Monday, December 7, 2009

A female is only the sum of her body parts.

MEGAN FOX. She is the hottest thing ever*, but is she necessarily deserving of her acclaim?
She is reputed to have said that she "didn't know what was happening" in terms of plotline for Transformers. How can an actor attempt to play her part, if she doesn't know the story that she is attempting to convey? The role should have been cast to someone who knew what was going on, and based on her merits as an actress; rather than to a smouldering hot bitch on the basis that she has a seductive pout and a good cleavage.

While most of the revenue from Transformers was undoubtedly generated due to Megan Fox's role, the benefits enjoyed by the production company as a result is negated by the bitter message that it proffers to women: that a female can only ever hope to be successful if she is unrealistically beautiful, regardless of any talent, skills or brains she possesses.


*I still think Paris Hilton is hotter, but that's not what I'm trying to prove here.

2 comments:

  1. She seems pretty realistic to me :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. As gorgeous as she is, MEGAN FOX is a self proclaimed crazybitch and feels that she has to follow through with dumbass comments that confirm her "crazybitch-ness".

    I totalllly agree with your point though, it's like in primary school how the school captain role went to the attractive cool kids who were the biggest dickheads in the world. SO unfair.

    ReplyDelete