all 24 comments

[–]ShieldMaiden 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

GOOD

[–]worried19 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

This is ridiculous, in my opinion. I watched the film. It is not child pornography.

Also, even if it was, every pedophile in the country has probably flocked to see it by now given the amount of publicity it's received. Way to bring an obscure foreign film to the attention of creeps everywhere.

[–][deleted] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

While it may not fit the legal definition of child pornography, it is definitely exploitative of the underage actors.

Not to mention some of the scenes are super sketchy. There was way too much sexualization of the little girls in that film to be accidental, in my opinion. The camera lingers on their prepubescent bodies (especially their butts and crotches) way too often, that one scene with the horny security guard was played off for laughs, and most of all the supposed "don't sexualize children!" message of the film gets lost when the movie spends so much of its runtime sexualizing its child actresses.

[–]worried19 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I thought the message of the movie was clear, although to be honest, my main problem was that the lead kid is not that sympathetic. Like I understood she was supposed to be tired of her family's patriarchal religion, but it's not like she was being abused or mistreated at home. The whole thing with her dad didn't seem like it was enough to warrant that type of rebellion. And that group of girls she was trying to befriend were just evil brats. Of course I wanted to take the (mostly unseen) parents to task for letting those kids run wild like that.

As for the scenes themselves exploiting the children, I suppose I think of it the same way I would think of a kid filming a rape or molestation scene. There are scenes like that in movies. I sure as hell wouldn't let my kid act one out, but some parents do, and it's way worse stuff than what these little girls were filmed doing.

[–]MezozoicGay 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

As for the scenes themselves exploiting the children

Abuse can be shown and explained without doing an abuse.

If I want to make a movie against conversion therapy on gay men, I will not take gay man and use electroshock on them to convert into straight - and then say "see, it is bad, he is suffering!".

You do not need to be abusive yourself to show that abuse is bad and that people are suffering from it.

You can't fight with problem while multiplying this problem yourself and being a part of the problem.

I suppose I think of it the same way I would think of a kid filming a rape or molestation scene

So when they will film new movie about child sexual abuse or molestions, it is fine for them to make sexual abuse or molestion scenery on girl actresses to film it for the movie? Sounds very absurd.

[–]worried19 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But they do film those kinds of scenes with kids. Obviously no kid is getting raped for real, just like no woman is getting raped for real. But they get the kid to act it out. If Cuties were to be made illegal, those scenes should be made illegal, too. I don't see how you can film a rape or molestation scene with a kid and not have it affect the kid.

Did you watch the movie?

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I sure as hell wouldn't let my kid act one out, but some parents do, and it's way worse stuff than what these little girls were filmed doing.

Worried, come on: just because some parents make their kids do way worse stuff - whether for cameras or other reasons - doesn't excuse or justify what the adults behind Cuties - the director, producer and crew - made these young girls do for the cameras.

The fact that kids in many parts of the world are forced into child slave labor and child soldiering, and many kids are sold and trafficked for sex, does not mean it's OK for parents in other parts of the world to beat their children or allow them to be groomed and abused by pedophiles.

[–]MezozoicGay 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

made these young girls do for the cameras.

And how many more girls they had on casting...

[–]worried19 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Do you think an 11 year old girl filming a rape scene should be outlawed?

Curious if you saw the film.

[–]PassionateIntensity 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Maybe! Depending on exactly what the scene is--there are already laws about what young actors can and can't perform, because it's exploitative. It's not a blanket ban, it's a fine line the director has to walk. I think Doucoure failed walking that line.

[–]PassionateIntensity 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't understand why those scenes had to be in the film. It could have--did make--its case without them. Those parts undermine the anti-exploitation message imo. The director should have taken one look at that footage and fucking burned it.

[–]artetolife 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I agree, and I'll say the same thing I've said everywhere else about this movie. If it upsets you then you should be asking WHY and HOW this movie came to be made, instead of getting mad at the movie itself and pretending that sexualisation of little girls isn't a real thing that happens in real life.

[–]anxietyaccount8 18 insightful - 3 fun18 insightful - 2 fun19 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

But how do you excuse the directors having to watch multiple little girls twerk in order to film it? Or the scenes where they unnecessarily zoom in on the girls' private parts? Do we have to sexualize little girls in order to show people that "it exists"?

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But how do you excuse the directors having to watch multiple little girls twerk in order to film it?

It's even worse than you say. Far worse.

The director and producer of this film didn't come across multiple little girls who were twerking on their own and then decided to record it. The director and producer had a screenplay in hand, then went out to find little girls age 11 (or who looked 11) to cast in the movie. They had casting calls for hundreds of little girls in search of the ones they would finally select and make subject to sexualization for the "artistic merit" and purposes of the movie's message.

Once the director and producer decided on which girls to cast, they and their crew taught those little girls to twerk for the cameras.

[–]Overdrive 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

We can't just go "Shhh don't mention this to the creeps!" every time something like this gets released. Wake up a little here, face reality. We have the internet. Creeps are out there. And you can't seriously think we can just hide shit from them. This movie shouldn't have been released and defended by Netflix. They're getting indicted. Such is the way.

[–]worried19 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Creeps are out there regardless. Pedophiles are going to get off on underage girls even if the movie or TV show is totally innocent. I'm just saying this media storm has brought it to the attention of every pedophile in the country.

[–]Overdrive 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's on Netflix. Do I have to explain how wide spread it already was and inevitably would be regardless of any extra attention?

[–]worried19 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's an obscure foreign film. The only reason Cuties got any attention at all was because Netflix created a shitstorm by releasing that poster. It hadn't even been put out for streaming yet. The movie had been on the film festival circuit for months without drawing undue attention from anyone.

[–]Overdrive 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm sorry leave it up because it's obscure is not why Netflix has been indicted.

[–]Shesstealthy 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Same. Not porn of any kind at all. If this should be banned because pedos exist, then so should Dance Moms.

[–]worried19 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Agreed. And if we're talking about harmful Netflix programs, that babysitting show with the transitioned child will have done way more damage than Cuties ever could.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But worried19, the concern many people have about these programs/movies isn't just with the impact they might have on viewers. Our concern and alarm is about the way children in these cases have been exploited and abused in order to make this material in the first place.

Many of us who are up in arms over Cuties also object to Dance Moms, kiddie beauty pageant shows, I Am Jazz, and all the rest of the mass media that long have been using kids images and talents in order to make $$ and reputations.

Many of us have been speaking up against using child actors except in rare, absolutely necessary circumstances since we first learned of the sex abuse and economic exploitation of famous child stars like Shirley Temple and Judy Garland in Hollywood's heyday - and saw what happened to Tatum O'Neill during & after "Paper Moon" in 1973 and how Brooke Shields was pimped out in "Pretty Baby" in 1978 as well as in the Calvin Klein ads of that era and her other circa 1980 sexploitation flick.

Shirley Temple had the resilience and support system that enabled her to get past what a studio honcho did to her when she was 12, and she went on to have a successful career in politics and diplomacy. Similarly, Brooke Shields has has been somewhat successful as an adult actor, and seems to be a well-balanced happy individual.

But so many child actors and entertainers who were economically and sexually exploited in their early years ended up having lives that haven't turned out so well. Our primary concern is with the children who appear in this sort of material, not the audience.

[–]worried19 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I didn't like the movie, as I said above. I just think it's ridiculous for anyone to call it child pornography. If we're criticizing how the media exploits kids in general, I'm all for it. I wouldn't have my kid involved in that industry.

[–]PassionateIntensity 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think it actually fulfills the knowingly lewd and prurient part but since it won film awards, they're going to be able to argue it has artistic merit.