODYSo Jennifer’s Body tanked at the box office.  From what I can tell the word of mouth among women is way better than the word of mouth among men.  Vic Holtreman at Screen Rant took a unscientific look at the breakdown of the what reviewer thought and found that women liked the film much better than men.

There were many more reviews by men (77) than women (26). The majority of these were culled from the Rotten Tomatoes site, and I included a few (from both sides) from reviewers I know who are not part of the R/T scoring system.

Here’s the breakdown:

  • Male movie reviewers: 39% liked it, 61% disliked it.
  • Female movie reviewers: 54% liked it, 46% disliked it.
  • Maybe women — especially young women — will find this film in the coming weeks but most probably it will become one of those movies that becomes a hit when everyone has it at home.

    Why did the movie do poorly?  Who knows?  Everyone is speculating and you can read the wrap up from Spout Blog here.   I think that the studio was afraid that if they played up the feminist/girl power angle they would turn off all the first weekend boys who they were trying to get into the theatre to see Megan Fox because they were titillated with a same sex kiss.  I guess that the fan boys were not interested in Megan Fox.  Do we really believe they went to see Transformers for her?  They really don’t seem interested in movies that are women centric at all.  I remember before Twilight opened it was the women who were excited, the guys indifferent.

    The press on Diablo Cody, Karyn Kusama and especially Megan Fox has been pretty negative even from some feminists.  I’m not saying feminists all need to march to the same drummer, and I know Fox flaunts her looks and has created a persona that can be a big turn off to feminists, but they need to be appreciated by feminists because they are all outspoken women in Hollywood and that rankles feathers.

    When women tank at the box office they suffer way more than men.  Fox is already being written off, people are happy that Diablo got put in her place (even though Toni Colette won a best actress Emmy for her show The United States of Tara) and Kusama one of the only women who directs action films will have a harder time getting her next gig made.

    Yet Brandon Camp who co-wrote and directed Love Happens which also tanked last weekend is not receiving the same post-mortem as Jennifer’s Body.  (According to imdb we has both writing and directing projects in the pipeline.)  I have seen both films and Love Happens was one of the worst films I’ve seen in a while.  The bottom line to me is that studios that are making movies about women and girls need to figure out a way to step up and market to them and get them into the theatres. We buy tickets and if we are excited and engaged we will go and see it.  If you are afraid and mix the message then you turn off the men and the women.

    Here is one of the best takes I have read on the film from ScarletScribe aka Genevieve:

    And why don’t they understand the film? Because it’s one of the very few honest-to-goodness feminist films out there — and more so then being feminist, it’s one of the few films that views things from a female lens…For once we have a story with female main characters who aren’t obsessing about, fighting over, or bitching about boys every five minutes. Jennifer’s Body is about women and how they relate to each other, the horror moments are there for style and allegory, but at its heart the movie is about two girls whose own toxic friendship is eating them both alive.

    In recounting this tale, Jennifer’s Body is packed with humor, one-liners, great moments of cheesy horror, and some poignant moments between Needy and Jennifer that will resonate with the female audience more than males. And that’s the problem.

    Actually, no, that’s not the problem. That’s what makes the movie so great. The problem is that many audience members refuse to try to understand Jennifer’s Body and are subsequently calling it a failure because of that. For decades women have lived in a male-dominated world of cinema and have had to take things at face value but, thankfully, have found their understanding of men the better for it. How many male-bonding movies and buddy-comedies haven’t we watched with silent nods of “Oh, so that’s how guys interact when we’re not around. Good to know and I’m happy for that peek into something I normally wouldn’t see.”

    Here are some other worthy links on the topic:

    Rallying the Troops for ‘Jennifer’s Body‘ (Cinematical)

    Jennifer’s Body and the Feminists who Hate It (Girl Drive)

    Share

    { 20 comments… read them below or add one }

    Michelle September 22, 2009 at 10:44 AM

    I think the bigger questions are; was it marketed properly and is it a good movie?

