Romance, lost, gained.
Well, my dearest readers, the institute has been for quite some time contemplating the phenomenon of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. One of those tropey things that you don't quite put your finger on until someone, say from the Onion AV club, points it out, and then you're all "Oh yeah, that." I think its time we make our Posiiton Known.
What really suprised us at the Institute shameless romantics that we are, is the fact that everyone seems to hate the poor, defenseless MPDG. I mean, I know, people kick puppies and beat their kids all the time, the human condition in this vale of tears, dearest readers, is nothing to overestimate; however this hate is coming from the Institute's natural allies, intellectual feminists.
They can normally be trusted, we thought they were just like us... And to them the MPDG is 'naught but an object of contempt, indeed, "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." Ouch.
You see here at the Institute we've always had a soft spot for romantic comedies. Really. I mean we don't admit it that much, but lets be crystal clear, I prefer Audrey Hepburn as Holly Golightly to Truman Capote's version, I was happy when she ended up with that writer guy at the end. I totally wanted to sleep with Melanie Griffin after seeing Something Wild, but more important I wanted to hang out with her. And in the end, there are some times, some situations, some places, where the damn near only thing to do to feel any better is to watch Joe vs. the Volcano, even though Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, particularly together, normally make me sllightly nauseous,
I still laugh every time Meggypie says she's just a 'fliderdegibet' and feel all gushy and happy at the end when Tommy-boy says to her quietly at the end that all they need is each other, and to go 'far from the things of man, love' and hold hands and sail off into the moonset, and we know everything for once is just peachy and will be well, and its frackin' OK, they GOT OUT. LOVE WINS. Sigh...
So yes, we are slightly ashamed, these are after all, date movies, and I know we menfolk only supposed to watch them in order to get laid, really, but I'm always glad to see them on late-night TV and perfectly capable of making up a big bowl of mac and cheese, and sitting there sniffling. I mean, I don't go take a bath with candles afterward, but its close good reader very damn close sometimes.
Now this wouldn't be a problem, I mean we have been told this is perfectly OK, Alan Alda, right? The seventies, our feminine sides and whatever, but, of course, the research staff at the Institute given a bright trope like this one, immediately as is their wont began worrying it like some understimulated sububan dog with a new bone, and wrecked everything.
You see, it appears the liking is more for the MPDG, than for the romantic comedy, because all our movie crushes? Suspiciously Manic, somewhat Pixie-like, Dreamy indeed, and, damn heterosexuality, girls! So this is a frackin' problem, as we allowed this gross sentimentality, as it was Romance, good readers, pure Romance, but it appears we're just a bit obsessed with that post-modern siren, the deadly Manic Pixie Dream Girl.
So frack. Its all ruined. This isn't romance at all, just a psuedointellectual-mastrabatory fantasy for brooding soulful self-obsessed young men. A tripple whammy. I mean, we're not supposed to need masrabatory fantasies, much less psuedo-intellectual ones, and brooding soulful self-obsessed? At least use Byronic for the love of goddess. It hurts less.
As a commenter on Jezebel said "oh thankyou thankyou thankyou. I've always HATED this version of women-on-screen. The concept of being a "muse" gives me the creeps to begin with, but "carefully-quirky-still-acceptably-hot-designed-to-assist-in-self-discovery-of-hipster-male-protagonist" muse makes me want to HURL."
So what the hell do we do with this? I'll tell you, the damn thing has been bothering me for quite some time, percolating a bit, and as romance is particularly mindful to The Institute, in the current environment, worrying me. So here is a researcher's opinion, for what it may be worth. Because I'm not going to just give the frack up, head off to Hooters with a pocket full of dollar bills, and subscribe to Maxim and hope that will work. But who the hell wants that? Well, some days, I do, but on the whole nobody.
So the problem here is Romance, and perhaps fantasy. You see, I think the MPDG appearing in a 'type' of movie, upsets things a bit, in the natural order of the thing. To put it simply and crudely, a male fantasy is to do the pretty girl. In the female fantasy she is the pretty girl. And I'm not going to touch with a ten foot pole, well OK I'm going to a bit, but I'm going to pretend not to, the 'Men and Women are different' thing, lets just not bring up the names of planets OK? There is something about the passive/active role in romance that is sex different, and rather beyond the scope of what is, when it gets down to it, me defending the fact I love Joe vs. The Volcano.
To get back on track, lets go exemplar. I'm not particularly upset by the narrative of Pretty Woman. Now I know this isn't a shining example of feminisim, and I should have used Jayne Eyre, or Pamela, but, same thing, really. Women and Men find this movie, whatever their ideas about subtext, a romantic movie. Watching it, though, I suspect while women might identify with JR, being recognized as a diamond in the rough, being able to dress up, etc.. I don't particularly want to BE Richard Gere. Having sex with JR's character, an attractive sexually and emotionally available character, is sufficient to sustain the fantasy for me, without me having to imagine being a rich asshole. In fact the opposite, I don't like the RG character much.
Not to say there isn't something MPDG about JR's character. I just use this extreme example to point out, that the criticisim of the MPDG that she gets nothing from the romantic transaction, she is there just to get the protaganist out of his funk, and really, someone that full of life would have nothing to do with a brooding hipster, and thus is a narrative and rehtorical reflection of his need and not an actually three dimensional character.
Well in Pretty Woman, RG is a wallet, and represents the fantasy of being taken away from poverty by romance. I'd say if this is a valid romantic narrative, and it is a traditional female one, than being taken out of aimlessness and lack of purpose by the right woman is its mirror. And while men don't complain that Richard Gere, Jamie McKenzie, Heathcliffe, or Lord Richington Hotpants McHarlequine aren't men we identify with, see our selves as, or like being compared to, it seems a worry to be equated, for some, to Melanie Griffin's Lulu in Something Wild, as 'Real women aren't like that'.
Jezebel suggested the male protaganists in this type of story be labeled 'Wimpsters' to wit:
Wimpster, while appropriate, lacks the specificity of MPDG and also is so four years ago. Maybe the new bromantics, because that term emphasizes their dudeliness but also their childish notions of romantic attachment? In any event, these self-absorbed whiners are to be avoided in real life, though, like (adorable!) Jason Segal in FSM, new bromantics can be charming in film."
and that pretty much is what bothered me about the whole idea. Because while characters in movies are exaggerated. The idea of the MPDG has resonance for me as a Romantic, and I always thought a feminist. And that idea isn't a childish romantic attachment, but something close to romance. That romantic men look to find a woman who can make them a better person.
The MPDG is a shallow refleciton of this, and I know, why should men need women to validate them, et, al.
There are cultural narratives we grow up with and internalize, for women it is to find a good provider. Noone talks about what the imperative is for men. But it is an old one, from when we had to fight. Men are romanced by women that inspire them. We want to do better, be better, write better, kill better. And I don't understand why this simple thing. A staple of courtly love, isn't understood. I won't say that there is something in a woman that wants to be protected and taken care of. There might be, there might not, and I know many women who take care of themselves fine, but I will say, there is something in a man that needs inspiration. To want to be better.
I guess it might take some sort of Girl, maybe one that is manic, or pixielike. Some sort of Dream Girl.
My goal in romance is that knowing her, inspires me to be a better person.