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.
|