Why Do We Ruin the Lead Actresses of Panned Films?

“Being critical of art is a way of showing art respect.”- Jerry Saltz, art critic.

“The Internet has given everyone in America a voice, and evidently everyone in America has chosen to use that voice to bitch about movies.” - Holden McNeil, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. 

In our contemporary digital age, everyone is a film critic. Whether one gives their analyses to thousands of subscribers on YouTube, or voices their displeasure with a film in a crude comment under the Rotten Tomatoes Instagram page, the Internet enabled people to share their thoughts on a film to the masses and view everybody else’s. 

Although this can allow people to learn about films and genres they would not have discovered themselves, these widespread discussions can lead to a film getting negative attention before its release, or more often than not, the bullying and harassment of the actors involved.

Take Star Wars, known for arguably having the most toxic fans compared to any other franchise. With social media being available 24/7 on smartphones, fans used that opportunity to just spread more hate towards actors. Kelly Marie Tran, who played Rose Tico in The Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker, was forced to delete all of her Instagram posts due to the endless bullying and hate speech she faced by ‘fans’ online. However, the actors of the prequels also experienced severe harassment, even though social media was not nearly as popular as it is nowadays. Jake Lloyd, who played young Anakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menance permanently quit acting because of bullying; Ahmed Best, who played infamous character Jar-Jar Binks, experienced suicidal thoughts due to intense scrutiny towards him.

The toxicity fans are capable of exhibiting is well-known to the public nowadays. On the other hand, the toxic nature of critics and of people in the film industry is less obvious, despite the fact that it can result in even more negative consequences than the criticism committed by fans. Film critics, Hollywood executives, and the media were essentially ‘canceling’ people before cancel culture came to fruition. They ruined the careers and public images of numerous actors based on one poorly-performed film. But, what seems to the most common target of these three entities? Women. The most prominent examples of the effects the cruel, chew them up and spit them out attitude of Hollywood can have on actresses is Elizabeth Berkley after Showgirls and Megan Fox after Jennifer’s Body. 

Showgirls, despite becoming a cult classic, is regarded as one of the worst movies of all time, a title I believe is wholly exaggerated. Released in 1995, it was the first and only film rated NC-17 to have a wide release. The story follows protagonist Nomi Malone, played by Berkley, as she goes to Las Vegas in hopes of becoming a successful showgirl.

Is Showgirls without flaws? Absolutely not. The tone is uneven; it is unclear whether the audience should regard the film as a satirical critique on show business or an underdog drama. The screen-writing did not help at all, to say the least (one cannot call themselves a film buff if they have not heard Kyle MacLachlan say “I like a lot of different champagnes… but I always stick with champagne.”) Characters were miscast and the film’s attempt of ‘exposing’ misogyny among people in entertainment is counter-acted with the never-ending scenes of nudity and an unnecessary graphic depiction of rape. Unsurprisingly, the film received universally negative reviews upon release.

Despite this, the film garnered significant popularity after its release, grossing more than $100 million in home video sales. How it should be treated is still up to debate today. It’s been regarded as a misunderstood masterpiece, a “so-bad-its-good” film along with the lines of The Room and Battlefield Earth, and according to Quentin Tarantino, a modern exploitation film. It could also be argued as camp. 

Much of the fury of the critics was aimed at Berkley’s performance. Critics found it to be over the top and ridiculous for that reason. Paul Verhoeven, the director, publicly defended Berkley by saying that it was his idea to have her act that way and believed that the criticism should be put on him and screenwriter Joe Eszterhas (1). Despite his remarks, Berkeley remained the target of ridicule by the media. Even The New York Times compared her to an “inflatable party doll” with an “open-mouthed, vacant-eyed” look (2). Almost immediately after the release, Berkley was dropped by her agency, with others refusing to take her calls. 

To director Paul Verhoeven and actors Kyle MacLachlan and Gina Gershon, Showgirls is a blip in their career. But for Berkley, the film destroyed any chance of a successful film career. Berkley took the role to depart from her good-girl image, which was conjured during her time with Saved By The Bell, the lighthearted teen sitcom where she played Jessie Spano, the studious feminist. But critics saw her choice to play a street-smart stripper turned showgirl as extreme, rather than an earnest attempt to be seen as a serious actress. It is not an uncommon phenomenon for actors who take drastically different roles in order to avoid type-casting or shedding a public image. Unfortunately, Berkeley was shunned out of Hollywood for this reason alone, rather than giving her the benefit of the doubt and regarding the film as a misstep.

While Berkley was mocked for trying too hard in a raunchy, sexy role, Megan Fox was criticized for not being sexy enough in Jennifer’s Body. 

Jennifer’s Body, like Showgirls, received negative reviews upon its 2009 release, although not as bad as the latter. The movie follows two best friends, Needy Lesnicki and Jennifer Check, played by Amanda Seyfried and Megan Fox. After a bar-fire, Check leaves with an indie band that was performing at the bar and is sacrificed to Satan. She lives but is possessed by a demon that feeds off of men’s bodies. Lesnicki tries to learn what happened to Check in order to stop her. 

The fatal flaw with Jennifer’s Body, which led to its critical failure and commercial disappointment, was its marketing. The marketing purposefully warped audience’s expectations of the movie. Some of the trailers showed it to be a sinister, pure-horror film. But most of the damage was created by the overly-sexualized posters and trailers focused on Fox. Posters showed her leaning back on desks, scantily clad in schoolgirl skirts; posing in cheerleader uniforms; close-up of Fox licking her lips. A kiss between Fox and Seyfried was blown up in the trailers. 

The marketing banked on Fox’s sex appeal to appeal to men, especially teenage/young-adult boys. Studio executives gave the movie a chance only because of Fox’s looks. In an E.T interview with Fox and Cody, Cody recalls how she sent a marketing executive of the studio a detailed email about the movie and asked how the studio plans to market the film. The executive replied with “Megan Fox hot.” All this proved to be a complete mistake, going against the intentions of director Karyn Kusama and writer Diablo Cody, who was fresh out of 2007’s Juno.

Jennifer’s Body is clearly a black-comedy with characters spouting quirky dialogue (“You’re killing people!” “No, I’m killing boys.”) and behaving in a strange manner in certain situations (like the band singing 867-5309/Jenny by Tommy Tutone while sacrificing her). But it also deals with serious themes in an honest way, like female sexuality, adolescence, and friendships, in a way that appeals and relates to teenage/young-adult girls, not boys. Its niche and realistic portrayal of these concepts were lost upon release when it was marketed to boys just for the sex appeal. It is no wonder why its current popularity is among women, especially in the age of the #MeToo movement, where people are viewing the film as a feminist-revenge tale or just decided to give the movie another shot after realizing how Fox was mistreated by the media and public in the 2000s. 

The studio exploited Fox to promote the film and not only objectified her, but created a situation for critics and the public to do so as well. Boys in test audiences (supposedly frat boys) wrote that the film needed “moar bewbs (sic).” (3) Critics, disappointed in the fact that Megan Fox was treated as an actor in the film and not a sex object, doubled down on their criticisms and insults towards her. One wrote that Fox’s character was framed to be a “Generic Spoiled Slut,” and another wrote: “If you’re in search for a way to ogle Megan Fox’s body, there are a lot better ways to do it than subjecting yourself to this [movie].” (4) While Fox still appeared in other movies and shows, the combination of the backlash against her role in Jennifer’s Body, along with Hollywood’s treatment of her, stunted the career, not allowing her to take other starring roles that could have shown her acting abilities better. 

The critical re-examination of both films and their cult status shows a change in mindset among society towards actresses, as audiences are more willing now to look past their public image and evaluate their performance in a film in a more objective light. The general rise of awareness on social issues, especially in Hollywood, is helping to amplify the voices of people who were mistreated in the industry which could help avoid these events from occurring again. It could still take time, as we’ve seen hate online against Brie Larson for Captain Marvel, and the female cast of Ocean’s Eight and the Ghostbusters reboot. But with growing support and awareness from today’s audiences, actresses may feel more empowered to defy the misogynistic attitudes and move onto greater heights with their careers.