    Allison September 22, 2009 at 11:54 AM

    The problem is that it was marketed to boys, not women. So the trailer played up Megan Fox being semi-naked and her and Amanda Seyfried kissing and the gore factor. So the girls and women stayed away.

    Also, the blog Adventures of a Young Feminist has an interesting post about how writers at Cinematical and the NY Post were disappointed that Fox wasn’t topless in the film, since, according to these men, her being topless should have been a main selling point of the movie. A selling point for whom? Why, teenage boys of course!

    Scott Mendelson September 22, 2009 at 12:09 PM

    I’ve written a bit in the past about how male critics often recoil at films dealing female fantasy escapism, and this seems to be another case of just that (I’ll definitely be linking to this for a future piece). Thanks for doing the math on this one. But yes, the core problem is that 20th Century Fox sold a feminist fable in a way that directly alienated girls and women while failing to entice boys and men. That left them an audience of just people who see any horror film coming down the pike.

    merryn smith September 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM

    I agree with some of the comments here about films that feature women protagonists but do not reflect the lives of women or girls or their interests and hence alienate them. It’s same the reason why women don’t go to films with Scarlet Johansen in them. You cannot expect ‘feminists’ to save films, or any other cultural products, because women created them or star in them if the films don’t speak to women at all. You always feel bad for young women who are caught up in the sex object trap of wanting to be taken seriously and yet knowing that without their object appeal they would fade into obscurity. But you can’t expect women (and feminists) to provide sympathy support as this would only further the use and abuse of young women in public media.

    Sarah September 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM

    It’s been fairly established in more “with it” reviewers that films about toxic female relationships with some sort of tinge of feminism to them tend to see success as cult films (Heathers, Ginger Snaps), so perhaps Jennifer’s Body will do well on DVD or as an eventual midnight movie. I know that doesn’t gel with the point of this blog, but a lot of movies tend to see success in DVD and later TV where they didn’t theatrically.

    Yeah, I agree it wasn’t marketed well. I read on Movieline that there was hardly any advertising done in NYC. The commercials I saw for it weren’t exactly compelling, and I think the most recent commercial may have spoiled the ending as well. Hot girls making out is pretty played out at this point to me.

    There’s also a bit of horror fatigue going on as well, with a new, usually not great looking horror being released just about every week in this past month. I love horror, but I haven’t seen any of the new releases because even if I get somewhat excited for them, if I don’t have the time to see them opening weekend and going to the movies tends to fall down the priority list on subsequent weekends.

    I also think it’s a travesty that the marketers never played the Hole song the film was named after in the commercials. Maybe that could’ve brought out the more nostalgic crowd. (Joking, sort of).

    CParis September 22, 2009 at 2:39 PM

    Yet Brandon Camp who co-wrote and directed Love Happens which also tanked last weekend is not receiving the same post-mortem as Jennifer’s Body.

    I think there were substantially higher expectations for “Jennifer’s Body”. Lots of advance press on Fox and Cody, magazine covers, etc. “Love Happens” seemed to have been flying under the randar, and was generally acknowledged to be pretty crappy even before the release.
    The tough thing is that many male directors are able to get another deal even when their films are generally regarding as a $10.50 turd.

    Kate September 22, 2009 at 3:18 PM

    It seemed to be marketed as either “Gorgeous young women making out!” to get the guys to the theater (which would not attract me) or “Men getting ripped to shreds– it’s a feminist’s fantasy!” (which, obviously, is even more offensive).

    I sure as shit was not feeling either scenario.

    Chris Evans September 22, 2009 at 3:49 PM

    “It seemed to be marketed as either “Gorgeous young women making out!” to get the guys to the theater (which would not attract me) or “Men getting ripped to shreds– it’s a feminist’s fantasy!” (which, obviously, is even more offensive).”

    Thank you. My thoughts exactly.

    d September 22, 2009 at 3:53 PM

    First, I think Scarlet Scribe got it partially right – here’s the part I had the biggest beef with:

    “Jennifer’s Body is about women and how they relate to each other, the horror moments are there for style and allegory, but at its heart the movie is about two girls whose own toxic friendship is eating them both alive.”

