logo PRE-ORDER NOW

« Water Water Everywhere | Main | Thanksgiving is Coming »

November 14, 2009

Foxy Lady

This week’s New York Times Magazine features a cover story by Lynn Hirschberg about the actress Megan Fox. Of course, anybody who has seen her work knows that calling her an actress is a bit of a misnomer: “I’m not one of those people who grew up studying acting or went to theater school,” and even now she says, “I don’t know if I’m talented, I don’t know what I can do or can’t do… I had it in my head that I was supposed to be doing this and I did it.”

Even though I make jokes about starlets all the time, in reality I do not follow Megan Fox or any of her peers. They do not interest me very much because they feel so artificial, like American manga characters. But what held my attention enough to read this article is Fox’s candor about her own artifice. She seems content to discuss herself as a character, the character of Megan Fox: the “wild girl,” heir apparent to Angelina Jolie, now trying to reinvent herself as a more down to earth, accessible person, the kind of person who, as the article says, goes to Red Lobster on Saturday nights with her longtime boyfriend.

I have always been fascinated with this idea of public reinvention, the idea that somebody can just decide to create a new personality out of whole cloth. How is this accomplished? In Fox’s case, the answer seems to be by doing interviews with the New York Times magazine and hosting “SNL.” But who is to say that the new Megan Fox (or the new Michael Vick or the new whoever) is any more authentic than the old? What is public authenticity, anyway?

Fox at least seems to understand what I perhaps don’t: that authenticity is beside the point. What she is selling is an idea, or maybe more accurately, an ideal. Her last film, the commercially unsuccessful girl power horror film, “Jennifer’s Body” was supposed to bring a female audience into her male-dominated fan base. It didn’t work. Where men found the old Megan Fox the ultimate aspiratonal fuck, women couldn’t relate. She was too pretty, too wild. As such, the girls didn’t seem to want to come along for the ride the way they did for some of her blonde-tressed starlet sisters. So Fox’s problem is how to bring the ladies into the fold. The answer: Red Lobster. Long-term relationships. Self-deprecation. All of it a means to end. The end being, presumably, expanding the global Megan Fox Brand.

Because films are so expensive to make and market, the only way for big Hollywood movies to make any money is to attract a global audience. As such, the film industry is increasingly a global business. So the goal of any actor hoping to break through must be to attract the largest possible swath of audience possible. Authenticity, inevitably, must go by the wayside for such people, particularly young women. Perhaps that’s not a problem for an actress best known for acting opposite giant CGI robots and Shia LaBeouf, although Fox does seems a little conflicted about all of this. On the one hand, she’s obviously complicit in the machinery of her own nascent stardom, the shop steward of a factory which manufactures, at base, sex. Towards the end of the article she acknowledges this, saying, “…I am on display for men to pay to look at me.” In the next breath, she adds, “And that bothers me. I don’t want to live in that character.”

But, of course, she does live in that character, and is doing everything in her power to propagate, develop, and market that character. The character of the vixen, the chanteuse, the siren. Would a person who didn’t want to be that character sign a deal to become the next underwear model for Armani, as Fox just did?

In fact, it is in her photographs that Fox actually seems the most genuine. The pin-up girl is the one part she seems to understand how to play. See the assured pose on the red carpet, the tossed-back hair, the coy over-the-shoulder backwards glance. See the just-so hand-on-hip, the left foot a half step ahead the right. This is the Brand of Megan Fox. This, and just this. And she knows it.

The Brand is, inevitably, unsustainable. And she knows this too. The It Girl has a short shelf life, necessitating constant (and probably exhausting) reinvention. There is an endless supply of pretty young twenty year old girls with just enough looks and talent to skate into stardom for a little while. They make a splash, and then marry (and divorce) well or sink into obscurity or take jobs on the CW, or very occasionally, make a graceful transition into more mature roles.

Fox is already feeling the pressure. “I get sent romantic comedies,” she says. “But I’m fearful of doing those. I’m twenty-three. I don’t belong in a romantic comedy yet.” By this logic, I suppose first it’s the romantic comedy. Then you’re playing the mom. Then you’re Judy Dench. Then you’re dead.

With some certainty, I feel like I can say I will never be a Megan Fox fan. But I wish her well. Soon the world will turn its attention to the next girl with pillow lips and eyes forever at half-mast. When it does, I hope she retains enough of her own self to figure out who she is separate from her Brand.

I don’t envy these girls, these pretty young things whose identity is so tightly wound up with their hair color and accessories and choice of boyfriend. It must be horrible. And ultimately, I always find myself asking “What’s the point?” To my eyes, it doesn’t seem to be about anything other than the ceaseless pursuit of fame, a pursuit which must give somebody the occasional drunken high but which ultimately must end with the worst kind of hangover. Is it any wonder Lindsay Lohan self-immolated? It’s amazing to me that more of them don’t. It is a particularly ugly business for beautiful girls.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54edada5e88330120a69f4a55970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Foxy Lady:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Reen

Edmond, I take issue with something you wrote: "With the assistance of all the yes women who comment on here". Do you know any of us personally or enough to make the claim that regulars on here are "yes women"? Since when did "supportive" become "mindless"? While I'm at it, people make the same unfortunate mistake about "nice" people. They think "nice" = "stupid and/or weak". Fuck that shit.

