The thing is, the OP's original setup - pretty girly girl (often blonde) wins over shrewd brunette - was the classic setup in storytelling for decades, if not centuries. Cinderella, Snow White (brunette, but still), Barbie, Marilyn Monroe, Betty Grable, etc., etc., etc., all get the guy over rivals.
The new archetype today is really just a bit of backlash against the old ideal that men will always choose the pretty milquetoast girl over the smarter one (trying to give men some credit).
New "stereotype," you mean, not "archetype."
I wouldn't call the old heroines "milquetoasts." In fact, that's just the sort of slur that the resentful, envious brunettes that we're talking about would call them, ignoring their more appealing qualities. And I certainly do NOT think that it's to men's "credit" if men choose the resentful smart-tomboyish brunettes, as these characters tend to have really vile personalities (envious, petty, aggressive, strident, and intellectually-egotistical rather than beauty-egotistical). Quite the contrary.
The older examples that you provide are problematic. Cinderella? Maybe. But Snow White isn't blonde. Barbie has no rival. Marilyn? I haven't seen all of her films, but I have seen a fair amount, and I don't recall her in rivalry situations with shrewd brunettes. Haven't seen any Betty Grable movies.
The cinema examples that you provide are hit-and-miss. Someone mentioned Little Women in this or a related thread on this subject, and yes, it sounds like a good possibility, probably the closest of the ones that you suggest. I'll have to watch it.
Haven't seen "Marrying Man," but now I'll have to watch that as well.
As for "Grease," it's problematic because the O.P. stressed
keeping the vain, spoiled qualities of the blonde cheerleader/prom-queen antagonists in the high-school-movie trope, and Olivia Newton-John's character is just a good girl (her last-scene faux-transformation notwithstanding). It IS a case of a girly-girl winning over a tomboy, but it isn't really a role-reversal of the specific movie stereotype that the O.P. identified. And besides, the greaser girl is definitely not shrewdly intellectual.
Mind you, the blonde in "My Best Friend's Wedding" is also very much a good girl, so that's not a perfect example either, but there at least the antagonist, the Julia Roberts character, fits the resentful, smarter-girl role perfectly, which I think is why the O.P. cited it.
"Basic Instinct" is a case where the blonde character does have some "darker" characteristics, but of a different kind. She seemed more tough and strong (more masculine) than the character type that the O.P. was describing; cold and calculating rather than (for lack of a better word) bitchy. In fact, she seems to possess many of the shrewd brunette characteristics.
- - - -
At any rate, I DO accept the premise that this modern film stereotype is a reaction to an older storytelling tradition. In fact, like so much in Hollywood, I'm certain that it arose (deliberately or unconsciously) as a dramatization of a resentment of traditional Western, WASP culture, by the other groups that dominated Hollywood. "Starter for 10," singularly, even acknowledges this cultural/ethnic conflict in assigning an identity to its resentful brunette.
But that older tradition has so completely vanished from modern popular consciousness that the shrewd-bruntte-over-vain-blonde trope has become the only narrative that modern audiences know. And it's become SO tired, SO cliched, SO monotonously predictable that a reversal would be very welcome.
reply
share
dwp2
16 years ago
I have to say I'm surprised to see so much passion on this issue. :) I do still think the original blonde heroines were written as milquetoasts, at least in the old movies I've seen. (Sandra Dee is a classic example.) Anyway, I tend to root for Wile E. Coyote over Road Runner, Tom over Jerry, and often pretty girl over sarcastic best friend, but, alas, most people just want to see the underdog win. On screen is maybe the only place where the underdogs of the world aren't underdogs at all, or we wouldn't be watching their stories. "Goliath Beats David" isn't exactly a crowd pleaser.
reply
share
karsten_nord
16 years ago
I tend to root for Wile E. Coyote over Road Runner, Tom over Jerry, and often pretty girl over sarcastic best friend, but, alas, most people just want to see the underdog win.
I agreed with you in all three preferences, because all three examples that you cite (Wile E. Coyote, Tom, and the pretty girl) ARE in fact the underdogs in the worlds that they inhabit. The shows pretend that their adversaries are underdogs, but of course they are completely not. They always win. F*ing
always."Goliath Beats David" isn't exactly a crowd pleaser.
See, that's interesting that you should say that, because I disagree. We live in a world that's totally dominated by Hollywood culture ("Hollywoodism," as one documentary calls it), and so in our cultural world, the Davids always,
always beat the Goliaths. And that makes one pretty sick of Davids, and makes one root for the underdog Goliaths.