    Well, that’s virtually every film that has ever been, and certainly every ok to great film! Star Wars wasn’t about flying ships and playing with pseudo lasers, westerns aren’t about just ducking behind dusty shelters and trying to kill everyone with black hats on. And that’s no different in horror. Romero’s dead series was about the collapse of society (he highlights different things in different ones), Frankenstein was about the horrors and inhumanity of technology, and even ones like Psycho, or the now schlocky ones like the Nightmares are about mining the deep psychological ambiguities in life, among other things.

    So for Scarlett to play down the horror is also bad because you are minimizing one very real aspect in the film for another. At its heart it is a horror film, but horror films have to be about something, and this one is about a relationship between two girls. This is a horror movie. That’s how Cody wrote it. In an interview she said she just wanted to write a film she enjoyed in the genre she enjoyed.

    I think mix-genre movies, regardless of gender have tough times. I’ve heard this compared to Heathers, and it looks like that to me (didn’t see JB), and what genre is that? Or Beetlejuice? To use a more recent one, what about Firefly’s Serenity movie? Or the Burton produced 9, which looks like it might be having similar problems? The only successful one that immediately comes to mind is American Beauty, and I’ve even seen some people articulate that they didn’t quite think Ball pulled that mixed-genre one off as well. And frankly I don’t know if its the marketers or if its the audience who wants to keep the hot side hot and the cool side cool. But I wonder if the moment Cody wanted to mix horror with snarky humor not uttered by the villain before he kills someone was tentatively going to spell trouble.

    So I say all that, but they still didn’t quite market it as either a feminist film, or a horror film! There were very few horrific elements in the commercials, and the few they put in, I actually thought were cool (like Megan’s eyes glazing, and later when she opened her mouth wide and showed all her unnatural teeth). And in terms of market, why release it now? Couldn’t they have held off for a few weeks, and released it in October, when more people like to see horror films, since its around Halloween?

    But I was really angered by all the post-mortem talk! Really? First of all, its the first week, and haven’t all the pundits realized, if its a female-driven movie then you’re going to need to sit back a while to really see whether the thing has legs or not? Love Happens did 8 million and change, and the top grossing movies was only about 30 million? The film only cost 16 mill to make! So even if it closed shop now, and went straight to dvd, they’ll at least break even, if not score a profit like others have said.

    So it just seems more than ridiculous to me, and quite frankly, as Melissa says, sexist to do this. How can Megan Fox’s career be over if this is her first leading role!? She’s 23 for crying out loud, that is far from washed up, in real terms, and it does make me sick that they would not only say it, but wish it on her because why? Because she amps up her sexiness, and uses shock value? Howard Stern & Rush Limbaugh use shock value to maintain quite healthy careers (unfortunately). If they’re around, then I certainly want Fox around too. Were any of the top actors now (exceptions aside, because there will always be some) who were able to open films right out the box, so young in their career?

    And if Fox annoys me, Cody just absolutely baffles me. I think its awesome that people even know her name, considering that screenwriters in general are low people on the totem pole. They generally have little to no pull unless they are a hyphenate, have celebrity elsewhere (like an actor or novelist), or are super-experienced. And there are plenty of incredibly talented, experienced screenwriters working these days, but they are usually not on the interview circuit. So the fact that people have heard of her makes me happy, although the fact that it could be for her previous life pursuits make me less than. But so what if she is eccentric and over the top herself – how is that any different from others, other than her gender?

    I guess for me the question is can anyone ever truly judge a film impartially? And if you can’t, can you tell where you veer? Because there has to be a difference between saying “I don’t like the film” and “it’s a bad film”. Which is why, especially with films I enjoy, I want to know why the person thinks the way they do.

