Since Garden State came out
in 2004, the film trope of the "manic pixie dream girl" (MPDG) has
been discussed over and over again. The most widely used description of
the MPDG is from film critic Nathan Rabin: "that bubbly, shallow cinematic
creature that 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." While the men in films featuring
MPDGs are sensitive new age guys who show fragility and emotions, the sole
purpose of MPDGs is to lift the male characters out of an existential void with
their quirky effervescence. You can see a montage of clips
containing MPDGs here.
The new film Ruby
Sparks seeks to subvert the MPDG stereotype. Written and acted by Zoe Kazan, who projects
the same wide-eyed saccharinity as perpetual MPDG Zooey Deschanel, the film
portrays a depressed writer who creates his dream girl character, only to find
her actualized in real life. They
commence on a dream relationship, which sours when the girl begins thinking
independently, and acting contrarily to the way he desires. The film frankly discusses the harm idealized
notions about a person can bring to relationships, calling to mind numerous
studies we’ve discussed over the term.
First, the manic pixie dream girl stereotype smacks of
Galician’s 12 myths and stereotypes of sex, love, and romance found in the
Bader (2007) article, most notably myths #7 and #10, which state that the love
of a woman can change a man and that the right mate “completes you”,
respectively. The Segrin and Nabi (2002)
article about unrealistic expectations about marriage also lends depth to understanding
the problem with MPDGs. Though I can’t
think of an instance where the main guy actually marries his dream girl, they
do generally commence on these dream relationships with the sense that this
girl is “the one”, that their dream girl completely understands them, and their
love lives together will be perfect.
Interestingly, the types of men in this type of film usually
run against the norms of hegemonic masculinity and fall into the “sensitive new
age guy” category. They frequently show fragility and emotion, and as their
reliance on MPDGs for happiness would suggest, exhibit submissive traits. Additionally, there are certainly extant
media portrayals of what I would consider “manic pixie dream boys”, notably
Jack Dawson in Titanic (1998).
I really enjoyed reading this blog Jeneen, I can't believe I cannot recall ever actually hearing of the "MPDG" film trope before! Based on your description I've probably seen depictions of this in the media, but never consciously placed it. I like how you used the stereotype myths from the Bader article on song lyrics to connect them to this film (they're spot on). Also having never seen a preview for this "Ruby Sparks" film (apparently I've been living under a rock in regards to all of this MPDG business?!), I think it looks like a really interesting film and would love to check it out. I think the overall film concept is creative, but I agree that it seems pretty predictable that if a guy in a movie were to "create his ideal MPDG" she would adhere to traditional feminine stereotypes (or be expected to). Similarly in regards to traditional gender norms within a heterosexual relationship, as can be pointed out by Holtz Ivory, Gibson & Ivory, 2009 that, "Women are seen as passive, nurturant and dependent...", I'm not surprised by the movie's apparent concept that the main character's dreamy relationship goes sour when this Ruby Sparks character becomes more of not-so-passive, independent female individual. Again, great blog post and I'll have to keep an eye out for this film!
ReplyDelete