Session Four Manic Pixie Dream Girls Department of Film & Audiovisual Culture, Masaryk University Dr. Richard Nowell ¨ ¨1. Quirky and Critical Hostility ¨ ¨2. The Manic Pixie Dream Girl Trope ¨ ¨3. The Implications of Quirky’s Targeted Female Audience ¨ ¨To develop a demonstrable understanding of: ¨ ¨I. The characterization of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. ¨ ¨II. The socio-political phenomena this character-type ¨ mediates. ¨ ¨III. The ways this character-type is used to address audiences of quirky films. ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨As with most prominent trends, Quirky Cinema provoked considerable attention, initially from popular writers and later from academics ¨ ¨Because condemnation and hyperbole tend to generate greater interest and sales for the popular press, journalists often criticized the films ¨ ¨As is often the case, the academic criticism of the films largely echoed the key points of the popular condemnation, albeit with more theory ¨ ¨The main topics comprised a) sexist depictions of female love interests, b) obsession with bad dads, and c) a lack of sociopolitical engagement ¨ ¨However, as we will see, Quirky Cinema’s gender politics, generational politics, and supposed apoliticality are far from being this clear cut ¨The most prominent criticism levelled at Quirky Cinema concerned its supposedly inadequate depiction of female leads ¨ ¨The capacity meta-critically to engage with the reception of representation in entertainment media is a high-risk endeavor ¨ ¨The leftist bent of both Anglophone humanities and elite film culture renders countervailing voices silent or reactionary ¨ ¨Some representational practices certainly are as dubious as the criticism designating them so, but this is not always the case ¨ ¨Popular and academic film writing is littered with examples of critical groupthink or misrepresentation that distorts film history ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨Politically, it represents culture war shots, derived from the ideology, politics, and commercial opportunism of stakeholders ¨ ¨Practically, it involves fellow-traveler academics echoing the eloquent, prominent, yet critically naive positions of journalists ¨ ¨Rhetorically, it tends to involve four conceptual shortcomings that derive from genre criticism’s tendency to erase difference ¨ ¨1. It tends to homogenize the content of films of a given type ¨2. It tends to claim these films advance similar positions thereon ¨3. It tends to assume a single coherent audience for this content ¨4. It tends to assume this audience processes content uniformly ¨ ¨ ¨Vazquez-Rodriguez’s is a rare academic paper to conceptualize and historicize the figure of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl in Quirky Cinema ¨ ¨Her work provides us with an opportunity to ask whether this vision of the character actually reflects depictions of MPDGs in individual films ¨ ¨1. What are the defining traits of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl? ¨ ¨2. How do such characters embody ideas about ¨ “Neoliberal/Postfeminist” femininity? ¨ ¨3. Why does this particular author find the Manic Pixie Dream ¨ Girl so troubling? ¨ ¨Vazquez Rodriguez suggests the MPDG represents Quirky Cinema’s most high-profile engagement with female indie-hipster identity ¨ ¨She argues the MPDG is sexist as it lacks narrative agency, existing only to enable the male lead to address his insecurities and desires ¨ ¨She also suggests that her characterization represents a sexist cultural phenomenon wherein feminism is coopted to serve male interests ¨ ¨The MPDG represents the postfeminist/neoliberal woman, encouraged to chose to internalize and self-regulate sexualized gender performance ¨ ¨Performative girlish-cuteness, sexual availability, and traditionally feminine interests cast her as an unthreatening sex toy for the male lead ¨ ¨ ¨https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIXdWK0pHmg ¨ ¨ ¨V-R’s conclusions are persuasive if we accept that such characterization is a) accurate, b) promoted by the films, c) aimed at male audiences ¨ ¨But 500 Days of Summer condemns Summer as sociopathic, and Tom for idealizing, devaluing, and exploiting her gendered performance ¨ ¨This film therefore does not mobilize the character in the way V-R describes, and it certainly does not promote her as a figure of desire ¨ ¨Rather, the film ultimately articulates the very criticisms V-R aims at the MPDG, for the benefit of both male and female audiences ¨ ¨500 Days of Summer, and other Quirky films we have seen, suggests V-R’s position encapsulates critical fantasy rather than cinematic reality ¨ ¨ ¨1. To what extent does this film mobilize the Manic Pixie Dream Girl character-type? ¨ ¨2. Do you feel this film use the character to speak to male viewers? ¨ ¨3. Does this film have something critical to say ¨ about the Manic Pixie Dream Girl? ¨ ¨ ¨Instead of including V-R’s vision of the MPDG, this film allegorizes the condemnation of this type of characterization ¨ ¨It satirizes the MPDG as a product of the quiet misogyny of male creative talent seeking a sexual fantasy they can control ¨ ¨This implicates male viewers in the disempowerment of the MPGD scenario, as she is intended for their consumption ¨ ¨They are invited to confront this perspective though, as Calvin turns overtly