I adore Michael and find him mega-talented, but I don't always agree with him. And, not to speak for every woman here, but I'll venture a guess that they don't agree with Michael (or anyone else for that matter) 100%, either. At least not enough to be labeled "yes women".

If I'm wrong about YOUR aims, please forgive ME.

Camille

Amen, Renee. (I AM Renee's "Yes woman")

Ramses

Love this and you. Great job.

Jennlm

This was an amazing well written piece with a great point. Well done!

Rage Against the Minivan

Well look at you, getting all feminist on us. You should submit this piece to Jezebel or Bitch.com - these are some astute observations. Megan's schtick is scary because what she's selling relies on hyper-sexuality and a special brand of "dumbing it down" that, unfortunately, seems to be pretty popular amongst young starlets.

meladiction

Have to add that the pressure for women to be stylish or "visually acceptable" or some kind of ideal exists at every level, in every social group. The starlet is just the most public and exaggerated example. Even the plain, uncurvy, self-effacing "hipster" chick; in order to be acceptable, has to have the right disheveled look, the hackjob haircut, the nerd eyeglasses, and the ensemble resembling a dumpster-dive salvage which was actually a deeply considered purchase from Urban Outfitters.

Jaime

Well ho-ly shit. I came up here to read me about some turkey, and my turkey post went poof and someone riled up my Reen, and called out some nice ladies.

Looky Edmund, I see what you're saying. Michael sells a brand of Michael. Snarky guy: "[A]rrogant prick, but with a wink of self-knowledge." But I think his point is that Ms. Fox's brand is tailored to the audience and subject to reinvention. I think his point about "the idea that somebody can just decide to create a new personality out of whole cloth. How is this accomplished?...authenticity is beside the point." That is a very interesting point.

Every actor has a level of inauthenticity to him/her and a public image, but presumably Michael's point (and maybe I'm way off base here, but...) I think is that _this_ level of artifice, or that act of totally reinventing based on commercial demands, feigning Red Lobster dedication to court female audiences, is a different kind of animal. It's one thing to whore out who you are for people, to say: "look at my fabulous iron jawline, my snarky sneer, and my big fat throbbing brain. Comengetit bitches." Sure, that's whoring who you are, but that is celebrity, and a pitfall at that. But I don't think that is what is at issue here, and I don't think anyone would disagree on that point.

But isn't it a another thing all together to, rather than whore out who you are, to whore out who they want, to base your personality on the ever-shifting fault lines of public opinion? Now that, that is something Michael does not do. And partially why he is amazing. (Also the fabulous iron jawline, snarky sneer, and big fat throbbing brain thang.) I'm not saying he never will, or he hasn't kind of done that before, but this isn't his sin, and it's an interesting one to point out because reinvention is so highly praised in the media, but it is a whole other level of deprecation that's never really acknowledged as such. So there. Na-nanny-boo-boo.

Jaime

Also, no one better call my Reeny no yes-gal. In fact, she questioned Michael on this very post, hinting at some of what you said. Just sayin, that girl is as authentic as they come :)

Jaime

"Even the plain, uncurvy, self-effacing 'hipster' chick; in order to be acceptable, has to have the right disheveled look, the hackjob haircut, the nerd eyeglasses, and the ensemble resembling a dumpster-dive salvage which was actually a deeply considered purchase from Urban Outfitters."

Maladiction -- EXCELLENT point!

(ok I'm done. At post 3, you can tell I'm on vacation :)

Kelly Hagg

WTF happened to the Thanksgiving Post! I think I know....the yelling...the horror...the horror (insert Marlon Brando voice)...lol.

Jaime

Is that what did it Kelly? Did we bicker the warm Thanksgiving post into thin ir -- oh no!

I want to hug it out now. Eddie, here's some fuzzy slippers and a smoking jacket. Let's cuddle by the fire and sing kumbaya. Better?

Where's my turkey post! ;)

Kelly

Thank GOD for the Man in the Mirror...keeping all the sycophants inline. I am still wondering where Thanksgiving went...the yelling in my head keeps me coming back...

Kelly

Oh this is funny Jaime, I hadn't even seen the ensuing foodfight - awesome. What I was referencing was that I thought maybe MIB's wife put the smackdown on him after he references her yelling...a cold day turkey dinner for him, lol.

Jaime

haha, poor holidys. Whether it's families or FAN-ilies (oh that was bad), there's always gotta be a showdown huh? I think I'm going to go snack on some warm Thanksgiving post, get myself some nice Thanksgiving-post-belly. Hmmmm, Thanksgiving-post-belly.

meia

Well said. Now what about Twilight? lol I'd love to read what you think about that.

birenstock

With features such as arch support, raised toe bars and deep heel cups, the notable Germany brand Birkenstock offer plenty of comfort enhancements, as well as being probably the most legendary shoe brand. Birkenstock shoes conform somewhat to the shape of their wearers' feet. You can wear Birkenstock sandals and Birkenstock gizeh to everywhere you want to. Latest Birkenstocks are on nearly 50% discount now. Free shipping worldwide!
http://www.digdig-birkenstock.com birkenstock shoes
http://www.digdig-birkenstock.com birkenstock
http://www.digdig-birkenstock.com birkenstock sandals
http://www.digdig-birkenstock.com birkenstocks
http://www.digdig-birkenstock.com birkenstock gizeh

The comments to this entry are closed.