| You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | dramedy 08:00 pm EST 01/18/15 |
| In reply to: | re: Gigi: accents? - perfectlyfrank 07:28 pm EST 01/18/15 |
|
| |
| Although thank heaven when sung by an older man has a pediphile feel to it, I didn't think it made sense in the context of the show to have the grandmother and aunt sing it. It's more like, we have to use this song, so where can we out it to be least offensive. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | perfectlyfrank 10:48 pm EST 01/18/15 |
| In reply to: | You read that from me - dramedy 08:00 pm EST 01/18/15 |
|
| |
| I don't see any pedophelia in the song. At all. That's modern politically correct crap. People read so much into stuff. As sung by Chevalier its a charming song by a man who's seen it all and is narrating the story of one young girl who grows up just as his nephew too grows up. It's an older man narrating how young girls grow up into young women just as little boys grow up to be men who then find those women attractive. It's less sexual and more the musings of a spry old man who remembers fondly his own youth. You use the song as intended: with Honore singing the song. If audiences see pedophelia then they should examine their own perverted minds. I guess those same people look at grandfathers who love their grandchildren and think pedophelia too. I just watched the film again and Chevalier is utterly charming in the film and in that number. It perfectly sets up the story of a young girl who grows up before our eyes. There isn't anything more happening. If the censors of the 1950s didn't have a problem with it, it's funny how modern audiences would have a problem. again, I think it's lack of trust in the material and that never bodes well with a revival. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | BroadwayTonyJ 09:18 pm EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - perfectlyfrank 10:48 pm EST 01/18/15 |
|
| |
| There's no pedoplilia suggested in the song, but I believe that the way Chevalier sings it, it is a paean to the way of life he advocates and is rich enough to enjoy. In the dialogue between the verses, Honore says that Paris is made up of 2 kinds of women, the married and unmarried. When he says unmarried, we see 2 women in a carriage who are obviously high-class prostitutes. Honore then singles out Gigi, who he knows is the grand niece of Alicia, a well known retired courtesan. He then continues with the song. This is all done with style and wit -- it's not offensive in the least, but I don't consider it innocent. Honore is charming, but he is also a rake -- he looks at an adolescent Gigi, and knows that she may (or may not) grow up to be his nephew's (or some other rich man's) mistress. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 04:51 pm EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - perfectlyfrank 10:48 pm EST 01/18/15 |
|
| |
| i don't see any in it either but i don't have a problem with them switching who gets the song if in fact they've shifted the focus back onto the women in the family. mores and opinions change. there'a a lot more discussions about sex, and pedophilia now that there was when the film came out. it's reductive to call that kind of awareness "politically correct cap." i can't imagine directing a production of GIGI and not coming to a pause when i got to "thank heaven..." at this moment in time there's no way not to think - some folks are going to find this creepy, now how am i gonna deal with that? the problem with tinkering (or not tinkering for that matter) is you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. the director has to think, do i engage with this song in some way (and risk criticism) or do i leave it as is (and risk criticism?) you do what feels right and brace for the blows. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | Circlevet 12:51 pm EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - perfectlyfrank 10:48 pm EST 01/18/15 |
|
| |
| And Honeymoon in Vegas is the story of a guy who loses his finance in card game to a gangster that she has to go to Hawaii with for the weekend. At least Gigi said "no, I won't be a prostitute". Where is the logic in any of this. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 04:56 pm EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - Circlevet 12:51 pm EST 01/19/15 |
|
| |
| >> At least Gigi said "no, I won't be a prostitute". no. she does not ever say anything remotely like this because this was never an option. no one is proposing that gigi become a prostitute. the french had prostitutes and the french had courtesans and they were not the same thing. i'm curious. do you think madame armfeldt was a prostitiute? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | whereismikeyfl 10:44 pm EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - enoch10 04:56 pm EST 01/19/15 |
|
| |
| You might want to consult a few dictionaries, because a courtesan is indeed a prostitute, though usually with a more upscale clientele. And of course Madame Armfeldt was a prostitute. The song Liasons is about the lowering standards in craft, respect, and price in her profession. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 03:42 pm EST 01/20/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - whereismikeyfl 10:44 pm EST 01/19/15 |
|
| |
| i'd return the suggestion to read some books but make sure they aren't all dictionaries. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | BroadwayTonyJ 09:00 pm EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - enoch10 04:56 pm EST 01/19/15 |
|
| |
