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.
Stewart started her career as an actress before she became tabloid fare. She first appeared opposite Jodie Foster in Panic Room when she was 11. She has been acting ever since. Most of the films she appeared in before Twilight were smaller, indie pics and she is still making indie films even in the wake of her being in one of the biggest movies of the year.
Fox started her career as a sex symbol wearing those tight short shorts as the pretty girlfriend running from peril in Transformers. Those big commercial movies (especially ones by Michael Bay) are notoriously horrible to women. They have very few lines and are just window dressing. Think of Liv Tyler in Armageddon and Kate Beckinsale in Pearl Harbor and you get my drift. That’s how she entered our world, that’s how we relate to her. But as Lynn Hirschberg writes in her profile, Fox and her team are trying to create a legitimate career for her beyond Transformers and that includes figuring out how to get girls to like her which is a really, really big problem.
Fox says:
“Girls think I’m a slut, and I’ve been in the same relationship since I was 18. The problem is, if they think you’re attractive, you’re either stupid or a whore or a dumb whore. The instinct among girls is to attack the jugular.”
That is probably true, but it was her and her handlers decision to a) not do another film in between Transformers where she took on a different type of role; and b) to cultivate the image of the sex siren to turn on boys and in turn make girls hate her. How fun is it for a girl to be on a date with a guy and see her on the big screen. I bet not too much fun. She didn’t care what girls thought of her before and now after seeing the scathing reception for Jennifer’s Body she has a seriously big problem. I think the problem goes way beyond her speaking her mind and flaunting her sexuality. Have we ever thought that maybe she just can’t act? Just because you are sexy in movies doesn’t mean you should have a long term acting career. I think its really disingenuous to blame girls and women for her problems when she has when she created them. Maybe she should try acting authentic and she might endear herself to some people.
Ironically, the opposite is true of Stewart. Girls like her. She’s one of them. Twilight would probably be a big hit even with different actors but she is beyond perfect for Bella and you gotta give Catherine Hardwicke some credit for that. The tabloids don’t leave her alone either and keep speculating that she is not only dating but is engaged to her co-star Robert Pattinson, but she doesn’t play the game. She seems quiet and uninterested in that world. She gets called moody, Fox gets called slutty.
“What really kills me — it really rips me up — is when people think I’m abrasive, inconsiderate or ungrateful because I don’t go outside in a bikini and wave to the paparazzi. Come on!”
I wonder what actually would happen if she posed in a bikini. Would she lose her good girl image? Would the public turn on her and treat her like Fox? Just looking at what these two young women have to go through makes me sad. Your damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Stewart is difficult because she doesn’t buy into the tabloidization of women, and Fox has bought into it too much so she is having a hard time getting free from it even if in real life she is nothing like the persona she has created.
But we’ve seen this all before. Remember Demi Moore and Meg Ryan? Demi Moore was vilified for her roles in Indecent Proposal and especially GI Jane. She could not get a gig after that. Meg Ryan was the girl next door who we all wanted to be until she actually made the mistake of showing that she was human in her much written about, short, relationship with Russell Crowe.
The bottom line is that we eat women for breakfast, lunch and dinner in this culture. Let’s all keep that in mind the next time we call someone a slut or petulant or ungrateful. As women we need to figure out how to be better to each other.
Media Vampires, Beware (NY Times)
The Self-Manufacture of Megan Fox (NY Times)
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
“The problem is, if they think you’re attractive, you’re either stupid or a whore or a dumb whore. The instinct among girls is to attack the jugular.”
- we saw that with Sarah Palin too, right? And are seeing that right now as well – if you’re pretty then OBVIOUSLY you’re so dumb.
Sarah Palin is a bad comparison. She was judged on the things she said. And the video is there to prove it. No misquotes.
There are a lot of pretty actresses who aren’t treated as if they are dumb. Add Amanda Seyfried, Evan Rachel Wood, Keira Knightly, and Ellen Page to the list started by Kristen Stewart.
Megan Fox needs to take responsibility for the image she helped craft.
Ad lastly, yes, women are their own worst enemies. I’ve heard it a number of times in the industry from up and coming, ambitious women. Men were more willing than other women to share the pie.
A new generation needs to change this trend.
