Dismantling gender in American Indiewood’s quirky narratives: the Manic Pixie Dream Girl stereotype

Abstract

Seven years ago, James MacDowell (2010) detected a new aesthetic and narrative sensitivity pertaining to American independent cinema, characterized by a balance between ironic distance and emotional sincerity. Since the publication of McDowell’s article, the word quirky became quickly associated with the works of directors such as Jim Jarmusch, Wes Anderson or Michel Gondry, turning into a catchphrase that has been used to describe every film protagonized by eccentric characters, utilizing a perfectionist visual language, and endowed with a certain naïveté in the tone and treatment of pathetic situations. These productions appeal to the sentimentality of a millennial audience that is no longer as cynical or politically engaged as their predecessors; in fact, the narrative and formal transgressions that are typical of quirky productions tend to stay on the surface, never questioning issues of gender, race, or class. In this sense, the Manic Pixie Dream Girl stereotype constitutes a perfect example of the quirky aesthetics; its ambivalent relationship with postfeminist ideologies, incorporating a neoliberal sexual freedom to a traditional performance of femininity becomes a sign of identity rather than a political stance, while the stereotype’s childish look and naive attitude respond to the exaltation of ingenuity that happens in quirky. On the other hand, the fact that typical Manic Pixie Dream Girls such as Summer ([500] Days of Summer) or Ruby Sparks are more defined in terms of their cultural preferences and outfits than by their fears or ambitions also aligns with the postmodern prevalence of the form that characterizes quirky productions.