Death of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl

The Manic Pixie Dream Girl (MPDG) was a term coined by Nathan Rabin in response to the character of Claire in Elizabethtown (2005), other examples include Sam in Garden State (2004). He defines the MPDG as a character 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.” (Rabin, 2007). However, films such as 500 days of Summer (2009) serves as a realistic representation of relationships as well as a critique of this term, depicting women as independent agents who do not exist solely for the male protagonist in their fairytale narratives, as much the male protagonist wishes them to be.

As masculine directors project their desires into their films, they represent women unfairly in unrealistic love stories. This trope cheapens the female character and relegating them to a supporting role. Films are in a way a reflection of societal values (Anderson, 2010), an example being in 500 days of Summer, Tom misreads The Graduate (1967) and develops a skewed perspective of love. The MPDG trope is problematic as she does not exist (Rabin, 2007), films that depict women as MPDGs creates a standard impossible for females to attain, and wrongly leads males into believing it is only through a woman would their deep-seated emotional issues be resolved (Solomon, 2017). Hence, films starring MPDG misconstrue reality and are dangerous to all audiences.

MPDGs can be identified by traits such as eccentric hairstyles, distinctly unique fashion sense, an undeniable cute appeal, naive worldview and a penchant for indie music (Rodríguez, 2017). Additionally, they engage in spontaneous, sometimes socially inappropriate, behavior, such as Summer challenging Tom to shout the word “Penis!” in public. Actions of the MDPGs serve their sole purpose of “inspiring a greater appreciation for life in a male protagonist” (Rodríguez, 2017) and as a result, they lack agency and are often two-dimensional supporting characters without of a realistic backstory.

A widespread example of a MPDG is Summer Finn from 500 days of Summer. Summer loves indie music, is spontaneous and undeniably cute. While Tom is described our typical male protagonist that believes that only true love could bring him happiness. Tom meets Summer at his workplace and convinced that she was the one, falls madly in love with her. The film follows how Tom matures through his ‘season’ with Summer. Summer Finn is often misunderstood as a stereotypical MPDG, in actual fact, 500 days of Summer subverts this trope and serves as a cautionary tale against idealizing female characters. The film is shot primarily from Tom’s perspective, and we see Summer as a MPDG as this is how he sees her. This is emphasized with Summer never appearing without Tom being in the same frame. This leads audiences to identify with Tom and to conclude wrongly that Summer is ‘evil’ for breaking up with Tom. This perspective is evident in the scene where Summer discloses a private dream to him. Rightfully, Summer should have been the focus for that scene, as in doing so sheds light on her fears and desires, allowing for a deeper understanding of her character. However, the camera was focused on Tom’s reaction instead, establishing that this film revolves around Tom (Bruskoff, 2018). His audacious reply of ‘I guess that I’m not anybody.’ To Summer disclosing that she has not told this dream to anyone before, reflects how he considers his needs over Summer’s and how in a naïve way, he believes that Summer sees him as special, the same way he sees her as special.

Word choice was also key in illustrating the difference their expectations. On many occasions, Tom uses the word ‘love’ to describe how he feels about Summer. However, Summer seeing that she is ‘not looking for something serious’ never once uses that word nor does she directly address Tom as her boyfriend, instead she uses the word ‘like’ to encapsulate her feelings for Tom. Of which, Tom has not once acknowledged as he is too focused on his own needs (Sahagian, 2015). Tom’s bearing reflects his character development. Even when he is in love with Summer, the woman he believes will change his life, his unkempt hair and sloppy attire while working at a job he detests shows that contrary to his belief that Summer will ‘change his life’, in reality nothing has changed. Only after experiencing the pain of loss does he quit that job and applies himself to his passion does his bearing improve. His suit, styled hair and erect back signify that after getting over Summer, his perspective, much like his attire, has too improved and matured. These camera techniques and misc-en-scene establish Tom as the focus of this narrative. In the fact, the almost whole film reflects Tom’s wants and needs, how he loves Summer, how she makes him feel, how he wants to ‘not get over her but to have her back’. To Tom, he sees Summer as a dream in his fantasy and in doing so pays the price for learning that Summer is not the woman he wants her to be.

The dangers of idealization are made apparent in the split screen editing of Tom’s ‘expectation’ against his ‘reality’ which the film builds to the collapse of Tom’s world by showing a perspective beyond Tom’s own. Being invited to Summer’s party, Tom was hopeful of winning her back. This narrative technique offers a juxtaposition of Tom’s expectations of getting Summer back against a disappointing reality where he learns that she is engaged. Upon that realization, the expectation scene is ‘pushed out’ signifying that for Tom, reality has finally set in, bringing him to his lowest point. As the emotional non-diegetic soundtrack of ‘Hero’ reaches its climax, a fast cut to Tom unsteadily running down the stairs reflects his distraught state. The scene concludes with the symbolic ‘collapse’ of Tom’s world, with all color and shape is being literally erased from it (Villegas R. and Hughes B, 2014). This sequence subverts expectations of MPDG films and explicitly warns of the consequences of loving an idea rather than the person. However, it was through Summer acting for herself that Tom rediscovers his passion and his sense of self.

