This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Working Title: Accidental Innuendo: From YKTTW
We definitely need a Troper Tales for this one.
Why has this page been wiped? Can someone restore it?
rsm109: Restored.
Trogga: Isn't this already covered in Freud Was Right?
Freezair For A Limited Time: Freud Was Right is merely about seeing sexual imagry everywhere. This is about lines of dialogue (usually) which come out sounding dirty.
Trogga: But they seem to overlap sometimes.
Vifetoile: Okay, whoever posted this about Gigi, in response to my comment about the song "Thank Heaven for Little Girls":
- Hate to burst That Troper's bubble, but that song really is about ephebophilia. Minnelli's version of Gigi used Adaptation Decay, Executive Meddling, and Dawson Casting to turn Gigi into a woman so American audiences wouldn't be squicked out, but in the original story Gaston (Chevalier's character) has no interest in Gigi's spirit or youthful attitude - he wants her only for her barely pubescent body, and that is made extremely clear. Watch the 1947 Audry non-musical version if you want your eyes opened: Gigi is a young, relatively immature fifteen-year-old. Of course, Chevalier the actor had no personal interest whatsoever in little girls - he might have been an equal opportunity bottom-pincher, but he honourably kept his hands on the adult side of the line.
- Of course fifteen is legal in France.
- Hate to burst That Troper's bubble, but that song really is about ephebophilia. Minnelli's version of Gigi used Adaptation Decay, Executive Meddling, and Dawson Casting to turn Gigi into a woman so American audiences wouldn't be squicked out, but in the original story Gaston (Chevalier's character) has no interest in Gigi's spirit or youthful attitude - he wants her only for her barely pubescent body, and that is made extremely clear. Watch the 1947 Audry non-musical version if you want your eyes opened: Gigi is a young, relatively immature fifteen-year-old. Of course, Chevalier the actor had no personal interest whatsoever in little girls - he might have been an equal opportunity bottom-pincher, but he honourably kept his hands on the adult side of the line.
First of all, don't treat reading the novella as a major feat, because it is just that, a novella, and I think your interpretation, while feasible, is not as obvious as you apparently think it is, nor is it the only possible interpretation. Also, I think the tone of this piece is overall very condescending. Sorry about the second poster, but their response was part and parcel with the above.
