‘Manic Pixie Dream Girl’, a phrase coined by film critic Nathan Rabin in 2007, has altered the dating lives of neurodivergent women indefinitely. The term was first used as a criticism, as it was applied when exploring the one-dimensional nature of some female characters, as their sole purpose within the film was to enrich the journey of the (often bland) male protagonist. However, like many of these pop culture soundbites, it has been displaced, overused and ultimately skewed in definition. It now lacks much of its original meaning. Despite Rabin’s best intentions, this term has been used as a blanket criticism of women in film, in addition to perpetuating negative stereotypes associated with neurodivergence. Let me be clear: there is nothing wrong with this term inherently, yet like so many things the problem lies with many of those who use it.
In understanding this term, we must first look at those that came before. The most significant parallel to be drawn here is between the MPDG and the earlier ‘femme fatale’ trope. Initially spawning from the ‘Film Noir’ genre of the 1940s, the ‘femme fatale’ is similarly treated as an enigma. She is mysterious and beautiful, intriguing to all those that she encounters but accessible to a mere handful. She is Kim Novak in ‘Vertigo’, or Sharon Stone in the much later ‘Basic Instinct’. She has icy blonde hair and an even icier personality. Despite being every straight man’s dream, she is ultimately dangerous. Here lies a key distinction with the MPDG: she exists to support the male protagonist, whereas the ‘femme fatale’ is described as ‘generally villainous’. But one must acknowledge that this contrast is somewhat futile since both of these tropes are defined by the male protagonist’s role in the film. In simplistic terms, these are not so much women as they are sexy narrative devices.
The development of 3rd Wave Feminism in the early 1990s, in addition to film criticism evolved by theorists such as Laura Mulvey, undeniably revolutionised how we perceive films. This was an era focused on the diversity amongst women, adopting a more individualistic perspective. With this context, it is no surprise that the ‘femme fatale’ trope was somewhat made redundant. Viewers sought more variety in the depiction of women on screen, in addition to a broader cultural conversation that transcended any one medium. Increasingly, the status quo was reassessed. Phrases such as ‘critical thinking’ became public domain, and creatives sought new, innovative ways in which they could tell their stories.
At last, we approach my own personal gripes. Though the MPDG trope was initially seen as reductive towards all women, upon further scrutiny it became clear that many of her characteristics are actually symptoms of autism. The ‘quirkiness’ exhibited is often played off as such due to pretty privilege. This includes ‘obsessive’ interests, difficulty with regulating emotions and ‘camouflaging’. The latter is often used to cater towards both the ‘everyman’ protagonist and the male gaze as a whole. In addition to excessive talking and trouble recognising social cues, it’s no wonder that these traits have been fetishised in some depictions, often associated with child-like behaviour. You see, neurodivergence in women has been vastly overlooked historically. Therefore, depiction should be approached with caution and handled delicately. Instead, I fear many stereotypes were sustained, intensified and even immortalised, almost as quickly as they were put on our screens.
It is no surprise, therefore, that Rabin asked for the phrase to be ‘put to rest’ in his blistering follow-up article, ‘I’m Sorry for Coining the Phrase “Manic Pixie Dream Girl” in 2014. The trope is acknowledged to be ‘fundamentally sexist’ due to its placement of women as less autonomous beings, reduced to ‘appealing props’. Despite Rabin’s best intentions, explicit from the start, he has ultimately had to ‘apologize to pop culture’ as a result of this term. His astute observations on the perception of women in film have snowballed into a reductive term hurled loosely at others. What started out as valid criticism towards misogynistic writing has mutated into something misogynistic within itself. But then again, who’s surprised?