It’s hard to see how Fox’s most recent controversy can be construed as humorous. In an interview in the September issue of Wonderland, a British style magazine, Fox was asked the innocuous question “What are your most favorite and least favorite things about working with Michael Bay?” She never elaborated on the positives; instead Fox compared him to the power-mad dictators Napoleon and Hitler and claimed he was “a nightmare to work for.”It's a substantially imperfect piece, but it works, ultimately, as a piece of media criticism. I wish writers would really tear into stars and how they manage their public images more. And I wonder if Hirschberg could do this with Fox in a way she couldn't do with an actress or actor of a) more proven talent, b) more proven box office, c) a less absurdist, sexualized appeal. But I think it's effective and worthwhile to dismantle the junk actors feed us, and that magazine editors (and by extension we) ask them to sell us.
Foxy Lady
I think the only thing it's really possible to take away from the New York Times Magazine profile of Megan Fox is that Lynn Hirschberg is very, very good at interviewing difficult subjects. It's a relief that Hirschberg is very frank about Fox's lack of talent--it's a strikingly blunt judgement for a profile for which the main character has clearly cooperated. She's also very frank about how constructed Fox's public persona is, and how badly Fox misjudges her efforts sometimes: