The name Megan Fox has cropped up as a candidate for many roles involving both the strong and sexy women icon. Now her name has emerged as possibly following in Elizabeth Taylor’s footsteps as the next Cleopatra. This brings up an interesting comparison between the two in portraying one of the most well-known women in history, and how these two actresses stack up against each other and the legend of the woman.
1. Let’s start with age. Taylor played Cleopatra when she was between the ages of 28 and 30, while Fox, if the movie started filming in 2011, would be 25 years old. Cleopatra was around 21 when she met Caesar and 28 when she met Mark Antony, so Fox would be much closer in age than Taylor to the younger woman, and close to the right age as the older Cleopatra.
2. Itch factor. Saying that Fox is sexier tells us how people played both actresses when they were in their prime. Fox displays a lot of sexuality in her films, but that wasn’t the fashion in Taylor’s day. Well, there were a couple of actresses in Taylor’s time who were like that, but not that many. Taylor was always seen as a stylish and beautiful actress who rose through the ranks, and in her day she was seen as sexy.
3. Experience. Here there is no contest at all. Fox has been an actress longer than most people know, but until she made the movie Jennifer’s Body, she was never the star of a movie. Taylor starred in her first movie at age 12 and was a true acting star when she played Cleopatra. The number of movies is not close, although Fox has a lot of experience in television. Many would wonder if Fox could carry a blockbuster historical film like Cleopatra, where she would have to act as someone who, oddly enough, would have to be totally different than she is now. She hasn’t shown that she can play a wide range of roles, which could make her a hard sell for that role.
4. Historical accuracy. Let’s face this fact; Neither Taylor nor Fox are credible when it comes to playing an Egyptian woman. Fox gets closer to her because of her Native American origin, but that’s about it. Both women emulate the beauty that Cleopatra was supposed to have, and Fox has a body that goes well with a statue of Cleopatra that she made for herself during her lifetime.
5. Ticket office. What it would ultimately come down to would be what kind of box office numbers the producers think could be achieved with Fox in this role. The original Cleopatra was an interesting anomaly because, when it came out in 1963, it was the highest-grossing movie of the year, but it lost millions of dollars because it cost almost double what it made that first year. The days of that kind of blockbuster are long gone, but there are still great movies that rely on both the story and the people acting in them to draw in huge numbers.
Would enough people believe Fox as Cleopatra, based on the movies she’s made to date, especially if she’s in the now-talked-about movie, Wonder Woman, first? Or will it take a very strong pair of actors playing the other two main characters in such a movie to help push it over the edge? Or does anyone still care enough about Cleopatra to go see the movie no matter who is in it? It’s a tough role for an actress who doesn’t yet have the pedigree to show that she could get enough people interested in going to see a movie that she’s a part of. But she would also be the part of a lifetime. At least we know that Cleopatra would look good with Fox in the role; It’s enough?