No need for a real explanation because these are all awesome “OH SHIT! HAHAH!” movies. They warrant shouts of glee and disbelief at either racy comedy or extreme/shocking violence. These movies are appropriate for any moment and any size group.
Stanley Kubrick lining up a shot through the viewfinder of Irene Kane and Vince Edwards on Killer’s Kiss (1955)
I can’t properly express how much I love Stanley Kubrick.
Annie Hall, in my opinion, is someone that the archetype of the manic pixie dream girl may have been based after, but I don’t think she completely fits into the mold. The main purpose of a manic pixie dream girl is to take the uptight male protagonist and completely change him and inspire him to live life to the fullest etc. etc. But here’s the thing: Annie does not change Alvy in that way. The way Alvy lives his life doesn’t change, he just makes room for Annie. “Annie Hall” is about a relationship. Both characters are neurotic and yes, Alvy may be in some social situations with Annie that he usually wouldn’t partake in, but he doesn’t like it and it doesn’t change his outlook on life. It probably helps that “Annie Hall” is based on his real life relationship with Diane Keaton. All of Annie’s costumes were actually Diane Keaton’s clothes. I really think “Annie Hall” is the telling of a realistic relationship with it’s ups and downs, told in the most interesting way. Annie is not the miracle girl that saves Alvy from a life of certain uptight misery. She’s a woman that had a relationship with a man, and no one saved anyone. They just enjoyed each other. And that’s one of the things that makes “Annie Hall” an amazing film.
Feminist Frequency - Tropes vs. Women: #1 The Manic Pixie Dream Girl
I agree with this for the most part. I don’t think it’s bad to have a muse or an inspiration, but the frequency of this archetype just destroys it’s legitimacy. I can appreciate films with manic pixie dream girls and I really like a lot of them, but I’m not so much offended by the characters as tired of this character showing up again and again and again. The problem is that this character not only keeps recurring with the same group of people, but it keeps recurring in independent films! It makes it seem like that’s the only type of independent film that is worth seeing, which is crap. Yes, all of the movies in this video were widely released, but most of them started as “small independent films” that had notable actors and those notable actors are why the films got a wide release. I’m not guiltless of watching, enjoying and supporting movies that were written/directed by men who claim certain women as their muses (I adore Woody Allen and Quentin Tarantino, and I really think their female characters are full-blooded and well written), I just think the fact that this type of character is used quite so much is disheartening and they need to have more dimension and realism. It gives the impression that one’s life can only be changed by an extremely eccentric woman. Are filmwriters getting too lazy to write a film about character with less eccentricities and more dimension?
Honestly, I feel like this is what “Paper Towns” is about. “Paper Towns” breaks down the image of the manic pixie dream girl and basically says what this woman is saying. To quote the book: “What a treacherous thing to believe that a person is more than a person.” Oh hell yes John Green.
10,363 notes (via pirateninjadisco & erosum)