The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-05-2001, 04:34 PM
crackersandmilk crackersandmilk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Hey, you guys brought it up! I saw it mentioned on the 'crying indian being Italian' post. Anywho is it true?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 07-05-2001, 04:55 PM
cher3 cher3 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Uh, why would she? She was a legitimate star by the time she was, what, six?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-05-2001, 04:57 PM
Jack Batty Jack Batty is offline
Cynicism for fun and profit
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Without a link to this "Crying Italian Indian Thread", it is a tough call to make, but we may have a winner for stupidest question ever posted.
__________________
Caution: Cape does not enable user to fly.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-05-2001, 05:01 PM
Ringo Ringo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 11,261
From The Unofficial Nicole Sullivan Tribute Page

Quote:
The Littlest Hoochie: Shirley Temple (Dannah Feinglass) goes to an
inner-city school and learns how to be a hoochie mama in this Shirley
Temple/gangsta crossover. As a period piece this is not bad (in
general Mad TV fares pretty well with these); what is funny is that
although this is meant to be a parody, it might not be that far
off the mark - some film experts have said that if some of these
Shirley Temple shorts were released today, they might be considered
child pornography, considering their somewhat unwholesome content along
with the rather vague legal definition of child porn in the U.S.A. I
cite the 1933 short, "Polly Tix in Washington," which casts a very
young Shirley Temple as a vamp attempting to corrupt a Senator into
supporting the castor oil lobby, as an example of a Shirley Temple
film with somewhat questionable content. It is uncertain whether this
is what the writers had in mind when they wrote this bit (probably
not), but even if they didn't, this segment deserves some credit for
its originality.
The IMDB didn't list "The Littlest Hoochie" but it does have "Polly Tix in Washington."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-05-2001, 05:06 PM
SkeptiJess SkeptiJess is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
She never did any explicit "kiddie porn" that I ever heard of. She did do a series of shorts before she was famous that sound (and, according to the stills I've seen, look) rather racy. They were takeoffs on or parodies of then-current movies with small children playing all the parts. The children were dressed very sexily (although all of them wore giant diapers with their glittery costumes!) and directed to act in an adult fashion. Many people felt that these films were in very poor taste and, again judging from the stills, a pervert would probably find them titilating -- but surely they were not porn, by any stretch of the imagination. The shorts series was called Baby Burlesque, although I don't recall the names of any specific films. Some of them may be available on video.
__________________
formerly known as just plain Jess
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-05-2001, 05:13 PM
Abe Babe Abe Babe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Sorta gives new meaning to the song line:

"Animal crackers in my soup"



Excuse me, I need to go wash my brain out with soap.
__________________
Support the fine arts. . . shoot a rapper.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-05-2001, 05:20 PM
Jack Batty Jack Batty is offline
Cynicism for fun and profit
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Ok, so those Baby Burlesque things have totally thrown me for a loop, but still the OP sounds like a stupid question ... but ... um geez, maybe not.

Color me aghast.
__________________
Caution: Cape does not enable user to fly.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-05-2001, 06:27 PM
gwar gwar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Shirley Temple did a movie in which she appeared topless -- but she was only about five or six, and I don't think that counts.
It's on all those commercials for the three video set they have airing right now.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-05-2001, 06:46 PM
whiterabbit whiterabbit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
I do find that bit in that commercial where she is standing on a table, hoising her skirt while dancing in front of a grown man rather disturbing. Hmm.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-06-2001, 01:58 AM
Redboss Redboss is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Move along there folks - no pornogrphy here! nothing to see. Move along please...

Hmmm.

They were actually called "Baby Burlesks" I believe. This was considered a kute spelling back then.

I think it would be going too far to say these films were bad taste or that the costumes were sexy. I mean the early thirties were a far more innocent time than now, and these films were just seen as dress-up parodies. The (mostly non-existent) hilarity was meant to come from the disparity between the exotic original movie star and the chubby child portrayal.

For example, Shirley portrayed Marlene Dietrich (as "More-legs Sweet-trick". Her wooden performance is just like that of any little kid parroting lines.

But the Burlesks were very early in her career. When she was a Big Star, and films were tailored to her personality, there were a couple of things that to modern eyes seem uncomfortable.

First, she frequently performed in very short dresses. Secondly, she almost always sat on some man's lap and charmed him. In fact there's a lot of manhandling by men: during the performance of the Good Ship Lollipop song a plane full of men pass her around bodily, by necessity grasping her in an intimate way from time to time.

The thing is this really didn't seem inappropiate then. Sex wasn't seen as such a large part of everyone's life, and adults in contact with children were assumed to take a parental role.

Except that a British writer, Graeme Green, pointed out in a film review the wriggly, seductive, nature of Shirley's charm act.

