Photo from http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I0eATcEeRgU/maxresdefault.jpg
It is a character that we
have come to know quite well. From Jess on New
Girl to Sam in Garden State, the
Manic Pixie Dream Girl (MPDG) is a character trope that has captivated the Millennial
generation. Not only has it catapulted itself to being a commonly acknowledged
character in many popular films and television shows, it is now an identity
with which many young girls and women hope to become. But, I have to wonder, at
what cost?
Nathan Rabin coined the term
MPDG in 2007 when writing one of his first movie reviews for Elizabethtown. He initially created the
term in response to his strong reactions towards Claire, played by Kristen
Dunst. He described her as a “fantasy figure who existed solely in the fevered
imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men
to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures” (Rabin, 2007). This
description didn’t sound completely unique to a patriarchal-filled movie
industry. I mean, what movie did not create
a storyline where a woman taught a man more about himself and the audience was
left apathetic towards the female love interest? Very few. Characters like Audrey
Hepburn from Breakfast at Tiffany’s to
Diane Keaton in Annie Hall captured
the love and longing many young men possessed in previous generations. The Millennial
generation was not doing anything new, but now the evolvement of feminism into
mainstream culture would create a heightened awareness around what these
characters do in real life to young
girls and women.
Men who identified
themselves with an unconventional form of masculinity (i.e. sensitive emotional
nature, a variety of non-gender normative interests/hobbies, etc.) were drawn
towards the films where they felt they could relate to the male lead characters
struggling with similar identity development concerns. Zach Braff in Garden State, Joseph Gorden Levitt in 500 Days of Summer, and Jim Carey in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, these were men who exemplified
emotional growth and depth to Millennials. Masculinity in films had carved out
a space that challenged the status quo, but
at what cost? What each of these men in these films possesses as the critical
stepping stone on a path to self-actualization is a woman. This woman stays
both strategically in the foreground and the background. The woman keeps the
viewer intrigued into the magic she possesses to somehow invoke emotional depth and progression, however she also
wears a muzzle that mutes her own narrative,
evolving identity, and emotional complexity. In 500 Days of Summer, Summer (Zooey Deschanel) is Tom’s (Joseph
Gorden Levitt) love interest and provides a creative motivation and push for
self-actuality through her quirky hobbies, freedom from adult responsibilities,
and present-focused attitudes about love and relationships. Eventually Summer
ends the relationship stating she is not longer in love with Tom, which throws him
into an emotional renaissance of realizing for the first time in his life that
the only person that can make him fulfilled is himself. Although the film
presents a storyline that is uplifting for many individuals, young men in
particular, the viewers often forget about the perspective of Summer. We do not
hear the complexities behind Summer and the perspectives she brings to the relationship.
She stays in the foreground and background, waiting patiently to be included in
the story as we follow Tom’s individual story.
Rabin has responded recently
with an apology for creating the term MPDG (2014), but not for reasons that
many people understand. Rabin states that “the trope of the [MPDG] is a
fundamentally sexist one, since it make women seem less like autonomous,
independent entities than appealing props to help mopey, sad white men
self-actualize”, he later states that “the response to [his MPDG label] was
pretty positive, but relatively sleep” (Rabin, 2015). The MPDG fits perfectly
within a patriarchal structure that has permeated the Millennial generation
into not fully realizing the detrimental effect it has on young girls and women.
How can it be so hurtful to include an independent and quirky female character
in a featured film alongside an untraditional male lead? Patriarchy is an
ever-evolving movement that crafts itself to the changing culture, in this case
by creating a physical space for these women, yet still creating and
maintaining how she presents (i.e. a
prop for the male lead character). Rabin provided a term that provides a
liberation for women and men who could not explain fully why they didn’t connect with these female characters. These women
felt hollow, shallow, and not quite autonomous. Although this term explains the
emotional disconnect between many viewers and these supposed-to-be-loved female
characters, the MPDG has slowly turned into a trope that women should aim to become. We need to keep
our wits about us and we need to continue to check-in with the motivations
behind why these characters were created.
Was this character created to stand independently or are they acting as a post
of a footstool meant for a male lead? I love the movie 500 Days of Summer more than anybody else, however every time I
stand up for Summer I often receive a pushback from my many people. Why is
that? I think Rabin and I both know why, and that is because we are trying to
respect the independent narrative that Summer possess, whether people want to acknowledge it or not.
Rabin,
N. (2007, January 25). The bataan death march of whimsy case file #1: Elizabethtown. A.V. Club. Retrieved from
http://www.avclub.com/article/the-bataan-death-march-of-whimsy-case-file-1-emeli-15577
Rabin,
N. (2014, July 15). I’m sorry for coining the phrase “Manic Pixie Dream Girl”. Salon. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2014/07/15/im_sorry_for_coining_the_phrase_manic_pixie_dream_girl/
Written by Meredith A. Martyr
No comments:
Post a Comment