Here’s my perspective as a director. I’ve only seen clips of Megan Fox online (I won’t watch Transfromers) and she has incredible screen chemistry. She can really hold the camera, you either have it or you don’t. I would love to put someone like Megan in a comedy, if she had comic timing and could act. To that end if she’s serious about a real career as an actress, she should start studying with a coach. I have no doubt that this young woman has far more depth than her short shorts suggest, as do most of us.
As to why other women may dislike her. Do you remember “A Soldier’s Story” where it turned out that an African American soldier’s fellow black officers had murdered him in France after the white officers paid him to put on a tail and dance around like a monkey in front of the French soldiers. Well this is how I feel about the women who make sexist wedding movies, so they can have a career and actresses who play the siren/fool, because that’s what men want.
Megan Fox needs a new agent and a better publicity team. I actually like her and I think she has potential, but her team isn’t handling her image so well.
It’s true– many women hate her because she’s beautiful and she has the look that a lot of females will never achieve. She is a wet dream come true for many males. Sorry, man, but that’s the truth!
Granted, some women do hate Megan Fox because she DOES push toward a sexist image of actresses– and I don’t blame them for it.
“Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful” is kind of a ridiculous thing to imply, especially since Fox has been quoted in magazine after magazine saying that she doesn’t like women because we’re all bitchy and uncool, and she doesn’t have women friends because men are so much better, etc. She insults us, then tries to make a career out of looking like a blow-up doll (that’s not body-snarking; I’m talking about her expressions, poses, and quotes) to appeal to heterosexual men, then is surprised when men like her and women don’t?
I like Megan Fox. A lot. “Jennifer’s Body” was not a great movie, but it was fascinating, and she did just fine with the material she was given. It was campy and smart, and she hit both of those tones. She’s a young woman, not much older than me, and I feel badly for the way she’s talked about. I don’t think it’s justified. She hit it right on the head: we as women constantly assume that if someone is as drop-dead gorgeous as Fox, she can’t also be smart or must also be a slut. That’s absurd. The change needs to come from us first before it’ll spread to the patriarchy.
We can sit here all day long and list the many ways in which male dominated Hollywood treats women like objects but in the case of Megan Fox she shares the blame. By her own admission she made the choice to be “controversial”. She chose to talk about sex to get the soundbite, she chose to talk about how men make better friends than women- again for the soundbite. This last one probably didn’t win over many female fans. In NY Mag she bemoans the fact that she can’t shake the sex object label but then proceeds to once again pose in her underwear. At least her PR team admits that they are in full damage control mode.
Unlike Megan, Kristen has diversified her acting resume. I don’t think she wants to be Bella forever and at least proves it to me by taking risks with movies like Adventureland and the Joan Jett bio. I think she wants to be in the business for a long time and realizes that the only way to do that is to continually hone her craft.
It will be interesting to see where these two women are in 5 years. Can they both survive? Possibly but for now I give Kristen Stewart the edge.
I’ve never seen Fox in anything, but I like her outspokenness. She reminds me of a friend at uni. I have only seen Stewart in The Panic Room. She seemed ok, but doesn’t really do anything for me. (Not quirky enough?) The thing is, I don’t think you get to choose to be sexy or not. Would Fox have gotten any work at all if she hadn’t been willing to go sexy? My own limited experience with auditions (and a lifetime of trying to fit in in any job) tells me people cast you when they see you, and then you can either take it or leave it. Stewart’s appearance gives her more choices.
I think you choose what attributes to accentuate. You choose what dress and make-up you put on in the morning. Megan Fox makes a lot of choices.
I think it is incredibly insulting to her intelligence to constantly blame her handlers. It makes her sound dumb. And isn’t that what she complains people treat her as?
Instead, we blame her for the choices she makes, as those choices have come to define her. In that way, she is being treated as an intelligent woman with some sense of control and decision making ability over her career. Isn’t that what she asks us to do?
If so, then she should treat us as intelligent women as well, and respect our right to not like her for the decisions she has made.
The thing I think girls dislike about Megan Fox is that she is disingenuous. She says one thing one interview that’s offensive then says something completely different in the next. She’s a strong feminist woman who can’t stand other women. Since when are you a feminist if you’re the only woman you like?! Not only that but she’s also let herself be molded into this porn star ideal by way of plastic surgery. What girl wouldn’t listen to her or look at her and feel completely alienated?