| Gigi says, "I don't want to." When pressed by Gaston, she proclaims that he wants her to sleep in his bed and that when he tires of her, she will have to find another rich gentleman, whose bed she will have to sleep in. She doesn't want to. This is Paris in the early 1900's -- there is no monarchy -- France is a republic, and a courtesan is a prostitute for rich gentlemen. I love the film -- it's one of the very great musicals with a superb score. The subject matter is handled delicately with remarkable taste and wit, but I think we all know what it is about. I love the fact that Gigi even in the early scenes knows full well what Aunt Alicia is training her for. There is a scene in which she tries to get her grandmother to admit she is being trained to be a courtesan but Maimita seems oblivious to Gigi's awareness of the situation. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | Circlevet 07:13 pm EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - enoch10 04:56 pm EST 01/19/15 |
|
| |
| Whatever the service Gigi is being trained to do was not central to my post that's a semantics argument. Colette wrote a wonderful story about a young girl who when faced with the prospect of a life as a courtesan (a hooker who can choose a good cigar) makes a different choice and changes her own fate which in my mind is an incredibly empowering statement especially when you consider the time in which she lived (why we need to fix this story I don't understand). Betsy on the other hand in Ben Brantley's new favorite show accepts the conditions of the ridiculous plot of Honeymoon in Vegas and with her Vassar education heads off to Hawaii with a gangster for the weekend cause her idiot fiancé lost her in a card game. You've come a long way baby! And Madame Armfeldt was a tramp who traded oral sex for figs, ask anyone. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 03:39 pm EST 01/20/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - Circlevet 07:13 pm EST 01/19/15 |
|
| |
| not understanding the difference between a courtesan and a prostitute is more than a semantic argument. it is a case of not knowing what you're talking about. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | Circlevet 07:59 pm EST 01/20/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - enoch10 03:39 pm EST 01/20/15 |
|
| |
| Websters dictionary: Courtesan "noun" a prostitute, especially one with wealthy or upper-class clients. I guess I know what I'm talking about after all. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 11:40 pm EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - Circlevet 07:13 pm EST 01/19/15 |
|
| |
| I didn't much like Honeymoon in Vegas, but that was not my understanding of exactly what happened. Jack lost a lot of money in a poker game. He was told that the debt (for the nonpayment of which he might otherwise be seriously hurt) would be forgiven if Betsy would agree to spend the weekend with Tommy. Betsy does not have to say yes. Yes, she would probably feel awful if she didn't and Tommy followed through on his threat to Jack, but she does not have to. Jack did not put her up as a bet in a card game. If I hadn't seen the show, I would think that from your description. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 06:42 pm EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - enoch10 04:56 pm EST 01/19/15 |
|
| |
| Ask Lord Beaverbrook. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | Ann 02:34 pm EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - Circlevet 12:51 pm EST 01/19/15 |
|
| |
| The difference is, his fiancee is an adult. People react a certain way when children are involved (and that has only increased in the years since the Gigi film, in my opinion). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 09:13 pm EST 01/18/15 |
| In reply to: | You read that from me - dramedy 08:00 pm EST 01/18/15 |
|
| |
| It was also mentioned by the author/adapter in an interview that was linked here a couple of months ago (and that I'm linking again below). | |
| Link | How do you solve a problem like Gigi? |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | perfectlyfrank 11:06 pm EST 01/18/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - AlanScott 09:13 pm EST 01/18/15 |
|
| |
| This new author sees problems where there aren't any. Never good. Reminds me of Hwang's lame attempt to improve on Hammerstein's Flower Drum Song. Better to be like Barrlett Sher who took the original book of South Pacific and made tweaks with the utmost respect for Hammerstein's original book and the show was a smash. The film Gigi won an Oscar for best adapted screenplay. It still holds up beautifully. Better to find a writer or director that will respect the film script and adapt it to the stage without losing what makes the film a classic. Chevalier singing Thank Heaven for Little Girls is definitely one of the things that makes the film great. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 05:02 pm EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - perfectlyfrank 11:06 pm EST 01/18/15 |
|
| |
| >> This new author sees problems where there aren't any. men expressing a sexual interest in little girls is a problem at any time under any circumstances but never more so than when developing a commercial enterprise designed to appeal to as many people as possible. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | Ann 05:16 pm EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - enoch10 05:02 pm EST 01/19/15 |
|
| |
| In this form, I almost feel it won't matter to a good portion of the mainstream audience. Maybe it's because they look like they're the same age, but these two are like Cinderella and Prince Charming - everyone wants them to be together. Young people have no concept of what a courtesan is and, even if they think about asking someone what the hell is going on, by the end of the show, I'm guessing they will no longer care. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 04:28 pm EST 01/20/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - Ann 05:16 pm EST 01/19/15 |
|
| |