    And this is where I agree with the bloggers who say many men don’t get it. Take Megan looking scary – does she fail to scare because her acting sucks? Or does she fail because the effects sucked (something more impartial)? Or, does she fail to scare because as a female she is naturally viewed as less threatening by guys in general? I’ve come to believe that good acing is part the actor, but also whatever the viewer thinks. Many women in films infuriate me because I don’t think they act like humans, let alone female, and yet some of the guys I’ve griped to about this thought it was perfectly fine and could cite at least one woman who did it. Also, I have gotten some guys to admit that they’d be fine with a character’s behavior if the person was male, but being a female made it unbelievable to them.

    And that’s what I can’t tell through all the back and fourth on JB. Was this a really good movie that is getting panned because it seems to appeal to females more than males? Or… is it a really bad film, that has gender elements so lacking that it elevates the quality for a woman in a way it wouldn’t for a man? I know I myself will suffer through a bad film for what my soul is literally starving for: what I would consider good female portrayals. ANd I can’t help but look at all the crappy action films that have been done over the years, and think many guys feel similarly. :p

    Wow, I’m thinking of so much now, but I’ll stop after this. It also can’t just be about the commercial. I think the audience has some culpability. This isn’t like decades ago where we had to rely solely on commercials and posters for our info. Trailers are easily available these days, and are closer in content to what the films are about. Couldn’t anyone have just viewed the trailer online, or read some interview clips or something? If Cody and Fox had heightened publicity, then was anyone listening to them when they talked about the film?

    The marketers can make a film look great or terrible! And if we’re waiting on marketing to be representative before we support what we want to support, we will be waiting a very long time. I know I would have probably blown it off, but when I heard Kusama and Cody were involved, then I knew whatever it would be, even if it would be bad, would not be like any of the recent horror flicks to come our way.

    And in speaking of horror, here’s a controversial question, do females even like horror? Ebert likened this to Twilight, and at first I didn’t think it fit. But it does in one very interesting way: both films were written, directed by women with the main protagonist a female as well. And it’s interesting how that receives a lot of love, and this one not so much. There are obvious differences, but the big one does seem to be the violence quotient. When Hardwicke wanted to amp up the action for the film, a lot of the fan stuff I read online disapproved. And it was quite watered-down for a vampire film.

    I keep hearing that women like horror films as much as guys, but it doesn’t gel at all with my personal experience. Or do women simply like to watch horror movies with men? And if so, well, then we’d have to solve that problem first if it’s the case.

    OK, one more thing! :P But maybe it was too much? Strong female protagonists, helmed by women, in a movie genre typically generated by to appeal to men. It would probably have to be awesome, or else it would be panned – and let’s not add the individual expectations of Fox and Cody. The fact that it can be so idiosyncratic, with all this stuff heaped on its shoulders seems impressive.

    Kim September 22, 2009 at 6:07 PM

    “It seemed to be marketed as either “Gorgeous young women making out!” to get the guys to the theater (which would not attract me) or “Men getting ripped to shreds– it’s a feminist’s fantasy!” (which, obviously, is even more offensive).”

    Thirded. Plus, Diablo Cody’s feminism and mine don’t exactly get along – half the time I’m like yay! and the other half I’m horrified. But this post is making me think I ought to go ahead and vote with my dollars and check it out anyways.

    Karen September 22, 2009 at 8:22 PM

    I really enjoyed Jennifer’s Body! I usually avoid straight-up horror films but I like the horror/comedy sub-genre and it succeeded in that category. The marketing was definitely targeted toward guys. I wish they would have kept the kissing scene out of the trailer because it screamed “this movie is for teen boys.” That hype is probably what turned a lot of women off. But I suggest people go see it, it’s a fun film!

