Monday, June 14, 2010


To help us all through monday, here's a slideshow of Megan Fox performing softcore sex-acts on a mannequin of herself for Interview Magazine. Really.


Now... I know "mannequin parts" are kind of a schlocky mock-surrealist photography staple, but there aren't really too many ways to interpret the "point" of this that don't add up to some sort of either ironic or dark commentary on Fox's onscreen persona and/or her "relationship" with the same, right? This is either "this woman IS a mannequin" or "this woman is used as a mannequin."

So the operative question would be... is she a REALLY good sport, or does she not "get it?"


BFG said...

Well, she's said before for any interviews or anything she gives, she's created a persona so she can keep herself private. So the real her in the photos could be the image she gives us in interviews, and the mannequin the part of her she doesn't want anyone to see.

It's lost on me though; I don't want to see any aspect of her.

Really bizarre choice of music, though. Ave Satani might have been more appropriate.

Anonymous said...

she just doesn't get it.....

Bleeding Heart said...

I think she gets it. Also Bob, I pretty sure you have no respect for young women's intellect.

Now, I don't mean your sexist (God no, I mean could you lick the bottom of Ayn Rand's boot harder) no but, I do believe that you fail to grasp the fact that young people are full of angst, ambition, irony, and life and would constantly seek to change their outlook. You doubt an actress's (or an actor's) ability to change which is foolish when your dealing with the young.

Judge slowly, for god-sake, wait until she's at least thirty before you accuse her of having an immobile mind.

Murray said...

Lets be realistic here. Ms Fox is transparent. I can easily see what she is trying to portray herself as, and i think subconsciously everyone does. its just not attractive. her persona of a bad girl for the public eye just comes off as a try hard attention seeker which just opens her up to more media attention. this means that her true persona is a scared little girl who thirsts for attention.

oh i know a lot of you out there think she is hot and you would give your left (and in some cases right as well) nut to date her, but personally, she shows a lack of education in interviews and that is a major turn off.

forgive me if i'm wrong, but has she ever made a good movie, or even played a good role? she should be working in an industry where talent isn't required.

tyra menendez said...

To Bleeding Heart:

See Tara Reid, Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, Britney Spears, etc.

Also, "your" is possessive, you are is contracted "you're". It's not that hard.

Claudia Lawrence said...

interesting video & nice blog, i will visit ur blog very often, hope u go for this site
to increase visitor.

BleedingHeart said...

To Grammar Nazi:

I do see them. I see them not as commodities for public attention as the sexually frustrated has labeled them. Now, you might disagree with there actions--I do--but I also try to comprehend their actions. No, not through jealous observation but with an inconsequential apathy for modern trends. Hilton, Lohan, and Spears are the way they are because of public obsessions with them.

They do not seek public attention, the public seeks their attention. Why? Because we like to cast mean people in our society. We love to find people to demean. Those people use to be jesters but now our jester is our philosopher and our political adviser.

So... I guess the point I'm trying to make is that... if the public wants her to be smarter (which they have by rejecting her in "Jennifer's Body" and "Transformers") she will either disappear into obscurity or improve in order to get another job.

A genius doesn't have to be smart. He/she just has to be smarter than the closes point of reference.

Nick said...

To Bleeding Heart:

This is a second warning from another Grammar Nazi: It's called the English Language. Please learn to utilize it properly if you wish to be taken seriously as an adult and an intellectual being.

"You might disagree with 'there' actions but I also try to comprehend their actions."
The first one is wrong, the second one isn't.

I'm pretty sure the fact that Hilton, Lohan, and Spears all got into the entertainment business or flocked to have their pictures taken with little regard for propriety or common sense is indicative of their collective and singular desire for public attention. We don't demean them because they were cast as mean people. We demean them because they are vacuous pieces of human refuse that are stealing valuable oxygen the rest of us could be using. I'm only trying to think green here.

As for Bob not having an appreciation for young women's intellect: If the young woman in question were to show greater intellect to us, rather than portraying herself as Randy Pam the Goat Girl, Bob and the rest of us might actually show her appreciation.

As far as I can see there's (notice the proper use of the word here Heart) only three reasons Megan Fox has a career:

1. Her left breast

2. Her right breast

3. Her ability to fit into tight pants.

She is at best a seat filler. You want to talk attractive and smart, women who should be appreciated for their intellect as well as their looks: Natalie Portman, Evan Rachel Wood, Amy Lee. If you're going to speak for women with intellect choose examples that actually possess cognitive brain functions.