[Lorric]

Greetings, members of HLP. I ask you to please take but 5:36 of your time to watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJUxqkcnKA

And then cast your vote in the poll above. These options are unavailable on the video in question. So it is time to find out what members of HLP think of the video. I will leave my own opinions out of this OP, and out of the topic itself for a bit, as I want a fair test. I ask you to ignore any comments which may be put in place in the topic, though I have no problem with a discussion opening up, and watch the video. You don't have to then vote immediately, you can if you want to, or you can feel free to read the comments, but I would like you to go in with a mind clear of expectations of what you will see. I would like your own mind to make the initial impression before you let in the impressions of other minds.

Thank you for your time.

[Luis Dias]

I think it's an undeniable trope that exists and that has made me cringe whenever I reconized it. What tips one off about this is how fantasious it really is, but only from the male point of view. Try to picture it as a male, and it's obvious it's a complete sexual fantasy that a depressed guy has. Try to picture it as a female, and it no longer works, unless you picture female fantasies as playing the minimal role of a total spiritual guide to a not that gorgeous male without any pay off (other than watching the object of her guideness reaching his own satisfaction).

It's absolutely "soft-core" too. No real issues about real depressions in the most brutal, real sense.

Another hint is trying to picture a movie exactly the opposite, a man spiritually guiding a female from utter depression to an upside correct happy person, with merely that as a payoff to him. I have no memories of such a film. Mostly, a depressed angst woman will be portrayed much more radically and brutally, generally with her commiting suicide, just falling short of that or with an open ending without clarity on what will happen to her.

There are no versions of an "uplifting" "softcore" movie (in the pixie sense) where a woman meets an amazing piece of a male who will inspire her into life or whatever. And I think that it's because it would be too much bull**** for us to cope with. It's very interesting to me that this bull**** would be much more obvious if the protagonist was female rather than male.

So my problem here is *not* that there are no movies with inspiring males uplifting female protagonists. No, this trope (and their movies) should be buried into a void of total amnesia so we could not even remember it existed in the first place. Burn them all, nothing of value is lost.

[Droid803]

Those movies look terrible, I'm glad I haven't watched any of them.
No comment on the trope. I'm not convinced it is one (haven't seen a single example of it, I probably don't want to).

[CommanderDJ]

I suppose I understand where she's coming from, though the condescension wasn't necessary. I admit I never really interpreted these characters as "being there for your inspiration, etc, etc"; it always just seemed to me that that's what they ended up doing, not that they were there for that specific purpose. But that's probably just me being naive or what have you.

I could be completely off-track here, so don't kill me if I've got it wrong, but does this mean that the woman in the video objects to characters being created for a specific purpose? I mean, every production in media has main and side characters, the side characters usually being there for a specific purpose in the narrative. Or is it that the women in these movies were main characters but didn't have the depth that main characters should? I haven't seen any of the movies she brought up in the video, so I don't know if the characters in question were main or side characters.

[NGTM-1R]

I could be completely off-track here, so don't kill me if I've got it wrong, but does this mean that the woman in the video objects to characters being created for a specific purpose?

Not really. It is the always-female nature, and the necessity of a large screen presence that is totally devoted to a male character (because otherwise why are you bothering with this loner/grumpy/whatever chucklehead), wherein trouble lies. These aren't Chevron Guy characters; they're people around whom narrative revolves and main characters evolve.

[Luis Dias]

I suppose I understand where she's coming from, though the condescension wasn't necessary. I admit I never really interpreted these characters as "being there for your inspiration, etc, etc"; it always just seemed to me that that's what they ended up doing, not that they were there for that specific purpose. But that's probably just me being naive or what have you.

Yes, it is, because it's fairly clear that these characters in these kinds of movies are built precisely with this symbolic place in mind. The fact that they seem to appear randomly and so on is a necessity (and probably belonging to the trope itself).

