Friday, January 7, 2011

Pretty in Pink: Duckie Revisited

Betas. Alphas.
The whole dichotomy can be summed up with one movie:
Pretty in Pink.

Where in this movie, the loser Beta, Duckie, is a lesser character juxtaposed with the Alpha (Blane) to emphasize the Alpha's qualities, newer movies (anything with Michael Cera or Jonah Hill for example) are featuring the Betas in lead roles and glamorizing limerance and one-itis. This turn of events is disgusting.

What they are doing is telling impressionable young males that it is not only acceptable to behave like twerps, but that it is what they are supposed to do. Fuck that.

To illustrate how wrong it is to idolize weakness, I present new evidence:

An esteemed publication, Entertainment Weekly, printed a 20th anniversary DOUBLE ISSUE, #1125/1126 - Oct. 22/29, 2010, featuring "Classic Casts Reunited!" Featured were 'Back to the Future' stars, 'Married... with Children', and 'Pretty in Pink'.

On page 57, the 'Pretty in Pink' actors, Jon Cryer (Duckie), Molly Ringwald, and Annie Potts, were interviewed and asked this question:

"Where do you think your characters ended up?"

Molly Ringwald: "I'm sure that Duckie came out by now."
John Cryer: "Yes. He's in Gay Pride. He's the guy with no shirt and the suspenders. That's him. I never quite saw him that way, but perhaps that's because I'm married now."

It's not just fiction anymore. Molly Ringwald saw the dweeb who was IN LOVE with her character as GAY. So let me extrapolate from here. Women are going to see males like Duckie, ie, the lovable loser, as soooo feminine that they are not even considered as candidates for entry to vag-land. They take themselves off the market by being too sensitive and too vulnerable. Those are feminine qualities. Ever see a guy and immediately think he's gay, but then find out he's got a crush (one-itis) on a girl? What they're doing is projecting female body language and mannerisms. Of course they're not gay (probably) and Duckie isn't gay. But my point is that if you are acting like a twerp, a woman will not be enamored by it and magically choose to swoon.

She will reminisce 25 fucking years later on LJBF-ing you and justify it to themselves because you were 'gay'.

Yet another example of a female's intrinsic ability to backwards rationalize her behavior. Even when it's FICTION. Does Molly really think Duckie was gay? The guy was PINING for her and she knew it, but her identity is that of a 'nice' person, and mixing fantasy with reality, as is all too common with actors, the rules of cognitive dissonance dictate that she cannot hold conflicting ideas simultaneously. The idea of herself being 'nice' and the idea of her character selfishly stringing along Duckie are like oil and water. Something's gotta give. Using confirmation bias, she abandons past facts to form a memory of Duckie that would retain her self-identity, instead of separating Movie Molly from Real Molly. If Duckie is gay, then she did nothing wrong and everything is neat and tidy in her head.

Now let's psychoanalyze John Cryer. Still a douche and STILL playing the part of Beta to the Alpha (Charlie Sheen in 'Two and a Half Men', or 'One Man, a Douche, and a Minor'). He's agreeing with Molly Ringwald (just like a suck up, 'maybe she'll like me if we have the same opinion') even though he's basically making fun of himself.

Hollywood casts actors for roles they would naturally fit. That means he's really just playing HIMSELF in 'Pretty in Pink' as well as 'Two and a Half Men'. As an example, and only using males for this, watch a late night talk show where they interview an actor. They act exactly as you would expect them to (Adam Sandler, Daniel Craig, Zach Braff, Matthew McConaughey, Russell Brand, Nick Nolte, Gilbert Gottfried).

The fact that he's Negging himself puts him in the realm of self-deprecation to try to manipulate a woman into liking him. First of all, an Alpha would NOT care what she thought because she's old and ugly, and second, an Alpha would not say anything bad about himself because he would have self-respect and, if anything, he'd be COCKY.

Does John Cryer think there's anything wrong with the way Duckie behaves? I don't think so. After he agrees that he's gay, he backpedals with, 'I never quite saw him that way', and then he mentions his marriage in a national publication so everyone knows he's straight. The sentence doesn't even make sense. This tells me that he had an agenda to mention his marriage in the interview. It was on his mind the whole time and he vomitted it out as a non sequitur at the first chance he got.

I just really don't like this guy. If I had the choice of meeting either John Cryer or getting punched in the face by Charlie Sheen. I'd choose the Sheen punch.

Beta-izing yourself creates obstacles to getting laid.
Ducky was beta and did not get the girl.
The EW article features REAL people's opinions and said opinions paint the 'lovable loser' character as sexually unattractive to females.
Movies where the 'lovable loser' gets the girl are 100% BULLSHIT.
I'm going to go watch Bond.

No comments:

Post a Comment