MovieChat Forums > Gigi (1958) Discussion > Is it just me, or is Maurice Chevalier s...

Is it just me, or is Maurice Chevalier so PERVY?


I started trying to watch this movie, but in the first few minutes I see an elderly gentleman oogling pre-teen girls and then a child who appears 6 years old or so...happily thinking of them sexually....

Don't get me wrong, I think the age of consent for men and women should be 16. But for him to be salivating over girls who were depicted as innocent and non-sexual was creepy to me. The single line about them growing up in delightful ways seemed to be a disclaimer, but I don't think it did much to abate an undercurrent of how he would have loved to be the one to grow them up...uggh.

reply

The "undercurrent" you describe is a distortion brought by the modern eye watching the film. Unlike today, the audiences of 1958 did not see a pedophile hiding under every stone.


Would anyone like to see Mr. Simpson harvest a soul?

reply

I agree with you, DryToast. It's sad that today's society sees pedophilia in everything. A man holding hands with a little girl (who might be his niece or daughter) and people think of pedophilia. The words "sleep" and "bed" also bring about those dirty thoughts.
I wish I lived at a more innocent time...

reply

Good eye, DryToast, I was wondering when someone would catch that. "Thank Heaven for Little Girls," indeed! Chevalier was arrested four times for sex with minors, but owing to his celebrity the charges were dropped. That's why his career faded, though.

reply

KlutzyGirl, your post is so full of stupidity it is difficult to know where to begin addressing it.

First of all, you completely misunderstand the point of my post. I think that the calling out that "Thank Heaven for Little Girls" has gotten since you run-of-the-mill imbeciles learned what "pedophilia" means is totally uncalled for.

In addition, Chevalier's decline of popularity in the USA was due to accusations of collaborationism with the Nazis (of which a French court acquitted him) and sympathy with communism. When the McCarthy era began to abate (1955-58), he regained his popularity in America, appeared in several films and on television, and remained wildly popular until his death.

I would like to see where you get your "arrested four times for sex with minors" information, but I suspect it is from an orifice better left out of sight.


"You must sing him your prettiest songs, then perhaps he will want to marry you."

reply

Loved your reply, DryToast!

KlutzyGirl was indeed being a bit klutzy following the conversation. It's such a shame that we live in an age where it's practically expected of an older male to positively recoil at the sight of young girls - in order to avoid being branded a paedophile.

Once (I was 22 or 23 then) a mother rushed over to grab her daughter (about 9 or 10) and whisk her away from me with a terrified look on her face, when all the girl did was talking to an approachable stranger who was willing to listen to her. It burns, seeing how warped society has become, denying individuals the opportunity to innocently reach out across the age gap.

Then again, paedophilia happens - and probably always has happened. We are more aware of it today; or at least, not brushing it under the carpet as much as before. I can not question the good intentions of the mother who whisked her girl away from me. She didn't know me, so it was a matter of safety first for her. Still, it burns, knowing that innocence has no chance any more in this world.

When Alan Jay Lerner wrote those lyrics back in 1958, how could he have suspected that 50 years hence, people would immediately view it as an ode to paedophilia? It's just sad.

Please click on 'reply' at the post you're responding to. Thanks.

reply

Exactly! The awesomeness of your simple observation -- retrospectively, of the times -- assures me that not everyone is spooked by all they read and hear, and none of which they've personally witnessed. This blessing comes as great comfort. You're an emotional lifesaver.

reply

"Thank Heaven for Little Girls" is simply NOT an ode to paedophilia.

If you are under a certain age, you will probably not be able to get this.

reply

[deleted]


That's a little harsh. I saw the movie when it first came out and thought at the time that the Maurice Chevalier character really ought to find something more appropriate to do with his time, but just wrote it off to French culture.


reply

I'm SO glad someone else noticed how creepy "Thank Heaven for Little Girls" is! Just seeing this old man lurking outside a playground, watching little kids running around...Seeing the movie as a little girl, I was profoundly disturbed!

I get the feeling you're violating somebody's basic human rights here...

reply

Seriously??? How sad for you, for it says a lot more about how your brain works than whatever Chevalier's character is doing!

reply

Paris. London. New York. Munich. In 1900 nobody listened to pop music, or sat indoors during a warm Spring day, Simpleton. Yes, graphically for the hearing impaired, perhaps it would've been more suitable to flash, in bold font, the words 'PARIS' and '1900' as apparently you are also incapable of reading.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

There's pedo everywhere,get used to it!

reply

People try to defend this scene by saying things like "oh those were different times". But I think the implication is very clear. I think the song is a satire, it's set up to make us realize how ridiculous the "playboy" lifestyle is by showing this very old man lusting over little girls.

Turning off the movie in disgust is a sign of your own lack of sophistication as a viewer. You might as well turn off "Dr. Strangelove" because you think it's a propaganda film for the military.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

reply

ceace21 writes the following:

I see an elderly gentleman oogling pre-teen girls and then a child who appears 6 years old or so...happily thinking of them sexually....

... for him to be salivating over girls who were depicted as innocent and non-sexual was creepy to me.
I watched this again recently and I have to add to the comment I made above.

During the scene in question Maurice Chevalier barely looks at the girls. He speaks and sings directly into the camera. He looks in Gigi's direction when he introduces her, and briefly smiles with no evidence of guilty intent at the little girl who passes in front of him and then never looks at either of them again! No leering and no "oogling" and definitely no salivating.

You claim that the "single line about them growing up" seems like a disclaimer, but the entire song is about them growing up. "Little girls get bigger every day." "They grow up in the most delightful way." And what is the only thing he actually says about little girls? He describes their eyes as "helpless and appealing." Oh do call the police!