I could be completely off-track here, so don't kill me if I've got it wrong, but does this mean that the woman in the video objects to characters being created for a specific purpose? I mean, every production in media has main and side characters, the side characters usually being there for a specific purpose in the narrative. Or is it that the women in these movies were main characters but didn't have the depth that main characters should? I haven't seen any of the movies she brought up in the video, so I don't know if the characters in question were main or side characters.

No, she is objecting to the precise nature of the trope of these characters. Characters whose only existence it is to inspire males living in a depression to come out of it and so on, with their own problems absolutely absent, unaddressed or unimportant. Female characters that are unreal perfect fairies whose only purpose is to rehabilitate the male's libido and so on.

Take for instance the counter-example of "The Bridges of Madison County", where every character has their own sets of issues, their own dynamics, and while there exists a muse-effect between characters, there is never a feeling of assymetries in their relationships.

[CommanderDJ]

I see. That makes it clearer. Thanks, NGTM-1R and Luis Dias.

[Scourge of Ages]

Another hint is trying to picture a movie exactly the opposite, a man spiritually guiding a female from utter depression to an upside correct happy person, with merely that as a payoff to him. I have no memories of such a film.

The only thing that comes to mind is "She's All That" but it's been a looooong time since I saw that so I could be way off (yes I saw it, don't judge me!). The guy, who I believe is still the protagonist, is the popular guy and "helps" some poor unpopular - not unattractive - girl to some sort of character arc. Not sure if it counts though.

Anyway! Good video. The manic-pixie-dream-girl thing always did seem odd to me, and surprisingly unpleasant. There are aspects that appeal to me, but then a lot that doesn't. I do wish we could get some more interesting, realistic characters in movies.

Also: http://www.cracked.com/video_18574_the-awkward-moment-when-you-notice-quirky-girl-insane.html

[Luis Dias]

"She's all that" (almost) doesn't count, for the protagonist is not only male, he's also someone who goes through a crisis in order to reach some epiphany and so on. Yes, he guides the woman, I'm not saying it's the same trope, even. But you know what I meant there, bring me a movie where a female protagonist is the one in a psychological trouble, when a male muse comes in and teaches her about the marvels of the world, or how she can liberate her sexual libido or whatever, and then she finishes the movie in a completely upside beat.

I can't recall such a stupid movie. However, reverse the genders and the movies are legion. It's quite the phenomenon.

[AdmiralRalwood]

I've heard it said that John (from John Dies at the End (the book, not the terrible movie)) is a male example of a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, and I can definitely see that interpretation.

[Mars]

I'd have to say that John doesn't strike me as  a male MPDG. He doesn't take Amy and guide her out of depression. He ends up being close to the traditional male in a manic pixie girl story - though JDate is not that trope, but a more pleasant one adjacent to it. Amy is the rationalist, and John is never changed 'for the better,' he remains staunchly anti-social, and the two unusual hurt people have an unusual relationship that suits them.

[AdmiralRalwood]

I'd have to say that John doesn't strike me as  a male MPDG. He doesn't take Amy and guide her out of depression. He ends up being close to the traditional male in a manic pixie girl story - though JDate is not that trope, but a more pleasant one adjacent to it. Amy is the rationalist, and John is never changed 'for the better,' he remains staunchly anti-social, and the two unusual hurt people have an unusual relationship that suits them.

I think perhaps you have mixed up John and Dave; Dave and Amy have the relationship. John is (in this interpretation) a MPDG for Dave.

[Mars]

Oh hot damn you're right.

[Lorric]

   So, it’s time now for me to talk about the “Manic Pixie Dream Girl” trope. What a mouthful that is!

   So the first argument presented is that the character has no life of her own. Well, it’s a movie. It’s about the impact she has on the life of the male protagonist. Of course she’s got a life, we just don’t see it, movies are under a strict time limit. She had a life before she met him, and she’ll have a life when her work is done, whether that involves the male or not. She says it’s not to pursue her own happiness. Well those women look pretty to me. Helping people genuinely makes some people happy. Others might see it as a challenge or a pet project. Or maybe they just think the man is hot. They’re doing it because they choose to, and getting fulfilment from it. Nobody makes them do it, and they can walk away at any time.

