Megan Fox

The naked opportunism of “Jennifer’s Body”

Megan Fox plays one of the undead: How can you tell?

  • more
    • All Share Services

The naked opportunism of Jennifer Check (Megan Fox)

If “Jennifer’s Body” were either entertaining or ultimately had a point, it would have a good enough reason for existing. Even if its star, the bodaciously built Megan Fox, were sexy in anything but a plastic way, you could make an argument for it as gore-fest eye candy. But “Jennifer’s Body” — directed by Karyn Kusama, from a script by Diablo Cody — is so contemptuous toward its own characters, and its audience, that it chokes off any visceral thrills it might have offered. The movie substitutes calculation for brains, and the filmmakers seem to think we’ll all be too stupid to notice. I can’t remember the last time I saw such a naked display of opportunism and exploitation at the movies — and when I use the word “exploitation,” I don’t mean the good, old-fashioned grindhouse kind, but the “Let’s make a buck by pretending to be transgressive” kind, the kind that really makes you feel dirty.

Fox plays Jennifer, a decidedly not-nice high school hottie who practically leads her lifelong best friend, the sweet, brainy Needy (Amanda Seyfried), around on a leash. When Jennifer decides she wants to check out a mopey indie band that’s playing at the local roadhouse — Jennifer and Needy live in a tiny Midwestern town called Devil’s Kettle — she intimidates Needy into coming along, even though that requires Needy to skip out on a date (and, probably, sex) with her cute boyfriend, Chip (Johnny Simmons, who resembles a junior David Johansen). Jennifer has her sights on the band’s lead singer (played by Adam Brody, with eyeliner), but she’s so sexually voracious that anyone in her immediate sphere is fair game. When Needy points out that one of their classmates, an Indian, is also at the club, Jennifer wonders aloud if he’s been circumcised. “I always wanted to try sea cucumber,” she muses aloud, with a dead look in her eyes.

That’s not the first of the many, many sexually forthright wisecracks in “Jennifer’s Body,” each one announced boldly and declaratively with a big cushion of air around it, so we’ll have plenty of time to register how groovily plainspoken and sexually open these characters are. They wear their grrl power the way their more timid forebears wore Love’s Baby Soft in the ’70s — sprayed on liberally.

Just as Jennifer seems to be making some headway with Mr. Indie Rock, a series of events, including a fire that appears to have been started telekinetically (the movie raises the suggestion and never pursues it), instigates a personality change in her. Well, sort of. If Jennifer wasn’t very nice before, haughtily strutting down the halls at school, looking down her nose at the inferior beings slouching around her with their hoodies and their piercings, suddenly, she’s majorly not-nice — as in “luring unsuspecting jocks into the woods and pulling their entrails out with her teeth” not-nice. (In your notebooks, please jot this down as a metaphor for the insatiable sexual appetite of womankind, and the degree to which men fear it. Because, yes, it will be on the exam.) Meanwhile, Needy looks on, wide-eyed — it’s the only expression she’s got — as her best friend just gets meaner and meaner. And also, at least on her good days, prettier and prettier.

“Jennifer’s Body” (which takes its title from, but has nothing to do with, the Hole song of the same name, which is used over the closing credits) is conceived and constructed to mimic a traditional horror picture except — novelty alert! — it’s been made by women. Kusama made ripples in the indie film world with her first picture, “Girlfight,” which she followed up with the decidedly non-indie “AEon Flux.” Her partner in crime, Cody, has practically become a household name — albeit one adorned with girlie tattoos — since her success with “Juno,” a movie that has its own vehement fans and detractors: There seems to be very little in-between.

I’m in the pro-”Juno” camp: Cody’s dense, rapid-fire dialogue, peppered with slang so hip that it became passé the moment it left the character’s mouths, drove me crazy at first. But Cody and the film’s director, Jason Reitman, also did the work of putting that dialogue in the service of a generous and emotionally direct story: “Juno” is about the way sometimes the biggest choices we make in life aren’t things we can articulate, justify or rationalize to other people.