    Audrey September 22, 2009 at 9:43 PM

    First-I have to start off that I have not seen the movie yet, it was going to be the first movie that I reviewed for my new movie rview blog, but haven’t gotten to it yet. Secondly, I would have the say the reason I am dragging my feet to go see this movie is because I’m not a Megan Fox fan; although me not liking an actor/actress hasn’t stopped me from seeing a movie before, I just don’t really understand her purpose in film,period- this derived from the very first, and practically only time I’ve seen her act in “Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen” (not to mention 5, well tolerated, minutes of Transformers before I left the room to do other things I figure more important than watching a largely CGI coded venture of one of my favorite childhood cartoons). From what I saw in the many promos I watched on TV and the net to determine if this was the movie I was going to use as an opening review, her acting skills have not grown, though from reading her quotes, her ego has. Anyway, that is beside the point, I would say that Hollywood really did try to pull the movie off as a sexed-up thriller largely amped at boys. I read one of earlier the comments that said the movie wasn’t really promoted well, and I would have to agree. I have been seeing posters for this movie since late fall 2008… in NEW YORK! I live in Virginia and never saw a thing or heard a word about the movie until a month ago, I honestly thought it was one of those lost projects, or had to be pulled and re-written. Another angle on why it faired poorly- I suppose (knowing that I haven’t seen it yet) is because it was going up against the re-make of “Sorority Row” which came out a week earlier, but offered the more mindless and “oral-phallic fixation” under-toned killings of females, which, I believe, allures more teenage males than a movie about males being killed by a teenage female. Honestly, the promotion was the reason it did poorly from jump, maybe if they promo’d it for the “girl power” flick it was, then the turn out may have been different, with a different audience- but, to me, the movie was a total mystery not really making a point, or even being gimmicky and giving the audience a catchy line or seen they just had to go and see to fill the seats.

    P.S. I will still go to see the film, I like Amanda Seyfreid, and I do wish to be able to elaborate more from an informed point of view.

    Christy September 23, 2009 at 5:21 AM

    I went to go see it. It was feminist, but it was also a little less zippy than I expected. You know, if women truly progress in the industry, a good sign would be that Cody could continue to make films, even after a non-super hit. And I saw that in the news today that she is working on Sweet Valley High.

    I wrote in The September posting below that I was shocked at how frozen Megan Fox’s face was from botox. To me, it is a feminist issue that she openly gets so much botox at 23, and is beaten by the critics who say she can’t act and is “flat.”

    In the September Issue documentary, you see all these top Vogue editors, and their faces are far more expressive than Megan’s. She has a face for a pinup, but in acting…here’s Fox screaming for her life and no movement of the forehead. Here’s Fox being fierce and angry with all the teeth and no movement of the forehead. Here’s Fox trying to argue or to be intense…same expression above the nose line. How can she emote being so botoxed up? And if it is demanded of young actresses who are supposed to be the sexy, how can they put her in a no-win, evaluating her acting?

    d September 23, 2009 at 12:54 PM

    I had no idea she was botoxing (actually I don’t know too much about fox’s personal life, etc.)…that’s truly tragic. I feel like I am so numbed by it that I don’t notice it until someone looks radically different. I forgot what film I was watching but it starred an older female actor, and it was so refreshing to see actually expressions on her face beause I could see the lines and the wrinkles. She felt so human to me.

    I hope she stops…immediately.

    Michelle September 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM

    Here’s the thing for me, I want to be entertained by a well made film. I don’t want to be hit over the head with gender politics. I want the images to show me that life can be better and different without having to preach it. I have trouble seeing movies just because a woman made it, probably because I have a problem seeing movies that have heavy meanings. Look at the Women’s Film Festivals out there. Find one that will play a light comedy. It’s tough.

    Women need to get their message across while making entertaining movies and quite often, we don’t do that. More often than not, we hit people over the head with the message. And then, (this is what amazes me), we’re all surprised that it becomes a niche market film, only.

    I would greatly prefer a soft sell of the politics. I would think, preaching to the choir isn’t the goal. I would think the goal would be to reach out to men and show them that the system needs to be more equitable. And if that is the goal, then we need to get their butts in seats. And hard sell messages don’t do that.

    d September 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM

    I still am surprised – call me naive. Thinking about this subject, Taken comes to mind. I felt like it had EVERY stereotype in the book: the wicked ex/baby-mama, the innocent daughter who is too stupid to protect her own worth & virginity, the unchaste woman who gets her come-uppance, not to mention other random stereotypes like the ineffectual wealthy guy, foreigners as evil/slash expendable. It’s been a while since I saw the film, but I could point out more if I saw it again. And my brother loved this film! That’s in fact why I saw it. I wanted to share in something he enjoyed, and it clearly seemed like he wanted company to re-watch it. But it was just this naked, uber celebration of all things masculine and manly. I don’t know if he would admit it, but I think he especially enjoyed it because of that. There was nothing subtle about it.