   I haven’t seen any of the movies that she uses, they look like romance movies to me, and that is a genre that doesn’t interest me. So I can’t really study them in depth. But the first one I like the look of Kirsten Dunst’s character. That looks like a good feel good movie to me. If I was going to watch one, that would be the one I’d pick. But you’d think this would be a good thing for a feminist, the male character is weak and the female is strong and lends the male her strength.

   Now the part which really gets to me is where she shows her contempt for people, men I should say, who cite their female partner as a big contributor to their success. Why is this a bad thing? The saying “behind every good man there is a good woman” carries a lot of weight. And I’m sure it can work both ways, I’m absolutely sure we’ll see same sex couples and women citing their male partner as a big help to them in the same way in the future, and I’m sure such examples can already be dug up. Nobody made these women live their lives with these men. And rather than be being shoved into the background, I’m sure they have just as much passion as the man with whatever big project it is he’s working on, and genuinely do make a large contribution to it’s fruition, which deserves acknowledgement. Think of it this way, if you were the one who helped someone do something great, wouldn’t you really feel you had done something worthwhile with your life? If I was the man behind a great woman and I knew I had helped her on to that greatness, I’d feel tremendously fulfilled. Or even if I was just a friend who had done that, with a man or a woman, it doesn’t have to be a partner. Anita just doesn’t get it. These women chose that life and were happy. They joined their man to live their life with him, and contributed to his efforts because they chose to and wanted to see his work come to fruition. Whether that contribution was active participation or simply moral support, it is a strong and worthy contribution. Any great man with a statue of him somewhere should have another statue of that female muse right next to him, because without her it wouldn’t have been possible.

   While she says these stories make her want to puke, I love these stories. People who came together in life and made a great team and were truly happy. What more could you want in life than to be fulfilled and happy? Women who want to be musicians and writers and artists can be musicians, writers and artists. No one forces them do anything. Or they can choose to share their life with a man who is one of these things and help him on to greatness and share in his accomplishments. She is not being stunted, she is flourishing. How many of you have helped someone who is struggling or enhanced someone’s efforts with something of your own free will? It felt good, didn’t it? Nobody made you do it. You did it because you wanted to do it.

   Anita is doing a gross disservice to both men and women with this line of reasoning. She is practically saying the men stunted the women and the women’s lives were wasted. When the opposite is true, they both enhanced each other and the World around them. And so I am greatly offended by Anita’s reasoning here. She needs to open up her mind and realise not everyone, men and women, want to step into the spotlight. They can be perfectly happy backstage and quite capable of being full and complete human beings there.

[General Battuta]

And yet somehow it's always the women who are written into the backstage. Almost like there's some kind of bias on gender lines.

[Lorric]

And yet somehow it's always the women who are written into the backstage. Almost like there's some kind of bias on gender lines.

Or maybe just because the story works better with a female than a male? A male would be an interesting take, but it's more relatable this way. It's going to connect with a wider audience.

[General Battuta]

The Sixties audience connected well to black people as servants and laborers.

[Lorric]

The Sixties audience connected well to black people as servants and laborers.

That is not relevant.

[General Battuta]

It is 100% relevant. How well the audience connects to a piece of writing is often diagnostic of the audience's own prejudices. If the audience connects to a lazy sexist piece of writing, all that tells you is that you're going to need to work harder to connect to them without being lazy and sexist.

Ironically I think you've made a really compelling case as to why this character archetype is terrible in your last couple posts.

[Dilmah G]

And yet somehow it's always the women who are written into the backstage. Almost like there's some kind of bias on gender lines.

Or maybe just because the story works better with a female than a male? A male would be an interesting take, but it's more relatable this way. It's going to connect with a wider audience.

Why?