Please note that the entire song (without repeats) consists of five simple sentences (though you may quibble with my punctuation):

1. Each time I see a little girl of five or six or seven, I can't resist a joyous urge to smile and say, "Thank heaven for little girls," for little girls get bigger every day.

2. They grow up in the most delightful way.

3. Those little eyes, so helpless and appealing, one day will flash and send you crashing through the ceiling.

4. Thank heaven for them all, no matter where no matter who.

5. Without them, what would little boys do?

Rather than being sinister, the little twist at the end is so mild, it makes the entire song seem naive, as opposed to the jaded eyes who see illicit and diseased sexuality at work.

So given that there is nothing offensive in the lyric itself, and nothing offensive in the little visual reference that Chevalier makes, what is the problem here -- aside from the fact that immature people enjoy a witch hunt?


I've been married to one Marxist and one Fascist, and neither one would take the garbage out.

reply

Rather than being sinister, the little twist at the end is so mild, it makes the entire song seem naive, as opposed to the jaded eyes who see illicit and diseased sexuality at work.

So given that there is nothing offensive in the lyric itself, and nothing offensive in the little visual reference that Chevalier makes, what is the problem here -- aside from the fact that immature people enjoy a witch hunt?


Agreed. When I saw Gigi for the first time, I just knew someone would see it this way. Makes me ill.

Personally, I think I have too much bloom. Maybe that's the trouble with me.

reply

Amen!

This must be where pies go when they die.

reply

@DryToast.

I feel compelled to defend your view. Maurice singing "Thank Heaved for Little Girls" is a masterpiece of musical movies and has nothing to do with pedophilia.

reply

It's really sad and pathetic actually. "Immature people enjoying a witch hunt indeed!"

reply

Due to today's society that kept flashing through my mind while watching, and I had to keep reminding myself that when it was made it wasn't meant sexually. He was being sweet and grandfatherly, not perverted and a pedophile.

~ dear diary; my teen angst bullsh*t now has a body count.

reply

Any "ogling" (not "oogling") or "undercurrents" are all in your mind.

Reading over the many threads on this movie's message board, I'm struck by how many younger people seem to find something "disturbing" in this charming and delightful musical, or see a pervert or a dirty old man in the irrepressible Maurice Chevalier when he sings the perfectly innocent "Thank Heaven for Little Girls." I can only conclude that your minds have been warped by modern PC sensibilities. You've been indoctrinated to see things that simply aren't there.


All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?

reply

Good lord, I don't know how so many of you guys and gals can really just be looking the other way at something that's so obvious in the movie. To quote the previous poster, "when it was made it wasn't meant sexually. He was being sweet and grandfatherly, not perverted and a pedophile." It makes it sound like you guys think there was no such thing as sex in the 1950s (much less in the 1890s). The thing that surprises me is that in this apparent equation -- grandfather vs. pedophile -- you all seem to recognize no possibility for a middle ground. Of course Honore is not a pedophile, but at the same time he is not speaking here with "grandfatherly" sensibilities. I suppose if you had only seen that one scene from the entire movie you could read it that way, but you guys must have been asleep all those other times like when Honore said that a 30 year old woman (Eva Gabor) was too old, and referred to another girl saying "she doesn't have many good years left." What, she doesn't have many good years left, in a grandfatherly way? How about when Honore advises Gaston to "stick with the young, and a bit rubs off on you." He was speaking as a grandfather?

So.... who exactly is being "PC" here? What I see is a stupendous inability on the part of the whole group of you, who see yourselves as the film's defenders, to come to terms with the supreme irony and the transgressive wit of that scene. Instead of an extreme interpretation where Honore is a sick pervert, you want to substitute a typical 40s/50s Hollywood archetype of the kindly old grandfather, like Lewis Stone in the "Andy Hardy" movies or Edmund Gwenn's Santa Claus in "Miracle on 34th Street." What a pathetic movie "Gigi" would be if indeed it inhabited either of those sad whitewashed domains. Honore is neither Santa Claus nor is he a pedophile. He has time to reminisce about the past but he has no time to strike up a romance with a woman his age. He is charming and full of the joy of life, but his lifestyle is one that the movie ultimately repudiates when Gaston asks Gigi to marry him. Honore doesn't have a sexual infatuation with small children; as the song makes clear, he is looking forward to their growing up into sexual creatures. But he has no interest in a real long-term relationship and he has no interest in a girl who's grown into a woman. To try to paint him as a kindly grandfather as if it were the only way to defend him from charges of pedophilia is itself the heighth of "PC" folly.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

reply

Precisely - I couldn't have put it better.

reply

I agree with the OP.

The entire movie is pervy. What's the theme?

It deals with a whore raising a "little girl" to be a whore. That's a wonderful musical theme/story???

So Maurice singing about "little girls" is indeed perverty. He is the uncle of the man who would be the title girl's first lover. Who would take her virginity. A little girl barely grown up.

It's a musical for paedophiles.


reply

Not getting your fill of "pedophile" hunting at the Roman Polanski board?


"Please! You're not at home!"

reply

Exactly.

reply

Now, THAT'S a fine post, funkfry. Well written, excellently argued, and to me absolutely nails the truth of the matter, whether looking with 50s or contemporary eyes. Thank you.

reply

Most of the posters do not understand what they are discussing. Paedophilia means a sexual attraction towards a young child. The character is not sexually attracted to these children. Nor is his interest in them exactly "grandfatherly" - there is a sexual undertone. He is thinking pleasantly of when the girls will be old enough for him to be interested in them sexually. That is not paedophilia, "pervy" or improper. Think of an analogy. A farmer looks admiringly at the buds on his trees, thinking of when they will have developed into fruit which he can pluck. His interest is not in the buds as they are now, but what they will become.

reply

Far too.many people have nasty and suspicious minds.

reply