I agree that there is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl archetype, and that it is cloying.

However the classification boundaries for this archetype seem to have moved from “Natalie Portman in Garden State” to “Any woman in any movie no matter how old or young who exhibits awkwardness or dopiness ever.”

This isn’t useful, people.

It seems in the feminist sphere more to have become about hating women with qualities that some other women wish they to some extent possessed than a legitimate cultural critique.

I’ve seen it claimed that everyone from all the women in Love Actually to Maude in Harold and Maude are MPDGs.

Next, I am sure someone will claim that Pvt. Vasquez from Aliens is also an MPDG.

This reminds me in the 90s and early 2000s how every man was quick to mention that he “hated” Brad Pitt and thought he was a terrible actor because, of course, they wished they could be more like him.

Also, I don’t agree that Amélie in Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amélie Poulain fits anywhere near the MPDG archetype at all because the film is about her. To be an MPDG, the woman has to be seen through a man’s eyes and act as no woman ever would. Having known women like Amélie (incredibly lonely, bad with people), it is no stretch to see one depicted on film.

If anything, the man that Amélie hooks up with in the film is the MPDG. (Really. Think about it.)

That’s a side point, though.

The main point is that the criticism of the MPDG archetype loses its power and veracity if any woman on film with a speaking part is claimed to be one.