In “Jennifer’s Body,” the dialogue serves nothing, except perhaps Cody and Kusama’s egos. The picture allegedly contains ideas, but they’re really just disembodied, brainless organisms — they’re not attached to anything in the narrative in a way that makes sense. In one sequence, Kusama cuts between the sweet-but-boring sex Needy is having with her boyfriend and Jennifer’s all-out blood-feast freakout. Is that just cool cutting? Or is it meant as an unfavorable comparison between nice sex and hot sex? There’s no way to tell, and the actors don’t tip us off, either. Seyfried is an extremely promising, if yet untested, actress — she had a spectacular glazed spaciness in “Mean Girls.” But here, as the dowdy, stringy-haired, afterthought friend, she mostly just cowers behind her spectacles. At least she’s a human presence: Fox’s charms, first in “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” and now here, elude me. She’s a glossy blank, and her character is constructed and played so that her actions are inscrutable. The movie awkwardly frames her predicament as a kind of revenge against the male sex. But her viciousness — she preys mostly on nice, or at least OK, kids — is neither cathartic, nor does it make us recoil in horror. Her evil is shiny, hard and cheap, like something she bought at Forever 21.

Kusama borrows freely but joylessly from movies like Brian De Palma’s “Carrie” and “The Fury,” pictures that do recognize the sexual power of young women. (Another is the marvelous 2000 “Ginger Snaps,” by Canadian filmmaker John Fawcett, in which a werewolf girl discovers that her menses aren’t the only thing regulated by the moon.) All of these borrowed references — from bloody prom dresses to bodies that hover just beneath the ceiling in menacing watchfulness — are presented with a self-aware smirk. There’s no affection in them, only affectation.

And they’re just filler for the big showstopper, anyway: Line up now, guys, for the gratuitous lesbo makeout session. Watching two women kiss, when it’s done right, is a glorious thing. And the effectiveness of a girl-to-girl kiss has as much to do with attitude as with presentation: David Lynch got it right with the gorgeous, deeply erotic love scene between Naomi Watts and Laura Elena Harring in “Mulholland Dr.”; so did John McNaughton in the frankly, joyously exploitative “Wild Things” — the kissing scene between Denise Richards and Neve Campbell is a woozily sexy thrill ride that also happens to serve the story. Both are honest approaches. But a kissing scene can also be a cheap attempt to titillate the audience, particularly when it has no real context or reason for being — it doesn’t matter if there’s a man or a woman behind the camera. Needy is certainly in thrall to Jennifer, possibly sexually. But Jennifer treats Needy so badly, it’s impossible to understand how these two women could be friends, other than out of habit (they’ve been pals since childhood). And as Jennifer, Fox’s mannequin eyes are lifeless; they betray an attraction to no one — there’s no sex in her sexiness. The kiss comes from nowhere and leads to nothing. Its calculated eroticism is enough to make you long for the tyranny of the male gaze.

Stephanie Zacharek is a senior writer for Salon Arts & Entertainment.

Diablo Cody, overexposed

Have we seen enough of the world's most famous ex-stripper?

  • more
    • All Share Services

“Jennifer’s Body” hasn’t even opened yet, but the chick filmmaker fatigue has already set in. And no one bears the brunt of our collective fascination and disdain more than Diablo Cody.

Cody, the “Candy Girl” memoirist, EW columnist, Oscar-winning “Juno” screenwriter, “United States of Tara” co-creator, and most famous ex-stripper in America, is inescapable lately – especially if you read “The New York Times.”

Perhaps you read about her in last week’s story on women and horror movies. Or how she and her fellow lady writers roll – and just as significantly, what they wear – in last spring’s Styles section.  Or maybe you saw her mentioned in today’s story on the prominence of women at this year’s Toronto Film Festival. To illustrate how far the fair sex has progressed, “Times” writer Michael Cieply started the story noting Cody’s bikini girl tattoo.

Yet with fame and fortune and all the inherent symbolism of being the semi bad girl made good comes a big steaming heap of scorn. Cody’s been mocked on “Saturday Night Live” as an Oscar-clutching attention magnet whose vocabulary consists mainly of the word “blog.” DailyFill recently responded to Cody’s praise of Megan Fox by harrumphing that “having Diablo Cody call you genuine is like having Dane Cook call you funny.”  And when Washington City Paper’s Amanda Hess took note of the backlash recently, she called her and her “Jennifer’s Body” star Megan Fox “Hollywood’s most hated women.”  

Cody’s acclaim – and the inevitable parallel loathing – could fill a year’s worth of Maxim articles and women’s studies coursework. On the one hand: She’s hot! She’s edgy! She wrote a horror movie! Basically, she’s a nerd’s Christmas morning!

But everything that’s opened doors for her – the blogger/stripper past, the indie hipster riot grrl ‘tude, – are precisely what compel others to hate on her “quirky bullshit”  image as “grittier-than-thou, authentic-er-than-thou, and certainly sexually liberated-er-than-thou.” 

