Would you take your only just 9 year old to Legally Blonde?

[islandofsodor]

I can't decide. Before seeing the show myself I would have said definately no becasue of the sperm donor parentage scene. However I felt that it was quite glossed over and she might miss the connotations.

However Gay or European??? (Hilarious by the way)

Dd really wants to go.

[TotallycluelessMum]

Both my DDs say yes. They were 12 and 11 when we saw it. They both said that OF COURSE they, the mature girls that they are ( ) understood all the jokes and cheeky nuances, but that it was all v subtle and that it would probably go over the head of many 9 year olds. I of course couldn't even remember the sperm donor bit but big DD says it was hard to understand with lots of long words (mast*******ory emissions instead of anything more crude )
Has anyone taken younger ones to see it ?

[Moonshine]

We took our 7 year old DS to see it with our 10 and 12 year old DDs, and he absolutely loved it. However, he did already know the music very well, so this may have helped.

[*Cazzy-Lou*]

I saw it yesterday & there were a fair few youngish children in the audience so i'd say 9 is fine, like people have said most of the 'rude' bits will go over their heads.

[islandofsodor]

There were some pretty young children in when I saw it too, but dd is very innocent.

Mind you I know an 8 year old who went to see Priscilla Queen of the Desert with her parents. Priscilla, whilst very, very funny is littered with the f word and references to gay sex.

MAybe I am too prudish.

Am thinking that by the time Kidsweek comes up in August dd will be almost 10 so maybe she would be ready then.

I have to warn her to change the words to Ohmygod you guys at school so she doesn't get in trouble!

[janine]

Just wanted to say, I have just returned from The Savoy Theatre with a very happy 7 yr old!! Any inappropriate context goes right over their heads, & the language isnt bad!So yes in answer to the question ,I would.... indeed I did!

[Dawn]

We were there tonight too :-) and one of my dds is only 9 and she loved it. No problems at all but she knee the story as had seen the film. No bad language or comments. Go for it x

[paulears]

How did a 9 year old see a 12 cert film? Obviously a parenting thing, but are we not all working with rules that rigidly control the working hours and conditions for young people because they are children and vulnerable, yet we take them to see shows designed for an older age group, and let them watch films already deemed 12 - not Parental Guidance.

What next - take a pre-teens to see Jim Davidson?

Personally, would feel very uncomfortable siting in the seat next to a 9 year old. I'd feel very guilty laughing at some of the jokes next door to a child. The official web site does not allow children to enter the competitions, the educational packs are for older children and there are no specific kids discounts. Something tells me that children, while not banned, were not really thought of when writing the show.

[whycan'thejustplayfootie?]

Whilst you are entitled to your opinion, surely the decision must really be judged on the individual child, age limits are a guideline, but common sense must prevail. I don't look at just the age on a film, I look at the bit that says 'contains scenes of a sexual nature' etc etc, which I would never ever let my DS watch.

With my eldest child, now 17, we strictly adhered to age limits for films and no 'after-the-watershed' tv. However, two more children down the line, my youngest DS has been exposed (however sad this makes me feel) to different experiences with older siblings, schoolfriends and dare I say, the rather cheeky adult cast backstage in shows (shock horror !).

I took him to see Legally Blonde when he was 11 and he loved it so much. The innuendo went over his head, he loved the songs and the dogs!!

He has never seen the movie, as its the musical aspect that most interests him. He sings along to the CD in the car, and particularly loves 'Gay or European' - and does a fab impression of them all. He hears far worse at school to be honest.

[janine]

No quite understanding your point! Are you critising our parental judgement in letting our children watch a show with no age limit, no bad language & which a good 1/3 of its audience base is under 10? Do you also object to children watching Les Mis, Oliver, bugsy Malone( ladies of the night, nancy a prostitute, gangsters& molls ) & varous other west end shows!May I also point out that a great deal of the merchandise sold at the Savoy is directly aimed at its younger audience..

[oliveral]

Yeah defo...great show...xx

[Dawn]

How did a 9 year old see a 12 cert film? Obviously a parenting thing, but are we not all working with rules that rigidly control the working hours and conditions for young people because they are children and vulnerable, yet we take them to see shows designed for an older age group, and let them watch films already deemed 12 - not Parental Guidance.

What next - take a pre-teens to see Jim Davidson?

Oooh I fell like i've just been told off by my parents!

I don't believe my "parenting" has ever been called into question before! but having seen both, I hardly think you can compare Legally Blonde to Jim Davidson Paulears

As for letting 9 year old kids see films designed for an older age group, I would rather let my 9 year old watch Legally Blonde than some episodes of Eastenders! but as you say Paulears, it is the parents prerogative and for my dd who has probably seen many more west end shows than the average 9 year old, it was definitley the right decision.

Dawn .x.

[paulears]

Sorry - I wasn't trying to infer anything about parenting - I just think that age limits, content and other things just don't seem to matter any longer. How many parents buy the Call of Duty game for their kids because they're unable to buy it in person. Of course kids let the adult stuff slip over their heads, but forgive me for thinking double standards do seem to apply. I'm sitting here with the license I have for my pantomime, detailing the chaperone rules. One of the clauses is that I must not allow any of the kids to witness any scenes containing domestic violence or sexual content, implied innuendo or factual. So kids performing in a show have to have protection, yet in the audience it's fine?

I of course couldn't even remember the sperm donor bit but big DD says it was hard to understand with lots of long words (mast*******ory emissions

"What's that mean mum?" Just seems very strange to me, that's all. The show has educational resources as the content appeals to young people. My query is when children rather than teens get exposed to adult topics. Maybe it's just me that is out of touch, but would this show be pre-or post watershed on TV. I really don't know.

Let's agree that I'm wrong - but I'm just looking at the pile of child dancers and performers in my show of that kind of age, and thinking that they'd be better off at going to see something more suitable. Sorry.

[oliveral]

When you are looking after other peoples children then of course rules are there to protect both you and them...when it involves your own children then the decision is entirely yours...and yes I do let my four children watch films above their age limits....play galmes above their age limit too...If I deem that they are suitable it is my choice....isn't it lovely to still be able to censor what your own child sees.....

Personal choice...a wonderful thing!!!