Megan slams women, saying we hate her because she’s beautiful. Really, so that’s why Kate Winslet, Angelina Jolie, Charlise Theron, Penelope Cruz etc. are having such a difficult time getting women to see their movies?
Why did she think women would all of a sudden flock to see her in any movie geared to women? She has gone out of her way to diss women. She has every right to do so but then she shouldn’t complain when her target audience of teen boys and emotionally stunted men moves on to the next hot Maxim chick and she is left with no career.
Michelle hit the nail on the head. Megan Fox, her handlers and fans can’t have it both ways. If she’s an intelligent woman, as she would like us to believe then she should take full responsibility for the choices she’s made and will continue to make. She is no victim here. Read her interviews. She has blatant disregard for other women. She blatantly and CONSCIOUSLY feeds into the vixen label. She admits as much in new york magazine. I mean the woman no harm and would rather see her succeed than fail but I’m not going to give her a pass just because she’s a woman.
Lovely article. This is my newest fantastic blog find, I have subscribed to you, really appreciate what you are doing. My list of films-I-want-to-see is forever expanding thanks to you guys. It is difficult finding female-positive and female-lead movies that are not just ‘silly’ romantic ones.
I’m starting to like and appreciate Kristen Stewart more and more. I can see why she appeals to so many girls. In a way, I don’t have a big problem with Megan Fox (at least, personally). I just can’t identify with her at all. She does not represent me or my friends. Me and my friends – and the women I respect the most – do not act like her. We don’t look like her, either. She is in film for the sake of the male viewers. Her roles are ‘hot female’, and never ‘normal woman that other women can identify with’.
Megan Fox would be advised to take a look at what some beautiful, sexy actresses have done to create careerve that has some longevity and garners them some respect (from men and women).
I think of actresses like Halle Berry, Penelope Cruz, Salma Hayak who are constantly in the spotlight for their beauty, yet they have managed to create careers that have garnered award-winning performances and respect as role models for lots of women.
Sorry for the fumbling fingers – should read:
“done to create careers that have some longevity and garner”
I have to say, I am genuinely stupefied by the post and the comments. The thing about outspoken people, is that they will be outspoken in all venues. So yes, she is going to call out whatever she finds troublesome about Bay productions, or issues for women in the media, etc. BUT, that also means she will call out not good stuff if women are perpetrating it too.
So yes, free country, and I just want to get that out because we all have the right to like what we like, good, bad or otherwise. But this is my take. And unfortunately, at least in this particular installment, I think a lot of this falls on women.
Firstly, if we have a tabloid issue, why not get rid of tabloids. And we can do that by not reading them! And I say we because who is the majority of tabloid readers? Females. The only times I have seen men reading tabloids was when they were in the magazine industry, or they absolutely had nothing else to read waiting in a doctor’s room. I don’t read them, and I’m thinking who reads this stuff? No audience, no magazine, and we’ve seen how vulnerable periodicals are to readership. Anyone want to throw out reader numbers that say otherwise, feel free. But if women are the majority readers, then we can kill that particular head of the beast by cutting that out.
“How fun is it for a girl to be on a date with a guy and see her on the big screen?” Who cares? If that is the case then no one except a small selection of people in the world should see movies, because they would never measure up. It’s a movie. I have heard this comment given by some guys who said they didn’t want to see romantic comedies, or other fare that women like because they didn’t want to be compared to the guy. If the idea is shot down by women as bogus, then how does this hold any water?
If I had to wager a generalization, since nothing applies to everyone – but I guess that’s what we’re doing here anyway right? – I would say there is something guys seem to get that gals don’t. If we are talking about films, it is basically a job! Which means what you do in your personal life, you do in your personal life. It is all about what you put or don’t put on that screen, and everything else is superfluous.
I found it interesting that it was brought up that people wanted to be Meg. I never hear a guy say they want to be Clint, even if they LOVE Clint. They think he’s cool, and so they want to be his particular characters. They understand that they can step in that role just as Clint does. People want to be Han Solo, or Indiana Jones, but not Harrison Ford; he’s a guy just like every other guy. And that allows them to ignore the person and focus on the product. I’m sure a lot of guys would say that Russell Crowe acts like a jerk at times. But has he also not turned out excellent performances.
