Scream’s all about pointing out the illogic of clichéd “rules” in movies, but its focus has been limited almost squarely to slasher flicks. What about all the other clichéd rules floating around? You know, the ones that get profiled in those mega-edits? We've even got a whole section devoted to them in the Screened databases. Sometimes the rules are right on the money. Sometimes, however, they identify things as cliches when they're really more matters of fact. How about we evaluate some of the more popular ones?
5. Nobody Ever Says "Good-Bye" on the Phone
What’s funny about this one is that screenwriters are actually taught to do this. The basic principle for writing dialog in film is to keep it as concise as possible; nothing should ever be stated aloud that can’t already be inferred by the context of the scene. The typical class exercise used to get this across usually involves cutting out the particularly “flabby” portions of a dialog and the first targets are almost always the “Hellos” and “Goodbyes.” The idea is that if the characters are talking, we don’t need to know how they start or end the conversation. So if you ever roll your eyes at seeing this rude phone etiquette on screen, consider the alternative of the Room’s preponderant usage of “Oh, Hi…[insert character.]”
4. Everybody Loses Cell Phone Service at the Worst Times
Look, we all know that cell phones, the internet and GPS collectively screwed mystery, thriller and horror writers. It’s much harder to get lost or inaccessible these days. Thus, it's a lot harder to create tension now then when it was when a dodgy, coin-operated pay phone booth was often your only means of contacting the authorities.Of course, considering how often I see people complain on Facebook or Twitter (more 21st century communication luxuries) about how their service provider’s dicking them over with high fees and inconsistent coverage, I see this less as a a cliché than a fact of life.
3.The Manic Pixie Dream Girl
I’m a little befuddled over how this sort of “stock character” has become such a target of scorn--a boogie man (or lady) du jour, as it were. Most plots have to be shaped around the perspective of the lead. As such, the bad guy’s going to seem more evil than he probably would be in reality, we're probably not going to get time to learn what the lead's boss' hometown or favorite hobby is and, yes, the love interest will likely be charming and pixie-ish unto the point of fantasy. Putting all that aside, there’s also the more basic question of whether any viewer really, truly wants the alternative of a girl who’s stuffy, grown-up and boring... or whatever other qualities are considered antithetical to those of the "MPDG?"
2. The Slow Clap
I totally see what the intention and effect of this is, but it’s really the one rule here whose criticism I’m more in agreement with. The conceit honestly gives too much credit to the empathy of crowds to actually give a shit about your business. People will applaud their friends, sure, but they'll offer up as much care and attention to whatever personal breakthroughs you make in public as they do to the smelly busker on the corner. Ironically enough, the flick that so many damn in relation to Rule #3, (500) Days of Summer, has a most realistic depiction of how awkwardly this would play out in real life.
1.The Villain Talks Too Long
If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody’s there to hear it…
Most villains, I think we all can concur, are megalomaniacs. And the thing about megalomania is that it desperately, ferociously needs recognition. You might ask if it’s logical for a villain to detail his whole master plan to the hero. No, it probably isn’t, but it’s certainly essential for said narcissistic villain's ego to know his foe recognizes the genius of his plan and then agonizes helplessly over how to stop it. Hence, the monologues. I’d say it also depends on how exactly you want to get your exposition--through the dry briefing of the techie the hero has waiting back at HQ? Or through the colorful solliloquey that only a bad guy can properly deliver?
Anyway, there are many rules and cliches I'm not addressing here. I'm sure you Screened pups have plenty you're hungry to discuss, so let's stretch this gristle into a rabid chew. Do you agree about these rules? Do you disagree? Make your voices heard!
@Luthorcrow said:
Why I asked if you are "arguing to argue" is because you seem to be defending a specific instance of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, that is (500). Like all tropes, stereotypes, and language that negatively target women, they are significant because of their pervasiveness. For example, a single ocurrance of infantilization of women in anime --I choose a medium different to film so that we can separate the meaning of the trope from any sentimentality we may have for the particular medium--, a single occurrance of infantilization in anime would be disturbing yet not a widespread momentous problem. If it only happens once or on the fringes of the medium then it is just like any other morbid creation: only worthy of discussion when pointing out extremes. One instance that comes to mind is Sekirei, a series of anime where the main character acts like a 5 year-old with the sole mentality of pleasing her man who is also a loser with nothing going on and little to no personality. She, of course, is there to "complete" him and "make him alive", to stop his brooding and "teach him how to be happy again" (she also happens to be incredibly busty and is constantly exposed, but that's another problem). If this was the only instance or one of the very few instances of infatilization of women in anime then, again, it would just be a morbid extreme just like there is for any bad thing out there. But it's not, in anime the stock character of the infantile woman only there to please her man is everywhere. That's why it is a problem, because it is widespread and popular and therefore can affect popular perception of the role of women in relation to men, and that's why it is worth being tackled by feminist critique.
Now, in films it is the same. I'm still not convinced about (500) being different but you seem to have a lot invested in it and that's fine. The individual instance of (500) is irrelevant. It is only as part of a much bigger list of occurrances of the use of the trope of the MPDG that it is significant. Perhaps it is true, and like you say, (500) is actually a story that takes a spin on the trope and reveals the MPDG to actually not be so. Perhaps, the host of the video, like me, did not perceive the hidden irony of this particular one film like you did. It matters not as a single instance.
The trope is significant because it is so, because it is a widespread concept character in film. It is problematic because it infantilizes women (and in this it is related to the Indie Darling trope), it shows women as bubbly, and shallow and usually lacking much self-awareness. They are a fountain of child-like joy that is there to help the man loosen up and enjoy life. They are an accessory to his story, never the real main character but secondary (and women are hardly the main character of any mainstream movie). We are shown almost nothing of their lives, like their families, jobs or past. Again, forget (500), perhaps that instance is not as obvious and that's why you are so adamant about defending it (I still believe, Summer is mostly an accessory to Tom and that the majority of that movie is basically a MPDG plot), I will give it another chance. Now, there many other instances where it is really obvious that the female character has nothing going on. Many of this instances where mentioned by the video. Garden State comes especially to mind.
It doesn't matter if the women portrayed in the trope are happier or more experienced or smarter. They are still secondary to the males they are accessories to and are there to help. They are relegated to be only important through the male character.
I've read what you wrote and gave serious consideration to it, a reason why I'll give (500) another chance. Please do the same with what I wrote. Please think about it in its social implications. Why is this trope so popular? Why are the men the main characters in the MPDG story? Why isn't the MPDG the main character? Or for that matter, why aren't there as many stories where the woman is the one that needs to loosen up and the child-like man comes in and dedicates himself to her for nothing? Most importantly, consider this outside of film as a pre-established medium. Not just because it is pervasive in cinema does it make it right or unmutable and much less harmless. I say this because I get a cinephile vibe off you (I might be wrong) and I fear your defense of the medium might shut you out of serious consideration of the effect of social beliefs in its contents and conventions.
Nathan Rabin might have had a point about Kirsten Dunst. But people have since gotten way too overzealous about identifying that shit in his stead. Now, MPDG has become over-diagnosed to the point of now functioning purely as a lazy shorthand for any female character with short hair, good taste in music, or any sort of non-stereotypical interests... effectively, turning MPDG into a tool of the very gender-based cultural oppression it purports to stand against!
Oh, cruel irony.