| that makes sense. i've never seen a version of GIGI where they are close to the same age and while on one hand it's something of a violation of the text on the other it's an adaptation into another genre and so allowances are allowed or, at least, tolerated. mostly. i guess. i think it's reductive but the argument that the genre trivializes what it adapts is, unfortunately, easily supported with only rare exceptions. in this case, i'm not sure i even object to the reduction. at least i understand it. kinda. it's an interesting debate i'm having in my own head about this. i'm making some assumptions without seeing it which is always tricky but if it is the kind of musical that really wants to be seen as a big broadway family-friendly kind of show (or even one eager to not offend) - what other choice do they have but to narrow the ages? look at some of the discussions just in this thread. so the safe choice is an understandable one. just defending something for wanting to a big family-friendly broadway show that makes safe choices doesn't seem to be something i want to support. i enjoy some of the score for GIGI. i love the source material to no end. still, i keep coming back to the conclusion this just isn't good material for a musical. the film worked, for me anyway, because of casting (i don't see the sophistication of either leslie caron or audrey hepburn in this young woman) and, more importantly, minnelli's gorgeous directing but it didn't succeed at the box office. the source material is too french and requires nuances most americans aren't attuned to especially the kind that like family-friendly fare. some material can be adapted easily. some material you just end up torturing. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | BrianJ 01:30 am EST 01/21/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - enoch10 04:28 pm EST 01/20/15 |
|
| |
| What's your source that the movie didn't succeed at the box office? I know it wasn't a box office smash on the scale of MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS, but I was always under the impression that it was a box office success. (Not that I've researched this much.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | Ann 07:51 am EST 01/21/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - BrianJ 01:30 am EST 01/21/15 |
|
| |
| Well, it's Wikipedia but a start: "According to MGM records, the film earned $6.5 million in the US and Canada and $3.2 million elsewhere during its initial theatrical release, resulting in a profit of $1,983,000." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 01:57 pm EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - perfectlyfrank 11:06 pm EST 01/18/15 |
|
| |
| In this case, you also have Lerner's rewrite for the stage to look at. I'm not sure quite how different it was, but it had to have been at least somewhat different. I just think this is one piece that was conceived for the screen and is probably never going to wholly work onstage. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | Ann 07:40 am EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - perfectlyfrank 11:06 pm EST 01/18/15 |
|
| |
| It's a commercial decision. If the audience is expected to react in a negative way, he's going to want to change it. The show already is a tough sell for modern audiences because of its age (this is not how I feel personally, but looking to sell it to contemporary audiences). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | bodacious 03:10 am EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - perfectlyfrank 11:06 pm EST 01/18/15 |
|
| |
| In the Playbill article linked, Thomas says that 'Thank Heaven...' was sung by Honore as the opening number in an earlier version of her adaptation, but that the surprising (to her) audience aversion to seeing it that way onstage led to the change. (The audience/s mentioned here were presumably at early readings, workshops or similar.) I don't have a strong opinion on the change myself, by the way. | |
| Link | Recent Playbill article |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | bicoastal 01:13 pm EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - bodacious 03:10 am EST 01/19/15 |
|
| |
| I am hoping for the best here. "Call the Midwife" is very consistent in its writing for both long range character arcs and short episodic ones. And it is moving and rarely cloying. I agree with the above comments about Chevalier's performance but I don't agree that I am the problem if the song becomes creepy. We live in a more enlightened society and yes, it may mean more p.c. baggage but that's the way it is. I saw the Reprise production in L.A. and it was flat-out uncomfortable when William Atherton sang about little girls. It was partly a case of bad casting but also a case of how we as a society have changed. I don't think if this piece were written today that that song would open the show. Ms Thomas acknowledges the strength of the song but also the times we live in; I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. I am seeing the show next week so will be able to see for myself if her ideas work. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | Billhaven 03:58 pm EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - bicoastal 01:13 pm EST 01/19/15 |
|
| |
| William Atherton? Not the best choice. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | LovestheShow 04:07 pm EST 01/19/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - Billhaven 03:58 pm EST 01/19/15 |
|
| |
| While I was never creeped out by Maurice Chevalier singing "Thank Heaven for Little Girls," I am always creeped out by William Atherton doing anything. LOL. He's probably a lovely man, but he always seems to play creeps! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You read that from me | |
| Posted by: | bicoastal 03:44 pm EST 01/20/15 |
| In reply to: | re: You read that from me - LovestheShow 04:07 pm EST 01/19/15 |
|
| |
| Yes, it was a terrible piece of casting, and probably created more of a problem with the song than there might have been with someone else. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Sound Advice Upcoming Releases CDs/Books/DVDs, etc. | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2015 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 0.263509 seconds.