Why do women have to like anybody. You know what? I am not a fan of Gwenyth Paltrow. I don’t know her first of all, so I could only say so much anyway, but there was a comment way back when Ben Affleck was with Jennifer the 1st and she made a comment about how she wasn’t good enough for him. That in and of itself was fine, but there was something that rubbed me the wrong way, because I felt subtly embedded in that was a sly dig about her ethnicity and/or class.
Now 1- who knows, I could be wrong (I hope I am). But I don’t have to be her friend, I don’t have to like her, I don’t have to date her. But if she produces a good performance in a movie I like I’ll see her. I have rarely heard of someone missing a movie because they didn’t like the person – at least a guy anyway.
So if the Jennifer’s Body film was not their cup of tea, then fine (and I would imagine not because many women I know don’t like hard core violence). But if it is and you’re just not doing it because you don’t like her? Really? That’s how we eat our own.
The more I think about it, the more this doesn’t seem too different from what guys do. Guys seems to hold women to standards of what they want them to LOOK like. Women seem to hold strict standards of what they want them to BE like. And quite frankly, if I had to choose between the two, I would choose the guys, because it’s much easier to change who you are on the outside than it is who you are on the inside.
I also think it’s interesting that Meg & Demi were brought up. Who wanted to be Meg? I certainly didn’t. Hands down I would much rather be Demi than Meg, and now I would much rather be Megan over Kristin. And who says Kristen’s “one of them?” I can’t speak for girls because I’m not one now. But I was when Demi and Meg were on the scene, and if you asked me, AS A YOUNG GIRL, then I would say Demi was much more my cup of tea. What kind of girls are we asking? ANd why do we have one very narrow view of what girlhood is? If you just look at them visually, I think Meagan Fox looks like more women than Kristen Stewart.
I think it’s not just about looks, but it’s about looks vs. sex. Somehow guys can be sex symbols when they want to be, or they can not. Tom Cruise completely courted the sex symbol nature of his looks and rode it to stardom and power. Johnny Depp avidly avoided that route, doing indies, and just some plain old wonky roles and achieved critical acclaim, even if he doesn’t have the numbers. Hugh Jackman seems to be trying to find a middle role, doing both sexy and physical fare and also indies or commercial stuff having nothing to do with his looks.
But we don’t seem to want to allow that for women? Why can’t we have both? I think Meagan makes an excellent point. So what she posed for Maxim. Haven’t many female actors? Even the ones we’ve celebrated? Your looks don’t make you a sex symbol to guys, it seems, Your looks, in conjunction with you seemingly liking sex makes you a sex symbol. It is that either courting of it, or the nonchalance of it that seems to attract guys. And it seems like it’s that combination that makes a lot of women angry.
I am all for not eating our own, but maybe we should weed out the possible bias on the female community while we’re also trying to weed it out from the male community.
And btw, did anyone see both Transformers the 1st one and Twilight. I did. Guess which was the better role for women? By far, the better one was in Transformers! Did Mikaela look sexy? Yup. She also saved Sam from getting killed, had the stronger moral compass in the first one, despite her “tainted” past, had a major scene at the climax of the movie that helped save the day, and generally did as good a job acting as anybody else in that film. And while she was super sexy in her first scenes, her clothing was more conservative for the majority of the film.
Contrast that against Bella who was infinitely cooler than her book counterpart (sorry book fans! And I do give Hardwicke credit for that), but she doesn’t do much still but whine, get saved, stumble and generally mope. She does act clever on occasion. But she is covered in more conservative fare. So which one is better? By far, the Transformers role, if what we want is more equal representation in films. If what we want is to see women portray a variety of characters. Both those characters ran from peril. But only Mikaela’s avidly ran towards it as well.
I wanted to make this separate because whereas the other stuff I addressed everything that was said, this is particularly to your post Melissa. Is there a reason why you seemed to portray their careers so differently? Do you just not like Meagan, so it’s hard to sympathize even if you see it logically?
You said Kristen started her career when she starred in Panic Room. I thought you meant the women’s first roles. And a quick check on IMDB shows only one other role Kristen had a year prior to that, so that made sense to me.