Behind all of it – the loathing, the breathless championing – is one basic question. How much of the hype is about her work and how much is just about herself? Could a regular-looking person who hadn’t named herself after the devil and spent time on the pole ever have attained Cody’s level of success?

Based on the number of ex-strippers who don’t have Oscars, I’d say the odds are pretty good that it’s not her lap dancing technique alone that got her where she is today. It just happens to be the thing people want to talk about. Because whatever else she does in life, the woman born Brook Busey will always have the phrase “ex-stripper” in front of her name, right next to “Academy Award winner.” She might as well be comfortable with it, especially when so many of her critics aren’t.

Besides, if Cody were to tone down her unapologetic, va va voom image or go all shy and Salinger, what would it prove anyway? Pretty people have advantages. Sexy people get attention. And then other people complain that they’re only getting advantages and attention because they’re pretty and sexy. (This just in: life’s not fair.) Someday we may live in a world where “The Times” can do a story on women filmmakers that doesn’t reference, in its first sentence, what they’re wearing. But to do so would mean that how a woman looks or dresses or strips isn’t important – and that doesn’t feel like much of a victory for anybody. Who says a screenwriter has to look like Paul Haggis to have credibility? Cody’s brazen femininity and knack for the spotlight are undeniable, genuine parts of who she is. She told The Frisky recently “We don’t all have to be the model woman—what we need is to be more visible.”  Whether or not she’s a great writer is up for debate, but Cody understands the thing about being visible is this: it only works if you know how to make people look.

 

Continue Reading Close
Mary Elizabeth Williams

Mary Elizabeth Williams is a staff writer for Salon and the author of "Gimme Shelter: My Three Years Searching for the American Dream." Follow her on Twitter: @embeedub.

“I don’t kill people. I kill boys

"Juno" scribe and "Transformers" hottie together at last, in dueling trailers for demon-cheerleader flick

  • more
    • All Share Services

boys"" href="http://www.salon.com/2009/07/07/jennifer/singleton"/>boys"" title=""I don't kill people. I kill boys"" src="http://media.salon.com/2009/07/i_dont_kill_people_i_kill_boys.jpg"/>

Twentieth-Century Fox

Megan Fox in “Jennifer’s Body.”

During my largely vain efforts to escape the totalitarian cultural hegemony of That Lady and That Dead Guy — I haven’t yet seen a video of Sarah Palin moonwalking or the “Thriller” video mashed up with her campaign appearances, but that’s only because I haven’t looked — I have found the perfect antidote, a long, cool drink of Stygian pop-culture brew that will drive Jacko and Hockey Mom from your consciousness. Admittedly, the name Diablo Cody fills me with a mixture of admiration, exasperation and terror, and the only thing I know about Megan Fox is that she represents the hot apogee of hottie hotness in a movie I will never see. Yet their potent and perverse union in the upcoming teen-horror vehicle “Jennifer’s Body” (set for September release) fills me with enormous yearning.

There’s been a lot of totally uninformed Internet back-and-forth about whether director Karyn Kusama — formerly an up-and-coming talent who seemed to flame out after “Æon Flux” in 2005 — and producer Jason Reitman (who directed “Juno”) would somehow render Cody’s script cheesy and trashy. I’m sorry, but those are dumb complaints. If anything, Cody could use some cheesy and trashy. And anyway, this is a movie about a demon-inhabited cheerleader who kills boys! It is not Chekhov, and it is not “Let the Right One In,” excellent as that was. It is self-evidently a movie that’s trying to claim a place in a cheesy, trashy American teen-movie idiom; trying to make it into some kind of brooding and dark auteurist vision would be a dire categorical mistake.

Thanks to Variety super-blogger Anne Thompson, we now know that Fox will be running a “Jennifer’s Body” trailer before “Brüno” when the latter film opens wide this weekend, but also that the filmmakers aren’t entirely happy with it. There’s a different trailer — a racier, fully NSFW, “red-band” version — available at Shock Till You Drop, which comes with the following note, signed by “Karyn, Diablo and Jason”:

Fox is putting a trailer of “Jennifer’s Body” in front of “Brüno” this Friday. Great, right? Only problem is it’s not our trailer. It’s kind of a straight horror preview and while we’re sure it’ll appeal to many of you, we wanted to make sure you guys got to see our cut … Let’s call it the “filmmaker’s cut.” We think it captures the comedy and scares of the horror films we grew up on — a kind of nostalgia for when horror films were fun. Can’t wait to show you the whole film … In the meantime, here’s the red-band trailer we wanted our fans to see.