    So in the same token, I would think that he, or any guy would just watch a movie I would like to watch because it has a decent story, and its something I enjoy. Unfortunately being the younger sis, I don’t have as much sway over him in terms of his movie viewing (though I try – actually I think my mom has more), but just like I would go with a guy to see Fast & The Furious, I would expect him to go see SATC II.

    I just don’t see why we can’t have both. Why can’t there be subtle movies about feminism, and over-the-top stories about feminism, just like we have about all kinds of subjects and political ideals.

    And since we’re talking about Karyn Kusama, since she made this one, Aeon Flux was pretty subtle. At its heart, feminism is just equal rights and opportunity for women right? So there, you just had a cool, sleek film that would appeal to a feminist sensibility: deep friendships w/ female (it DEFINITELY passes the test), and a woman who could rip it up as well if not better than many of the men, who wasn’t defined first by being female. And there’s gunplay and stuff blows up. :)

    And I wonder too – very random hypothesis – if you have to make it almost uber feminist, or else it gets corrupted before it even hits the screen. Things that float too close to the middle may have a tendency to get re-envisioned in a male light (like the recent character in Whiteout, where a character is changed to male. It’s fine, but then that naturally offed the gender subplot about the two being the sole females in Antarctica that was in the graphic novel).

    Christy September 23, 2009 at 5:49 PM

    I wonder sometimes whether women get labeled with “hitting over the head.” If there are stories about inequities in race or class, we call that commentary by film, “important” or “transforming.” If a woman deals head on and smartly with girl culture, patriarchy, power issues, some people pick at it as being “too.” Like a nice woman would not be “too.” Like we all know that there is racism and sexism and even, hatred for women who take up space (and whose foreheads move), but, geeze, don’t point it out through plot! You nearly HAVE to do it in horror or sci fi or fantasy.

    I wanted Jennifer’s Body to go even further than it did with it’s sharpness, but it is still a good movie, interesting and clearly, set up for a sequel or series if it wanted to go that way. I think there is a possession by a demon that “allowed” women to not take crap and that is actually a very old trope. I would love it if women were allowed to be more than zombies and Jennifer’s Body is about ironically breaking out of that (by demon possession) and the joys and problems with incredible power. Megan Fox does the big no-no by directly commenting on her sexual power in the press. Young women are supposed to have it, but be insecure. Fox questions men’s reactions to her, not her ability to use it, which is backwards to society. Women are supposed to be blamed for men’s reactions (and drape themselves), not men being questioned and blamed for stupid reactions. There’s a whole internet blame thing going on for Fox “refusing” a rose or Seth’s overtures on a talk show. You see, attractive women are never supposed to be in charge or question a man’s overtures, just worshipped while being demurely insecure themselves.

    There is a male viewpoint that is set as the “norm.” Margaret Cho once did a bit where she said she doesn’t talk about her period much in her act – considering how often it happens, and she bet if Richard Pryor had a period – he’d talk about it. And the “no expression” clause in many young actresses’ contracts where you are twenty and have to get botox….it’s beyond being young it’s being not allowed to look too serious, too passionate, show anger or protest while young male actors are allowed that. It’s only been in the last five years that the botox is creeping down so that girls aren’t seen to be “too.” I believe now that there are girls on Disney channel getting botox. Do we dare protest?

    There is a pervasive theme that women are not allowed to be seen if they move their foreheads (you don’t want to look stern or angry and scare the mens), if they are not perfect, seamless, smooth, hairless, not strident, not complaining, and not “hitting you over the head with it.” I think empowerful women can look you directly in the face and command, complain, show joy, show anger, be funny, and take up space without apology.