Immediately the 20th Century Fox legal department swung into action, and Mr Green paid a heavy price. The offending article was suppressed, and not republished again until the eighties.

So the sexual aspects of her work were kept where they could be most effective - in the audiences' unconscious.

Her parents were wonderful. In an era when many child stars were exploited and swindled, and had extremely difficult lives, the Temples ensured that she reamined as unspoilt as possible. Certainly her life after the movie career finished was a success. True, she made a foolish, too early first marriage. But her later years have been rewarding. Her involvement in Republican Party politics have involved an ambassadorship to Ghana (was it?) in Africa, where she was extremely popular in her own adult right.

So, in a word - pornographic - never.

Thank you for the opportunity to pontificate about ST. None of my real-life friends will stand still long enough. I appreciate it.


Redboss
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-06-2001, 08:03 AM
ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Obnoxious Feminist Conspiracy Theory

I think the notion that what little Shirley did can be compared in any way to pornography is ridiculous.

However, I have a new and improved Shirley Temple conspiracy theory for you to discuss. Rumor has it, that her success was caused by a bit of backlash. I'm not sure who the predominant female leads were at the time. Marlene Detrich? Joan Crawford? Mae West perhaps? I'm told that women's roles were getting stronger, more outspoken, more liberal. They were sexual, needed men less and less, and had important things to say. Plus, they were big women...tall, broad shouldered, strong.

Hey, Shirley was a cute little kid who could dance and sing up a storm. I'm not denying her talent. But could it be that her rise to stardom was partly due to a push to have female leads in a more "appropriate" roll? To put them back on a man's lap, using their female charms where they belonged?

In that way, I suppose Temples roles could have been seen as sexual in a sense. Not in a pornographic manner, but in the sense that we went from sexy, independent amazon to submissive, helpless girlie.

Warning: This is only something I've heard. I'm not familiar enough with the films of the period to have much of an opinion on this topic. I just thought someone else might have some insite based on this conspiracy.

-L
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-06-2001, 08:47 AM
SkeptiJess SkeptiJess is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Redboss, I still think "More-legs Sweet-trick" is a kinda inappropriate name to slap on a 3 year old! And, those Baby Burlesk stills (I looked it up after I posted and you are correct about the kutesy spelling, BTW) still shake me a bit. They give me a very nasty Jon-Benet vibe.

However, you're right about Shirley's heyday being a more innocent time. I'm obviously (see the gratuitous Jon-Benet reference above) regarding these early 20th century photos with a late 20th century eye.

And, you were also very correct in saying that Shirley's parents were among the more straight-up of their stage-parent peers. When you compare Shirley's story with that of, say, Jackie Cooper or "Baby Peggy", you can see how truly lucky she was.
__________________
formerly known as just plain Jess
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-06-2001, 11:55 AM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
I believe a while back, I saw some pictures of her in her teens-very pretty girl.

Although, I suppose it's no worse than the young girls today immitating Britaney Spears and Christina Aguilera.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-06-2001, 03:40 PM
SpaceGhostofArrakis SpaceGhostofArrakis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Quote:
Did Shirly Temple do Kiddie Porn
Great, now I have the perfect dinner conversation with my parents tonight.
__________________
"My armour is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears, the shock of my tail a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and my breath death!"


Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-07-2001, 12:06 PM
DAVEW0071 DAVEW0071 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
SexyWriter said:
Quote:
But could it be that her rise to stardom was partly due to a push to have female leads in a more "appropriate" roll? To put them back on a man's lap, using their female charms where they belonged?
I'd never heard that theory, and it may have some merit. However, my own theory is that America needed something uplifting and hopeful during the Great Depression, and Shirley Temple fit the bill.

I agree that ST was talented. That is obvious from watching her performances. But her popularity cannot be attributed to that alone. There's something more at work here. That being said, let me say that I simply cannot bear the cutesy-pie antics of this child, nor can my daughter. But we're from a different time. My brother's mum-in-law still loves Shirley, and will watch anything the little moppet did and not grow weary of it nor wish to vomit. But she's a Depression-Era person.

I believe that Shirley Temple brought a ray of hope to audiences who were lucky if they could scrape up the nickel admission to the Bijou. While I'm not versed in all the Temple film plots, I do know that more than a few of them concern Shirley rising from the depths of an orphanage or teaching "mean old grown-ups" the things that truly matter. These themes were used over and over again during the '30s, but it may have had more of an impact coming from a 7-year-old rather than from Ginger Rogers or Marlene Dietrich. And audiences of the day embraced the message and the messenger both.
__________________
The Dave-Guy

"You, dear Dave, are a God."
Persephone (in a private e-mail)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.