Blogs and Stories
Indie Dream Girls
Of course, men find these women utterly bewitching. And why wouldn't they? They're the ultimate unattainable muses. They never make any demands; they never nag; they keep everything operating on a level of fantasy. It's like they're women who read The Rules while listening to Elliott Smith. (See also: the girl in the band, who is often the ultimate ingenue.) And of course, it's not difficult to see the appeal of a woman like Summer. She's always just out of reach, making herself scarce at crucial moments and artfully dodging any of Tom's questions about whether they're boyfriend and girlfriend.
Girls like Summer invariably serve as combination muse/object of obsession, usually allowing the guy in the equation to finally unlock his true creative impulses.
And that's why portrayals of women like Summer are, ultimately, retrograde. For Summer turns out to be the bewitching villain in this story, breaking Tom's heart without a second thought. When Tom finds out she got married, he asks her how she was able to get engaged to someone so soon after they'd broken up; after all, she'd told him many times that she wasn't looking for a boyfriend. "It just happened," she says, batting her big blue eyes at him. Thanks for the closure.
What about a romantic comedy about a woman who actually has opinions, who doesn't play hard to get, who articulates her hopes and dreams and expects her boyfriend to get excited about those, too? Or is that too much to ask even from indie Hollywood?
Doree Shafrir has contributed to The New York Observer, The New Yorker, Slate, and The Awl, and is the co-author of Love, Mom. She is a former editor at Gawker. Her Web site is www.doreeshafrir.com.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Outsourcing Pregnancy
Doree Shafrir has contributed to The New York Observer, The New Yorker, Slate, and The Awl, and is the co-author of Love, Mom. She is a former editor at Gawker. Her website is www.doreeshafrir.com.
An Appetite for Success
Doree Shafrir has contributed to The New York Observer, The New Yorker, Slate, and The Awl, and is the co-author of Love, Mom. She is a former editor at Gawker. Her website is www.doreeshafrir.com.
10 Ways to Have a Baby
Doree Shafrir has contributed to The New York Observer, The New Yorker, Slate, and The Awl, and is the co-author of Love, Mom. She is a former editor at Gawker. Her website is www.doreeshafrir.com.
Haha, I found this review quite hilarious (in a good way). It makes me very happy to know that someone out there feels the same way towards these fictional, fantasy women.
Although you do have to admit, a few do actually exist out there whom act only on whims, denying to themselves that they're using their innocent charm to entice guys, and then are perpetually confused at why guys with no depth make advances.
These ciphers do indeed exists. What do they tell us? That before an intelligent, curious, dynamic young (or experienced) woman decides (and women do decide) to bond with a fellow he had better bring something to the table, which is to say embrace a creative life that will enrich their possible future together. In (500) Days of Summer, it means return to your passion as an architect. The knee-jerk feminist critique of this movie has its merit but it's only half the story of what a "muse" offers a male. Woman have the great skill of standing outside their relationships and assessing their potential. Young guys not always so much. The reality of the muse --if a male has any depth and the good sense to reflect-- is that the real woman is holding back, waiting, assessing, deciding if that critical creativity is self-centered or other-centered. Either way, she finds it attractive and will test, taste and inspire it. But unless it's the later, she'll eventually leave. As did Daschanel's character. Sometimes sooner, sometimes later. To the fellow blindly in love with his muse instead of the women he's getting to know, it's inexplicable. She's inexplicable. He's crazy-insane in love in a completely self-centered way. Sure, it's cruel to invite a fellow to a party, dance with him at a wedding. But young woman are often cruel in their kindnesses and desires. At the very least, after the muse has vanished, if the guy has absorbed anything from the affair, he'll understand this critical expectation and be ready for the next woman looking for creative depth in her relationship.
How do I know? It's funny, eleven years after my own very Daschanel-like muse vanished off the face of the earth, she Facebooked me, recently divorced (yes, married the very next guy) and eager to catch up as friends. Muses grow up too.
As a chick who is always on the wrong side of love, I am so sick of these female rom-com characters who always walk around getting everything they want and being these elusive muses who are the object of every man's indie girl fantasy. Puke. Also, Zooey Deschanel needs to prove she has range outside these types of roles.
I think this article is failing to take into account just about every other romantic comedy ever made. You know the ones like My Big Fat Greek wedding, Pretty Woman, Bridget Jones's Diary, (and about 10,000 other movies)... you know all movies that have strong woman in them that all pretty much know what they want (or at least they find it out in the course of the movie) It's not like we find out anything about Patrick Dempseys characters in any of the movies he's in beyond "he's hot and charming" And we shouldn't expect to.
If men (such as myself) can sit though these movies such as these, than I have no problem with the occasional Zooey Deschanel movie. What I don't know is, why it took Hollywood so long to find a way to make a romantic movie that men can actually enjoy (that Seth Rogan isn't in, but then again those usually feature strong woman as well)
I enjoyed this review & look forward to seeing the movie. I have a problem with the review, though. After reading the paragraph or 2 above the slideshow link, I thought, "Oh, a review of Dechanel as a Manic Pixie Dream Girl. Ok." But, then, in the paragraph after the slideshow link, Shafrir insists that Dechanel is definitely not a MPDG, she's something more than that. But, the review never actual explains what this new female character type is, or how it differentiates with the MPDG. In fact, most of her archetypes for this new character type are the classic MPDGs: Natalie Portman in "Garden State," Kate Hudson in "Almost Famous," Audrey Hepburn in "Breakfast at Tiffany's." I guess what I'm saying here is, if you want to argue that there are different female character types, that's awesome & I'm all for it. But, the argument for the new type & differentiation - what makes this character type new - needs to be argued more clearly. You can;t just say, "No, it's like that one thing, but MORE." I think here, you should just say Dechanel is a MPDG (that's sure what it seems like her character is) and be done with it.