    Michelle September 24, 2009 at 11:19 AM

    I am not saying women cannot “look you directly in the face and command, complain, show joy, show anger, be funny, and take up space without apology.” What I am saying is that, for change to occur in society (and change often comes slowly) then we have to put more than women in the seats. The other thing is, we have to appeal to ALL women because making a movie where a small percentage of only half the population will see the movie, isn’t going to make the movie a success. And this is the film industry, with industry being the dominant word. Movies have to make money to beget more movies of the same ilk.

    And yes, there is obviously a double standard in regards to gender politics. That goes without saying, but it won’t change overnight. I use baseball as an example; you can be a homerun hitter with a lousy batting average or you can have a great average and chip away at the opposition with a hit and run ball. Hit and run ball wins championships. High strike out/home run ratios generally cost them.

    zygarch September 26, 2009 at 5:01 PM

    Saw Jennifer’s Body for the sheer reason I see just about everything. I actually DON’T see a lot of trailers as I don’t watch much TV AND DON’T voluntarily click on trailer links as I don’t want to a) be misled, b) want the movie spoiled for me by seeing all the “major moments” out of context.

    I LOVED Jennifer’s Body. Fun! Fun! Fun!

    Interesting how the only women laughing as hard I was, were the ones who were NOT with guys on dates. I actually felt, while watching, that many in the audience simply were’nt getting this picture. They didn’t know how to react. Poor guys.

    Totally one for the gals. (For a pleasant change.)
    Should do bang-up biz in DVD release.

    See it.

    Lady X September 26, 2009 at 6:25 PM

    I also saw it and thought it was good. Not great, but then what is, these days?

    Sad that there is so much hate going on currently about both Cody and the actress Fox. Believe it or not I know nothing about Megan Fox. I’ve “heard” that she is “dumb”, “stupid”, “an idiot” etc… and decided to spend 20 minutes last night online looking for evidence of this.

    For a twenty-something girl to have gotten as far as she has, I doubt seriously if she is lacking in the brains department. I didn’t find anything she has said (there are lists of her “quotable” bon mots and statements circulating) to be indicative of stupidity– but more of a young person’s inexperience at controlling her own PR– as well as– a female person speaking her opinion without pathological concern for how it might be “taken.” She also seems remarkable confident in both her appearance and her dramatic ability and has expressed a desire to actually prove the latter. This expression evidently gravely offended Michael Bay and his fans who believe she demonstrated an egregious lack of gratitude for having been cast in his Hasbro-toy-commercial-cum-artistic-masterpiece.

    I thought her performance in “Jennifer’s Body” was dead-on (no pun intended) for a possessed zombie killer chick. For someone playing a near-parody of how so many others see her, Fox plays it straight and believably. And I think she’s acting. Just MHO.

    Ever since my own experience of High School, I’ve ashamedly harbored the feeling that women can be their own worst enemies. What I mean is: who needs men as their enemy? Women do enough damage to each other. (A theory explored in the film of this discussion…)

    Take, for example, the poster with the distasteful preoccupation with Megan Fox and Botox: not once, not twice, but over and over this poster ruminates and grumbles about Megan Fox having no expression due to her having had Botox treatments. I’m not sure what evidence these claims are based upon, but really, does it even matter in the discussion of having better gender representation behind the scenes of filmmaking? Of wanting more visibility of women film directors and screen writers? Of needing better roles and more real/fleshed out characters for women performers in what is ostensibly the most significant and culturally influential art form in existence today?

    I say if Fox is a regular Botox user, then it worked perfectly for her in Jennifer’s Body. It was also conducive to her performance opposite toys in Transformers. If I see her in the next “Squid and the Whale” and she comes off as seeming too “plastic” for the role, then I’ll complain. Until then, she is free to look as lovely and young as… as she happens to be.

    Think about it the next time you are compelled to think or say something critical about another woman’s looks or statements or attempts at anything. Every time you stab another woman with your negativity and jealousy, you attack yourself and your ability to actually be seen, heard, and considered.

    Leave a Comment

    { 1 trackback }

    Previous post:

    Next post: