Huffington Fluff

In his write-up at Huffington Post, Scott Mendelson asks why we hate Megan Fox. While I don't care whether Fox was fired or quit the upcoming Transformers production, I was curious as to what the fuss is about, so I read Mendelson's post.

It's always been my impression that The Huffington Post regarded itself as an alternate source of news, and held its writers to a higher standard than that found on many personal blogs. However, I was shocked by Mendelson's level of writing, both its overall grammatical quality, and objectivity.

Perhaps 'shocked' is too dramatic a word. However, I'm at a loss to come up with a better description. Should I settle for 'off-put'? Or, is that too mild? Is 'incensed' too full of myself?

Sorry, but bad writing gets to me. I can't help it. I like precision. What Mr. Mendelson has wrought is a Frankenstein's monster -- a jangly mish-mash of poorly executed notions and fantasies, stitched together by a lazy and uninformed tinkerer, which represents an abomination, an affront to the very notion of thoughtful writing.

So, as a fellow blogger, I offer the following analysis of Mr. Mendelson's rambling in the hopes that it might slow (I'm aware it will not stop) the proliferation of such unwieldy creations. If I cannot succeed in this lofty goal I hope to, at least, give pause to pounders of keyboards everywhere, whether they be in their own homes or in the offices of more established news agencies, before they click 'publish'.

Firstly, Mendelson fails, again and again, to cite his source. From the first paragraph:

"...the same geeks and entertainment columnists who called co-star Shia LeBeouf honest and gutsy for criticizing Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) were basically applauding the idea that Fox had been fired for basically doing the same thing."

In something of a self-aggrandizing oversight, Mendelson links to his own review of Transformers but does not cite a source for Shia's comments.

Now, before I go on, I have to point out some clunky writing. Not that that's a bad thing. I love some good clunky writing now and again. But, in Mendelson's piece, it's simply irritating. In the above the turn of phrase 'basically applauding the idea...for basically doing the same thing' is, basically, lacking a certain flow.

So, let's look at the comments in question. From LA Times blog, 24 Frames, I found the following by LeBeouf. Referring to 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull', in which LeBeouf starred with Harrison Ford, LeBeouf says:

"I feel like I dropped the ball on the legacy that people loved and cherished"

"You get to monkey-swinging and things like that and you can blame it on the writer and you can blame it on Steven [Spielberg, who directed]. But the actor's job is to make it come alive and make it work, and I couldn't do it. So that's my fault. Simple"

"We [Harrison Ford and LaBeouf] had major discussions. He wasn't happy with it either. Look, the movie could have been updated. There was a reason it wasn't universally accepted"

And, in regard to Transformers:

"When I saw the second movie, I wasn't impressed with what we did"

Certainly, critical comments. However, Mendelson writes:

"...the media at large jumped on the idea that Fox had been fired by Michael Bay in relation for various statements that Fox had made over the last several months that appeared to criticize Mr. Bay."

Shouldn't that be 'in relation to' not 'for' various statements? Anyway, again:

"The same geeks...who called co-star Shia LeBeouf honest and gutsy for criticizing Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) were basically applauding the idea that Fox had been fired for basically doing the same thing."

The above-mentioned clunky style aside, here, with this statement, Mendelson takes the first of several falls. While LeBeouf's comments were critical of his performance in the movie(s) and the movies themselves, he did not criticize Steven Spielberg personally. Fox's comments were personal attacks against Michael Bay. So, therefore, the two groups of comments are not, basically, 'the same thing'.

As an aside: In his review of the movie, Mendelson calls Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen "...a shocking amount of effort and skill going into a product of little entertainment value and even less significance." and gives it a grade of D+. By his own logic, by making such a criticism, Mendelson has, basically, launched a personal attack on Michael Bay. Basically...

Next, we move on to that most subtle of writing techniques: hyperbole. Mendelson says:

"Her comments comparing him to Hitler were misguided, but only because the proper comparison would have been Joseph Stalin (i.e. - he basically works you to death while shooting the film)."

I'm not sure any elaboration is needed here.

Then comes this gem. It took my breath away:

"Anyone who honestly thought that Fox was comparing Michael Bay's direction of Transformers to Adolf Hitler's actions as head of Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s is intentionally deluding themselves (to justify their own inexplicable hatred of either Fox or Bay)."

With this, Mendelson suggests that those who hold Ms. Fox in low regard are so addled they literally think Bay's direction style is comparable to that of Hitler's actions. This is one of many instances where Mendelson employs a peculiar brand of circular logic: 'Anyone who (honestly) thinks Fox was comparing Bay's direction to Hitler's actions in WWII is deluded, therefore Ms. Fox calling Bay 'Hitler' is above criticism by such (deluded) people'.

Next is this bit:

It would be easy to classify the mainstream hatred of Megan Fox as a classic virgin/whore dynamic, and it wouldn't be incorrect.

Wishy-Washy. The writer sidesteps any commitment. It 'would be' easy to classify, however that does not mean I am classifying, and, if I were doing so, it wouldn't be incorrect. He follows up with:

...stereotypical female moviegoers, prefer their leading ladies to be sexually harmless, not terribly opinionated, and completely nonthreatening in that 'girl next door' kind of way. Jennifer Aniston may look fantastic when done up for a magazine shoot, but women are safe in the knowledge that without the fancy Hollywood makeup, she pretty much looks like the rest of us, and won't be a sexual threat to their boyfriends or husbands.

More strange logic. Ms. Aniston is rarely seen (probably never seen by the average husband) without make-up, looking fantastic. As such, how can a woman feel 'safe in the knowledge' that Aniston would not be a threat to their boyfriends or husbands? Is the sterotypical woman afraid their husband will find himself at the local market some Sunday morning next to Ms. Aniston in the produce section -- her all plain and without make up -- stealing glances at her and planning the end of his marriage while he pretends to judge the quality of a bell pepper?

Mendelson continues:

"Angelina Jolie, on the other hand, represents a genuine threat."

Isn't it sexist (or just plain rude) to suggest that the average woman is threatened by Angelina Jolie's looks? That is, the average woman would not want their husband to see or know an attractive woman for fear it may bring about the end of their marriage. Is that in the vows somewhere? 'I take you in sickness and in health, to cherish and honor forever till death do us part, unless of course a hot babe walks past or I see one on TV. Then it's over. Forget it'.

Mendelson continues to speculate as to the degree and type of attractiveness of other Hollywood actors like Uma Thurman and Julia Roberts and whether they are a threat to marriages, or deserving of women's loathing. He concludes this line of thinking with the articulate:

"Because men won't go to see a film because they find the leading lady attractive, even if women will do so for handsome leading men (think the Twilight franchise)."

Men won't go to see a movie that has an attractive female lead? Really? If men won't go to see a film with an attractive leading lady, why are stereotypical women threatened by such beauty?

And with this, even a hack like Mendelson scrapes the bottom:

Plucked from obscurity and turned into a superstar as a result of the first Transformers picture, she has not gone the way of obscurity that greeted Shia LeBeouf's prior love interests. Despite possibly being better actresses and/or being just as attractive, Margo Harschman (the TV series Even Stevens) has only recently found a niche as a B-movie scream queen, while Sarah Roemer (Disturbia) has simply struggled to stay employed (both starred in the dreadful Fired Up). But Fox has stayed in the limelight as a figure of lust and tabloid frenzy.

I'm sorry. Is Mendelson making a connection between the success of Fox as an actor and the failure (according to him) of former girlfriend's of Shia LeBeouf's Margo Harschman and Sarah Roemer as explanation why she (Fox) has been derided for her comments regarding Michael Bay? Firstly, I dare you to find one in a hundred average people who can identify either Ms. Harschman or Ms. Roemer as being a former love interest of Shia LeBeouf. As such, neither woman, nor their professional failure as perceived by Mr. Mendelson, can be cited as a reason people have criticized Ms. Fox.

Further, a check of IMDB shows that Harschman has some twenty-nine listed credits -- hardly 'niche' success. A check of credits for Sarah Roemer shows twelve returns -- approximately half of which are major motion pictures. While this might be interpreted as 'struggling to stay employed' it should be mentioned Ms. Roemer was born in 1984. That ain't bad, Mr. Mendelson.

Let's make a dash for the end, shall we:

"Megan Fox may or may not have been fired from Transformers 3. She may have simply declined to appear because she just didn't want to do the picture, perhaps because she had nothing to do in the prior sequel (Bay had allegedly promised her a better role this time around, complete with her own female villain to combat)."

One speculation leading to another to support a point. All soft -- she may have done this, and may have declined that, perhaps for reasons related to alleged promises...

There is no question that society as a whole does not like Megan Fox.

Society as a whole? All of society? No question all of society does not like her? I see.

She has done nothing of note to earn our wrath, or even our interest. We created Megan Fox the superstar.

She is a superstar that has done nothing to earn even our interest. Wait! How did we do that again? Create a superstar without showing interest in them?

Mr. Mendelson, I find your writing repulsive and irresponsible. I'm a bit ashamed to think I might be compared to the likes of you because we both write about movies. I recommend you give your writing more thought, not to mention doing a bit of research next time. I hope you either take a writing class, or should you deem that is beneath you, would you please consider not posting anymore of your irrational and poorly constructed thoughts online.