domineering, controlling, and coercive ¨ ¨To undermine sympathy, Calvin is depicted in increasingly unappealing fashion; as neurotic, psychotic, and awkward ¨ ¨1. To what extent does this film mobilize the Manic Pixie Dream Girl character-type? ¨ ¨2. Do you feel this film use the character to speak to male viewers? ¨ ¨3. Does this film have something critical to say ¨ about the Manic Pixie Dream Girl? ¨ ¨This film critiques the misogyny and selfishness said to characterize Quirky Cinema’s characterization of the MPDG ¨ ¨It initially presents Jordana as a “typical MPDG”; as a cute, girlish, playful, impulsive, sexually confident “indie chick” ¨ ¨She is presented as a catalyst enabling Oliver to overcome his insecurities, and homosocial/psychosexual rites of passage ¨ ¨Yet, it suggests this view derives from the naïve, narcissistic perspective of an emotionally immature neurotic adolescent ¨ ¨This romantic cinephile misreads Jordana as a MPDG; this is really her coping mechanism against profound stress and pain ¨The film’s “revisionist” perspective on the MPDG insulates the film from criticism for incorporating this character-type ¨ ¨It addresses audiences with concerns about the MPDG that this film shares their perspective, and that it was thus made for them ¨ ¨It also invites audiences who have adopted the “sexist” perspective on the MPDG they can learn from their mistakes ¨ ¨But the film does not fully implicate Oliver in this sexism: it portrays him is a sensitive young man working hard to cope ¨ ¨This portrayal is contrasted to other male characters, who are depicted as manipulative, weak, unsupportive, or misogynistic ¨The assumption that, unless branded otherwise, formats are intended for males has distorted film criticism and film history ¨ ¨This spectator is often imagined in uncomplimentary terms; as an unsophisticated, insecure, resentful, misogynistic misfit ¨ ¨Dripping in elitism and sexism of its own, this caricature is summoned to support critical readings and render them urgent ¨ ¨This indie bro figure underwrote concerns of the moral decay caused by the hyper-ironic, amoral Smart Cinema of Tarantino ¨ ¨It partially “deIndiefizes” the films and their spectators, casting them as middlebrow intruders into sacred left-liberal territory ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨But formats are usually envisaged for a mixed-sex audience, or don’t make it to the screen due to commercial limitations ¨ ¨This is particularly true of formats with limited appeal due to being built around material that alienates some audiences ¨ ¨Quirky Cinema is one such case given it comprises elite-branded products aimed at the youth and indie markets ¨ ¨Borrowings from art cinema, and elitist indie-branding, risk alienating the populist tastes of most casual movie-watchers ¨ ¨Similarly, its youth-orientation risks alienating children and older audiences, and therefore the lucrative family audience ¨As a youth-leaning indie product, Quirky films unsurprisingly respond to developments and traditions in these market niches ¨ ¨To maximize returns, Hollywood has generally handled youth-market films that are appealing and marketable to both sexes ¨ ¨Quirky coincided with a period when youth-oriented filmed media was assembled and branded as heavily female-leaning ¨ ¨Indie was a historically mixed-sex enterprise, albeit one whose mid-90s iterations were criticized for overlooking females ¨ ¨So, for commercial and public relations reasons, indie-branded fare including Quirky was typically made for both sexes ¨Recognizing its address to female as well as male viewers casts a different light on Quirky Cinema’s gender politics ¨ ¨This reminds us that the films’ economic prospects also hinge on their securing and maintaining the support of female consumers ¨ ¨We should recall that the films often somewhat ironically depict juvenile male characters embarking on absurd or doomed quests ¨ ¨We should also recall that the films usually picture women and girls better; as more grounded, smarter, and emotionally mature ¨ ¨And they often depict female leads in ways that counter charges of idealization, subordination, and sexism aimed at the MPDG ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨The supposed presence of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl character remains one of Quirky Cinema’s most enduring and controversial tropes ¨ ¨Several stakeholders condemned this character-type as misogynistic claiming she exists narratively to serve the needs of the male lead ¨ ¨V-R develops this critique, arguing the MPDG exemplifies cultural tendencies of wrapping female disempowerment in feminist rhetoric ¨ ¨Such positions tend to homogenize representational practices, assume sincere depictions, and that such material is pitched to insecure men ¨ ¨In reality, Quirky films rarely featured such characters, usually critiquing the MPDG, ironizing gender relations, and addressing both sexes ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨The MPDG is not the only character-type said to dominate Quirky, a second all together different figure is said to loom large over the format ¨ ¨Topic: Father Figures ¨ ¨Readings: Robe, 101–120. ¨ ¨Home Screenings: Big Fish (2003) ¨ A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) ¨ ¨[Preparatory Questions on MS TEAMS and in the Syllabus] ¨ ¨Meeting: Thursday 24 November ¨