But this doesn’t wash at all with what you said about Meagan. You said her first role was in Transformers, and you wrote “Fox started her career as a sex symbol wearing those tight short shorts as the pretty girlfriend running from peril in Transformers.” First, why the emphasis on her attire, instead of just a straight “she starred”? But more importantly, she did other work before that. It might not have even been good work, but it was work nonetheless, but reading what you said, if I hadn’t checked, I would have thought that was her first role. She did stints on “What I Like About You”, “Two and a Half Men”, “The Help”, “Hope and Faith”, and a couple other tv shows, as well as roles in a few movies before she did Transformers. I then thought maybe you meant the role that brought them to stardom, but if that’s the case, then certainly Panic Room would not qualify for Stewart, and it would be either Twilight or Into The Wild.
Then you said she didn’t do a film in between a Transformers. Did you mean literally? Because she did release Whore (never heard of that one), and How To Lose Friends & Alienate People, a very different type of film, before the sequel came out. Or did you really think the Mikaela was similar or identical to the Sophie Maes character?
Everyone can think whatever, and you may in fact hate her, and think she makes things bad for women. But this seem to actually skew the facts, so that’s why I wanted to ask.
thanks.
It looks like you really pissed off her agent. Dear Agent/Manager, just get her some acting lessons and put her in some good roles. I’m sure there’s a number of female indie director’s that would love to have Megan attached to movie. You can redeem her image, but you’re not going to make a lot of money. And there’s always Transformers 4 for that big payday.
“d”, you need to learn to self edit. I stopped reading your post after the first paragraph. You didn’t have me at “hello”.
Somewhat doubtful that d is Megan Fox’s agent. She always writes the notoriously long comments and guest posts at Heroine Content. Though I could be wrong – never asked her about her job since I was too busy disagreeing with her reviews of The Matrix sequels.
I’m personally perplexed by the contents of this post and the comments in general. Why direct so much vitriol at what we all know are personas created specifically for their market potential? I may dislike the roles an actress takes (such as anyone who associates themselves with the misogynist drivel that is twilight) but I don’t transfer that disdain to them personally….I don’t know them, so what’s the point?
Rather than direct wrath at actresses for not taking roles equivalent to Sarah Connor or Ellen Ripley, I prefer to note how many fewer feminist roles there are in films now than there were when I was a kid. Maybe if there was a higher kickass quotient in films these days, actresses would have more to do in action flicks then…well…look sexy. Or be rescued from themselves (ahem Bella).
Disclosure: I am a rabid Twilight-hater. All my young impressionable cousins have had to endure lectures from me about how UNromantic and DANGEROUS stalking is. I’m surprised Stewart’s decision to portray such a creepy and bizarre relationship isn’t subject to the same scrutiny as Fox’s thong.
“Stewart is difficult because she doesn’t buy into the tabloidization of women, and Fox has bought into it too much so she is having a hard time getting free from it even if in real life she is nothing like the persona she has created.”
…”keep that in mind the next time we call someone a slut or petulant or ungrateful. As women we need to figure out how to be better to each other.”
AMEN sister, Amen!
Megan Fox does not seem to be as business savvy as Pam Anderson, Madonna & Angelina Jolie.
Anderson knows her audience and doesn’t go around bashing those who aren’t her audience, instead, she continues to feed the audience that feeds her family.
Madonna is the queen of marketing who managed to have as many male as female fans all the while dressing in lingerie and rolling around on the stage touching her breasts while singing in a horrid voice.
Jolie is a respected, awarded actress and humanitarian who could have played up just the vixen role, but, is smart enough to show a complex personality.
Fox seems young and dumb, going by what she has put out there in interviews. It may all be an act or a strategy. If so, it’s failing her to some extent.
I think this article sums up my reaction to Megan’s comments…
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/11/25/anything-you-can-do-i-can-do-better/#comments
Thank you,
very interesting article
Megan Fox doesn’t like women. Period. So why would she expect women to like her? Could it be that she actually IS dumb? Does she so self-absorbed that she can’t see the multitude of gorgeous talented actresses who are landing roles?
For her to assume that she is hated for being attractive just underscores the vapid narcissism of her public persona. When all of that makeup and plastic surgery and skimpy outfits and porn-posturing has been invested in making men want to bone you, why expect anything other than men expecting you to act boneable?
Oh yeah, and maybe her TOTAL LACK OF TALENT (outside of the fuck-bot role) may have something to do with her failure as an actress.
{ 1 trackback }