_edited.jpg)
"Men grow up expecting to be the hero of their own story. Women grow up expecting to be the supporting actress in somebody else’s".
She's beauty, she's 'quirky', she has a favourite band you've never heard of and her hair is an unusual shade that looks like it was impulsively box dyed in her bathroom. She's frivolous, free-spirited and brings out the adventurous side you never knew existed – she's a Manic Pixie Dream Girl.
The term defines a stock character in film coined by by Nathan Rabin as a woman who “exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures" – a critique of Kirsten Dunst's character 'Claire' in the 2005 Romance/ Drama, Elizabethtown.
While this description is pretty fair of the roles that women were notoriously cast as in your average Rom-Com/ Coming-Of-Age, the term has since spiraled out of control, with Rabin himself denouncing it as a "patriarchal lie". Movies with women characters who merely have quirks yet still have compelling storylines are being diminished to 'Manic Pixie Dream Girls' (MPDG) and the trope is now being highlighted for it's sexist undertones that suggest women with these personality traits are merely a product of the male fantasy, existing only for the male gaze.
THE MPDG ARCHETYPE DEFINED
As Rabin states, this character is typically written by 'sensitive writer-directors', often with an obscure sense of self and understanding of women. They create women characters that essentially aid men in becoming better versions of themselves, often at the expense of the woman's arc. Traits that make one human are typically overlooked, with the MPDG being a shiny new toy in the eyes of their male counterparts. The woman is merely required as an emotional crutch, a supportive role. As journalist Laurie Penny states, "Men grow up expecting to be the hero of their own story. Women grow up expecting to be the supporting actress in somebody else’s."
MPDG's are usually identified by their whimsical personality, often perceived as borderline juvenile, their spontaneity and unwavering sense of optimism. They have no flaws that one can identify, charming to most and probably the type to play the ukulele. A MPDG says
"Let me help you fix your problems!", because they never seem to have their own.
Essentially, this trope is a deranged projection of what is deemed a 'dream woman'. Someone who brings men fun and joy but does not challenge them; someone who fixes men's problems but does not create them.
These characters exist in some films, but are they a fair representation of all women who just happen to have some of the signature characteristics?
MISUSES AND CRITIQUES OF THE TERM IN FILM
The issue at large here, and the reason the creator himself finds it troubling, is that the term is completely misused and a slap in the face to well-written, nuanced women characters who merely have some noticeable MPDG traits. Rabin, in his article for Salon apologised for creating the term, saying that "Calling a character a Manic Pixie Dream Girl is nearly as much of a cliché as the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope".
There's a long list of movies where you could argue the woman protagonist to be a MPDG, in which case, you'd be wrong. This includes Summer Finn from (500) Days of Summer, Ramona Flowers from Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and even Cara Delevingne's character Margo in that awful Paper Towns movie. While there are reasons that each of them are not in fact MPDG, they all share the characteristic that goes against the trope itself – they are complicated characters who cause the male protagonist problems. They are flawed human beings and they make no effort to hide it. The reason the audience may mistake them for being the MPDG is due to the male protagonist often foolishly choosing to ignore their flaws in pursuit of their 'perfect girl'.
One of the films I've recently watched, Ruby Sparks, provided me with the perfect commentary on the trope. The film involves a young, burnout writer whose fictionalised woman character in his novel comes to life and whatever he writes about in his story, happens in real life. This allows him to manipulate his character, 'Ruby' into his perfect woman and whenever she acts in a way that upsets him, he changes who she is to better suit his ideologies. It's as if the film is the trope come to life.
Ruby Sparks writer and actress who plays Ruby herself, Zoe Kazan commented on the trope, saying, “I don’t like that term … I think it’s turned into this unstoppable monster where people use it to describe things that don’t really fall under that rubric”, once again not only reaffirming its overuse, bit misuse too.
Summer, Clementine, Ramona – they're all a little fucked up, as human beings are. And a Manic Pixie Dream Girl is not fucked up, they are only written to feel joy in the magical, naive fairyland of their minds.
GIVE IT A BREAK ALREADY
I say this trope as a whole needs to come to an end. While women are without a doubt magical, we are human beings with our own journey/ issues/ arcs and should be written as such. Expecting a woman to be a version of perfection that suits men is unfair and a false representation at that. Self-sacrifice is also so normalised for women in any kind of relationship with men, and we don't need to see any more of it on our screens either.
Oh, and since apparently any woman with an unusual edge makes her a MPDG, consider that maybe it just makes her cooler and more interesting than her male counterparts.
Maybe...she's just cooler than you?
Images via. Pinterest
Comentários