OK, yes, this has the faint ring of a marketing gambit. It’s so hard to tell actual sincerity from the performance of sincerity these days, isn’t it? Is there still a difference? I didn’t think so. But, anyway, if the movie’s going to be anywhere near as deliciously, sleazily awesome as this trailer, I don’t care. Being forced into a generic container might be the best thing that could happen to Cody’s overly precious writing. As my college poetry teacher used to say, it’s always easier to write good sonnets than good free verse — and this particular sonnet has a naked high-school demon-cheerleader in it. My prescription for JackoPaloPalooza overload: Watch it twice and discuss among yourselves.

Continue Reading Close

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen”

Giant robots battle it out (and hump Megan Fox's leg) in this loud and clumsy summer spectacular

  • more
    • All Share Services

“He’s here — I smell him.” That’s a line from “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” but funnily enough, it’s also what I think every time I sit down to watch a Michael Bay movie. As you can probably guess from the title, “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” is the sequel to Bay’s hugely successful 2007 “Transformers,” and it’s roughly more of the same — and yet less. “Revenge of the Fallen” picks up two years after Sam Witwicky (the perpetually clueless-looking Shia LaBeouf) and the Autobots have saved the human race from the Decepticons. Don’t clutter your head with worrying about exactly what this means: Bay and his screenwriters, Ehren Kruger and Roberto Orci, sure didn’t. All you need to know is that the Autobots are good and the Decepticons are bad; both are humanoid robots that can fold themselves up into various vehicles and other mechanical objects. (This is a movie franchise based on a toy, after all — a credit line at the beginning tells us it’s being presented in association with Hasbro.)

Now the Decepticons are back to stir up trouble — their aim is to destroy the sun; why not? — and Sam, who’s just headed off to college, must temporarily put his education on hold. Meanwhile, his girlfriend, Mikaela (Megan Fox), prances about in teeny-tiny shorts and other assorted form-fitting garments. She makes her entrance crouched on the seat of a motorcycle, her pert butt aimed at the heavens. Later in the movie, a once-aggressive robot she’s befriended and tamed eagerly humps her leg. This is what it means, in the Bay universe, to be a movie sex symbol.

In “Revenge of the Fallen,” the action jumps from Los Angeles to New York and other points on the East Coast, as well as to France and Egypt. We must, of course, end up somewhere in the desert so Bay will have a chance to give us lots of scenes in which soldiers (they’re part of a top-secret outfit called NEST, who work with the Autobots to keep Earth safe, and they’re led by stalwart Capt. Lennox, once again played by Josh Duhamel) get to shoot the bejesus out of the enemy among the dunes. The plot of “Revenge of the Fallen” is extremely busy without being particularly rewarding: There’s something happening every minute, including lots of clumpy robot battles in which it’s impossible to tell who’s coming from where. Bay seems to think that just showing us a bunch of brightly clashing metallic limbs (accompanied by lots of noise) is enough to make us faint in our seats with excitement.

Of course, all Michael Bay movies are loud: He accessorizes his shoddily conceived and executed action sequences with heaps of gunfire, explosions and crashes, ostensibly to make them more thrilling. But if “Transformers” was loud, “Revenge of the Fallen” is louder. You could argue that in the first movie, Bay at least attempted to make us care about the human and robot characters, particularly Bumblebee (voiced by Mark Ryan), the sensitive robot/car who becomes Sam’s guardian; here, they’re an afterthought, a shadowy sidecar to the action. “Revenge of the Fallen” is also exceedingly crass. I don’t believe it’s the job of movies to safeguard the purity of our youth. At the same time, I’m not sure I see the point of robots using words like “bitch” and “pussy” in a movie inspired by a line of toys. “Revenge of the Fallen” just comes off as a bratty kid showing how many swear words he knows.

Bay is a purveyor of clunky, occasionally enjoyable crap: I sometimes get pleasure out of his movies by marveling at the astonishingly low level of craftsmanship that he consistently gets away with. (My favorite is “The Island,” a fine example of futuristic claptrap.) And maybe “Revenge of the Fallen” is no worse than any other Bay movie: You probably can’t sink much lower after making a piece of pseudo-historical hokum like “Pearl Harbor.” Still, big, dumb and clumsy is no way to go through life. “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” is shiny and loud, all right. But do you really want it humping your leg?

Continue Reading Close

Stephanie Zacharek is a senior writer for Salon Arts & Entertainment.

Page 2 of 2 in Megan Fox