I think part of it is, no one likes to be manipulated, and one always knows that one is seeing these stories from the point of view of the Davids. "The winners write the history books," as they say, and I would LOVE to see a story where Goliath wins, and maybe with the story told a different way--from Goliath's point of view. Maybe Goliath wasn't a brute, but a noble warrior who wanted to fight honourably. Maybe David wasn't a plucky hero, but a conniving cheater who won with a cheap shot. That puts a different spin on things. And in a story that isn't rigged to favour David, a "Goliath beats David" tale might be extremely refreshing, and even inspiring. (The victory of honour over guile, of nobility over crafty shrewdness -- that kind of thing.)
reply
share
andromache3
15 years ago
This question seems to pop up on a lot of boards for some inexplicable reason.
The OP is obviously a hot blonde who considers the "underdogs" beneath her and as a result, don't deserve a shred of happiness. Apparently all brunettes are ugly sarcastic shrews and all blondes are gorgeous hotties who just want to be loved.
Let's just judge a person for their looks and the colour of their hair and not even think to consider their personalities or intelligence, right? Of course Goliath was a misunderstood guy and David was a crafty manipulative jerk. I thought stories were here to challenge these archetypes, not constantly reinforce them. Goodness me! I thought we'd outgrown the fairy tales of yesteryear and wanted something a bit more interesting, like turning the original stories on their head. But apparently not.
reply
share
trendelle
15 years ago
Of course Goliath was a misunderstood guy and David was a crafty manipulative jerk.
Quite possibly. In fact, that's a really interesting reinterpretation of the tale. It has just as much chance of being true as the "official" version.
I thought stories were here to challenge these archetypes, not constantly reinforce them. Goodness me! I thought we'd outgrown the fairy tales of yesteryear and wanted something a bit more interesting, like turning the original stories on their head. But apparently not.
In fact, that's exactly what the O.P. is talking about--turning a story that's become a dull, predictable cliche (i.e., the "evil" blonde, and the "good" brunette) on its head. The O.P.'s premise IS challenging an archetype, which is why it's interesting. Much more interesting than the umpteenth vain-blonde-gets-her-comeuppance story.
reply
share
andromache3
15 years ago
I understand your point. I guess in the end it's all about perspective. At one time, classic stories always had beautiful princess, damsel in distress types marrying the handsome prince and living happily ever after, while the ugly, socially awkward and mean spirited stepsister types got their comeuppance. Those stories always presented the heroine as a beautiful girl, while her nemesis was ugly and their looks represented their characters. My beef is that maybe we need to get to know what the pretty girls/ugly girls are like one way or the other before we judge them, as we were doing with these ancient archetypes we were constantly bombarded with as we were growing up.
reply
share
LiberaMe
15 years ago
Well, I don't think very many young people experience any of those old stories any more. These days, all they are likely to encounter is the film/TV cliche of the supposedly "bitchy" popular blonde and the supposedly "good" outsider brunette. I can definitely understand how people can get tired of that stereotype.
These days, having the popular prom-queen/head-cheerleader blonde become the heroine, rather than the outsider brunette, would be a real departure, and would make for quite an original story.
reply
share
audg45
15 years ago
After reading this entire thread, i have to say that the only movie that's been mentioned here that comes close to "the girly girl wins over plain jain brunette" storyline is Little Women. Although I wouldn't say that Dunst/Mathis's character is bitchy or vain. She just had very little substance, especially compared to Winona Rider's character. And it seemed like Rider and Bale's characters were meant for each other, but in the end he chose the beautiful, blonde Samantha Mathis.
reply
share
lilylags
14 years ago
I think the Laurie/Amy thing in little women doesn't qualify at all, because the fact is Jo (Winona) rejected laurie's marriage proposal... for me it seems he settled for "second best"... amy didn't beat jo, jo just wasn't interested, so Laurie lost, 'cause if he was given a choice, he still would've picked jo before amy....
reply
share
notaarebe
14 years ago
I agree. What the O.P. is definitely talking about is a situation where a "beautiful, blonde Samantha Mathis" (except vainer -- bitchier is optional) is consciously chosen over a Jo type; where the Jo type tries to beat her and fails, and the more traditionally feminine, beautiful blonde wins.
reply
share
cheedo
13 years ago
Little sbstance? Amy easily was the best character; unlike jo (who is very boring to me), she has character development (although at least Jo grows up and matures more, eventually).
I was so glad Jo didn't get Laurie. I mean I would have prefer Beth lived and married him but oh well. Jo was right, they were way too much alike and didn't challenge each other, just argued with each other. Bhaer was an interesting man and challenged her into writing better and offered her new ideas to consider. Amy in a sense did the same for Laurie; unlike Jo, she always kept her cool, which was new to Laurie (who rarely kept his), and kind of was a bit of a Rhett to his Scarlett, bossing him and letting him know he wasn't going to get to her.
Bone, it is what it is.
reply
share