A Manic Pixie Dream Girl (MPDG) is a stock character type in films. Film critic Nathan Rabin, who coined the term after observing Kirsten Dunst's character in Elizabethtown (2005), said that the MPDG "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."[1]
The Manic Pixie Dream Girl, like some other stock characters such as the Magical Negro, seems to exist only to provide spiritual or mystical help to the protagonist. The MPDG has no discernible inner life. Instead, her central purpose is to provide the protagonist with important life lessons.[2]
MPDGs are usually static characters who have eccentric personality quirks and are unabashedly girlish. They invariably serve as the romantic interest for a (most often brooding or depressed) male protagonist. Examples of an MPDG are described below:
In an interview in New York about her film Ruby Sparks, actress and screenwriter Zoe Kazan noted that the term should only be used to criticize writers who create one-dimensional female characters, not actresses. She ultimately expressed skepticism over the use of the term, noting that its use could be reductive, diminutive, and misogynistic. She disagreed that Hepburn's character in Bringing Up Baby is a MPDG: "I think that to lump together all individual, original quirky women under that rubric is to erase all difference."[13]
In a December 2012 video, AllMovie critic Cammila Collar embraced the term as an effective description of one-dimensional female characters who seek only the happiness of the male protagonist, and who do not deal with any complex issues of their own. She noted that the pejorative use of the term, then, is mainly directed at writers who do not give these female characters more to do than bolster the spirits of their male partners.[14]
In December 2012, Slate's Aisha Harris posited that "critiques of the MPDG may have become more common than the archetype itself,” suggesting that filmmakers had been forced to become "self-aware about such characters" in the years since Rabin's coining of the phrase and that the trope had largely disappeared from film.[15]
In July 2013, Kat Stoeffel, for The Cut, argued that the term has its uses, but that it has sometimes been deployed in ways that are sexist. For example, she noted that "it was levied, criminally, at Diane Keaton in Annie Hall and Zooey Deschanel, the actual person. How could a real person's defining trait be a lack of interior life?"[16]
Similar sentiments were elucidated by Monika Bartyzel for The Week in April 2013, who wrote "this once-useful piece of critical shorthand has devolved into laziness and sexism.” Bartyzel argues that "[The term] 'Manic Pixie Dream Girl' was useful when it commented on the superficiality of female characterizations in male-dominated journeys, but it has since devolved into a pejorative way to deride unique women in fiction and reality."
In July 2014, writing for Salon, Rabin stated that the term "Manic Pixie Dream Girl" had frequently been deployed in ways that are sexist and had become as much of a cliché as the MPDG trope itself.
Rabin acknowledged that the phrase has its uses in specific, limited contexts, saying that "the phrase was useful precisely because, while still fairly flexible, it also benefited from a certain specificity." However, he continued by stating that the overwhelming popularity of the term, coupled with the oversimplified definition he gave when coining it, had led to it becoming a kind of “unstoppable monster.” He wrote "by giving an idea a name and a fuzzy definition, you apparently also give it power. And in my case, that power spun out of control."
Rabin asserted that it had gotten to the point where people were commonly using the term to critique real women and actresses (instead of fictitious, one dimensional characters) and to describe things that don’t actually fall under the rubric of the MPDG. In his conclusion, Rabin noted that many nuanced female characters cannot be classified in such an all-encompassing, restricted nature and apologized to pop culture for coining a term that is so pervasive and ambiguous, and he stated that the term should be retired and “put to rest."[17]
Despite Rabin’s calls, some film critics continue to use the term, and writers continue to produce explainer articles and videos that attempt to define it.[18][19][20]
A possible male version of this trope, the Manic Pixie Dream Boy or Manic Pixie Dream Guy, was found in Augustus Waters from the film version of The Fault in Our Stars (2014); he was given this title in a 2014 Vulture article, in which Matt Patches stated, "he's a bad boy, he's a sweetheart, he's a dumb jock, he's a nerd, he's a philosopher, he's a poet, he's a victim, he's a survivor, he's everything everyone wants in their lives, and he's a fallacious notion of what we can actually have in our lives."[21]
The Manic Pixie Dream Boy trope has also been pointed out in sitcoms such as Parks and Recreation and 30 Rock. The female protagonists of these shows are married to men (Adam Scott's Ben Wyatt and James Marsden's Criss Chros, respectively), who, according to a 2012 Grantland article, "patiently [tamp] down her stubbornness and temper while appreciating her quirks, helping her to become her best possible self."[22]
|
See also: Magical girlfriend |
Another version of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl is the algorithm-defined fantasy girl. Although the latter is not human, but a robot or artificial intelligence, her function is the same: to fulfill the desires of the male character and to help him in his journey without having any desires or journey of her own, e.g. Joi in Blade Runner 2049.[23][24]
