Miss Zuipperpips

betweenthings:

OK, THIS IS A RANT AND IT MAY BE UNPOPULAR OPINION, BUT COME ON.

Yes to the last sentence - it’s important to represent females the same way we represent males in film, television, and literature - but these films are terrible examples. They DO present complex, interesting people and Kirsten Dunst’s character, Claire, in Elizabethtown is the only female in the movies depicted who even begins to approach the definition established for a “Manic Pixie Girl” in this speech. Summer Finn is no caregiver - Tom is without a doubt the feminized character in their relationship. And in fact, she doesn’t succeed as a muse in the slightest - she sets Tom back, she hurts him, she is unable to fulfill the role of caregiver or inspiration he desires - she is the anti Manic Pixie Girl if we’re going with the definition provided here - she’s more (albiet awkward and quirky) Femme Fatale than she is Manic Pixie Girl.

Meanwhile, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind examines and comments on a thematic issue it seems to be being accused of presenting here - how we perceive the people we love versus the people they actually are , how we change, how all people can be enigmas, sources of good and bad for the ones closest to them - how we will never really understand the people we enter into relationships with, regardless of gender, really. The Clemintine in Joel’s memory is HIS perception of her, not her as she truly is. And Gondry makes it clear that the real Clementine is a complicated human being, trying, throughout the film, in flashback and in present, to deal with her own pain in whatever way she can. Again, not a caregiver, not an inspiration. Clementine in particular does have her own troubles, interests, and creative endeavors, so I’m just failing to see what makes her a Manic Pixie Girl by this definition besides her quirk. 

Natalie Portman’s character, Sam is a little ambiguous - the film itself is abstract in all of characterization, and Sam is dealing with psychological and physical abnormalities, so I don’t know that she was ever intended to be an accurate representation or ideal depiction of a woman. Also to note - Zach Braff’s Andrew provides more care for Sam than she for him.

And just because a Claire comes closest to fitting the bill for this “trope” doesn’t mean anything to me, even as a female spectator. She’s a person. There are all kinds of different people, all kinds of different women. So she wants to care for the Orlando Bloom character, so she leads him toward a potentially more successful and full life? So what? Are we no longer allowed to support and encourage the ones we love? And what’s so wrong with being inspired by, or taken care of by a person - man or woman? I don’t think that any of the relationships or individuals depicted in the films pictured above force any kind of stereotype or gender role on audiences. Let’s be real though, fiction is a machine and it relies on narrative systems and archetypes: characters will always be pushed into categories by viewers and interpreters - no writer will ever achieve reality, and most writers don’t want to - characters are tools, events are tools, settings are tools to convey a complete narrative. And I’ll say it again, these women are poor examples of characters which lack depth, which makes the definition wrong, or means they aren’t Manic Pixie Girls at all - proving that there are tons of different and complex females being portrayed by some really talented actresses out there if we’d all just stop looking for every little reason to criticize.

what she ^ said.

(Source: erosum)

can we talk about what a beautiful, well-done stage fall that is?

perfect jensen is perfect.

(Source: iatesomesulphurforlunch)

Dean’s hair of sex: requested by haley