I don't understand how Summer is the villain here, or why women in general aren't allowed to be fun and fancy free when they are completely, 100% upfront about it. Tom could have rejected this at any point in time and moved on, but he thought he could "change" her. How presumptuous of him.
**SPOILERS**
Yes, she was completely callous when she invited him to the dinner party after being engaged. I don't blame her for bringing it up at the wedding, not wanting to spoil a perfectly good evening after all, but she didn't have to rub it in later.
Other than that, Summer was completely decent and honest with Tom. Even her speech in the end, when asked how she could suddenly be married, she flat out admitted that she was sure of her new husband in a way that she never was with Tom. What is wrong with that? Was it cold? Perhaps. But should she have sugar coated it? Would we respect her more?
There are far worse characters than the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. As a female, I actually admire them.
Hey, I'm too busy at work to go into this excellent topic, but I've been stewing - Sophia Coppola a cypher, elusive or otherwise? Nay! She's a dream girl - I put her on my list somewhere after Kim Addonizio and Julie Delpy! And she's not the dream girl like, here, I am a blank, project your desires on me. She's a quirky, palpable human being. Loved Translation, loved Antoinette, look forward to many more!
Zooey Deschannel, beautiful blue eyes, silky black hair, sultry voice and creamy skinand that's just the surface i hope she's in movie's for years to come.
this article is just a woman whining. finnyous makes a wonderful point on the number of "romantic comed[ies] about a woman who actually has opinions, who doesn't play hard to get, who articulates her hopes and dreams and expects her boyfriend to get excited about those, too." we've seen them a HUNDREDS of times. hollywood keeps churning them out like butter and yes every woman goes to see them with her dejected dreams. this "indie dream girl" is just woman treating men like men treat a woman. she's contemporized herself, evolved for the new century. she's educated, opinionated and slightly self-invovled. free-thinking and free-willed with a bite.
it's encouraging to see films and characters such as this beloved bc, lets face it, this is the modern woman.
to preface, i have not yet seen this movie, but simply find the low-key gender debate it has started fascinating. finnyous's opinion is actually one i have shared when reading the reviews on and responses to this film--that the more fleshed out female characters in "relationship" films are more to be found in the chick-flick, possibly more generic rom-com. these tend to be movies specifically geared toward women, so thankfully, these at least have women characters of more depth. shafrir ends her review asking if "even" indie hollywood can't accomplish this task--i would posit that it is actually a harder feat in indie than in mainstream hollywood. i love indie romances but i would love to see one that men can enjoy (as, again, finnyous pointed out) AND that shows a man and a woman to equal depths. but are romances hopelessly fated to skew one way or the other? can we relate to a film and to characters when we see the strengths and flaws of both? when the film doesn't TELL us which character we need to relate to and which we need to merely revere? it's interesting men don't tend to criticize the hopelessly perfect or elusive male counterparts to zooey deschanel, the john corbett or richard gere characters that populate those big hollywood flicks. i guess because they feel those films "aren't for them" and so don't care. but this film, although a male-centric and male-POV film can infuriate women because, as a romance it is "their" turf.
and what about a woman who has opinions, who doesn't want to be caught, who doesn't want to articulate her hopes and dreams and who doesn't need a man's excitement to validate them?
i am flighty, reserved and impulsive..and yet, i have opinions, many. It's just that most people aren't worth sharing them with. we do exist. i think some haters rather wish we did not.
I couldn't agree more. If I see. One. More. Movie. Made. About the adorable, well-dressed, impossibly cute, seemingly completely carefree, quirky girl (read: really good looking blank page) that allows the guy to project anything and everything onto this girl, and she frees the dude from his angst/social ineptitude/jaded cynical feelings about love/family member dying...it'll be too soon. The girls are always the same formula of adorable and quirky and fun and don't want commitment and we never know their potential or desires or conflicts and if it 'isn't working out' or they change their minds they just disappear from the movie, because of course, we all know they don't have feelings or desires or opinions. Gag me with a chainsaw, Heather.
I especially like the use of the word 'cipher,' which means a kind of code, and also a non-entity; a zero. "One that has no weight, worth, or influence," according to Merriam-Webster. My point exactly, M-W, my point exactly. Excellent word choice, Shafrir. And a great article.
Up top!
Except, people-- (especially us ladies)--
I pretty much agree with this article, but the problem with critiques like this-- (and I flog myself with this daily)--is that there is nothing standing in the way of THIS WRITER writing a script containing the female character she seeks. (There's nothing standing in my way, either. I'm writing a reply here instead of working on my script.) Filmmaking, both independent and Hollywood, is very much about attrition. The only answer to this dilemma of adorable-yet-undeveloped female characters is to write the script and get the movie made yourself. Yes, in depressingly uniform fashion, so many female movie characters SUCK. But unless people who care about this get some movies made (with excellent female characters in them)--probably nothing will ever change.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.