Tom was changed by meeting Summer. It was her suggestion that he focuses on architecture again, in a sense she taught him to embrace life, served as a cause for him to quit his job, in part fulfilling the role of a MPDG as she magically appears in his life and disappears from it once her duty is fulfilled. However, when Summer entered Tom’s life, she did not make the first move to approach him, nor did she date Tom with the intention to save him, she dated him because she ‘liked’ him. When she dumped Tom, leaving Tom was not a means to help him realize a better understanding of himself, but is an end itself, Tom’s realization of the need to change born as a result of that end. Tom’s motivation to change is not an attempt to win back Summer but is instead born from a commitment to be more true to himself. It was through the overcoming of the pain of Summer’s rejection rather than her love that illustrates how ‘brooding male protagonists’ need not rely on love from MPDGs to ‘save them from themselves’ but instead to come to that realization themselves. Additionally, Summer is not 2-dimensional as she herself experienced character development and does not exist solely to act as a catalyst for Tom’s growth. Much like how Tom lets go of the belief of that perfect someone that will complete him, Summer compromises on her belief that true love does not exist, she even agrees to Tom being right about the idea of fate, seeing how she met her husband by chance. The notion of compromise, change and growth in both Summer and Tom as the film concludes makes the film more realistic and rejects the ‘fulfillment of fantasy’ trope in films typically starring MPDGs. As much as we are changed by the people we will meet; we too change the people we meet.

Ultimately, the MPDG is born from a masculine perspective and the labels we use affect the way we view these characters. 500 days of Summer exemplified the consequences of Tom’s flawed labeling of Summer. Though its narrative it also critiques the notion of the MPDG, emphasizing that she does not exist and that female characters are not bound to live up to male expectation. Nathan Rabin himself acknowledged that label of MPDG is problematic as it “strips the character of its nuance and agency”, reducing her into an object of male fancy (Rabin, 2014). And unlike most MPDG film which concludes with a ‘happily ever after’, 500 days of Summer did not. Instead it invokes the idea seasons in its title playing on the fact that inherent in every ending is a new beginning and the ‘seasons’ in the films, real life plays out in cycles.

References:

• Anderson, K. E. (2010). Film as a reflection of society: Interracial marriage and stanley kramer's guess who's coming to dinner in late 1960s america. Studies by Undergraduate Researchers at Guelph, 4(1), 23-n/a. Retrieved from: http://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/docview/1412292552?accountid=13876

• Gabriel Bruskoff [Movies Under the Surface] (2018, February 15) How 500 days of Summer gets the Manic Pixie Dream Girl right. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI2i96G6Kwk

• Novick M., Tuchinsky J., Waters M., Wolfe S.J. (Producer), & Webb M. (Director). (2005). 500 days of Summer [Motion Picture]. United States: 20th Century Fox

• Rabin, N. (2007, January 25). The Bataan Death March of Whimsy Case File #1: Elizabethtown. AV Film. Retrieved from: https://film.avclub.com/the-bataan-death-march-of-whimsy-case-file-1-elizabet-1798210595

• Rabin, N. (2014, July 15). I'm sorry for coining the phrase "Manic Pixie Dream Girl". Salon. Retrieved from: https://www.salon.com/2014/07/15/im_sorry_for_coining_the_phrase_manic_pixie_dream_girl/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

• Rodríguez, L. ,Gloria V. (2017, September 11). (500) Days of Post feminism: A multidisciplinary analysis of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl serotype in its contexts. Prisma Social, 167-201. Retrieved from: http://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/docview/1968339746?accountid=13876

• Sahagian, J. (2015, February 23). 8 Memorable Roles From Not-So-New-Girl Zooey Deschanel. Retrieved from: http://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/docview/1657332476?accountid=13876

• Solomon, C. (2017, March). Anarcho-feminist melodrama and the Manic Pixie Dream Girl (1929-2016). CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture, 19(1). doi:10.7771/1481-4374.2896. Retrieved from : http://link.galegroup.com.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/apps/doc/A491408103/AONE?u=nuslib&sid=AONE&xid=669639f7

• Villegas R. and Hughes B. [CosmicRadio.TV] (2014, December 01). Analysis of Expectations vs. Reality. Youtube, Retrieved April 01, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCoGsX3SQiI