|
colonelwest posted:In all fairness, I do understand the context of the life experiences of the French-Senegalese filmmaker, and the ultimate message. This isn’t the sort of argument that I relish, and I apologize to Sleevless and any one else on the opposite side. I don’t want to come off like I automatically think that you’re terrible people just for disagreeing with me. As people have pointed out, Jodie Foster is 12 when she’s portraying an outright prostitute. And Taxi Driver is considered a seminal film. It kicked off a decades long career for her, one of her most famous roles being feminist icon Clarice Starling. Part of what bugs me about these discussions is the removal of agency from these girls. It’s 2020. Part of the film apparently deals with just the outright access of all this stuff. Growing up, I had cable. If I was gonna see a raunchy music video, it was going to be on one of three channels and be restricted in someway due to airing standards. “The Thong Song” by Sisqo was hugely scandalous. I was 11/12 when it came out and me and my classmates were all singing that “thong th th thong thong thong.” I loving LOVED when that video would air on MTV. My parents probably never had any idea that I was being exposed to it. And are we asking these questions when kids are in movies with tons of violence and gore? So yeah, I would expect that these young girls being led by a woman director telling HER story have probably been treated respectfully and have a better understanding of everything than you give them credit for. Otherwise, please consider Jodie Foster w a coked-out Marty Scorsese in a role in which she’s described as having a tight rear end in a top hat, and ask if you’re not having some kind of double-standard.
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2020 12:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
luchajones posted:Settle down Mr. Hinckley I choose to take that as a compliment!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2020 13:05
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:lol at cherry picking the one child actor in Hollywood who turned out normal. Also trying to use yourself as an example of turning out ok from watching trash then saying John Hinckley is your role model. Are you really unable to parse a tongue-in-cheek statement? The John Hinckley thing is a joke about getting to shoot Reagan. Also, you’re doing yourself a disservice by bringing up the “one child actor in Hollywood who turned out normal.” Because that speaks to all these children who are overtly damaged in the industry by way of sexual assault even when not portraying sexualized roles. The Olsen Twins had gross countdowns for their 18th Bday and they never did anything but portray wholesome gals. There’s already overt sexuality pushed unwillingly on girls and women, and my understanding is the film is pushing against that. This isn’t KIDS made by Larry Clark. It’s a movie coming from a specific viewpoint of the lived experiences of the writer/director. It, presumably, has a message as opposed to being pure shock/exploitation. The sexualization as I’ve understood from posters who watched it is made to be overwhelming and gross in the film. The writer/director is trying to communicate the confusion and tumultuousness of being stuck between cultures, and specific aspects of these cultures (erasure/chastity vs oversexualization). hard counter posted:imagine if taxi driver had scenes that leaned hard into the prostitute angle and featured her in sexualized clothes with extended sequences of her dancing, stripping and aggressively grinding against clients while the camera focuses so hungrily on her gyrations that the film's distributors feel the need to later label it w/ a content warning based purely on the intensity of those softcore scenes alone Most of her scenes have her in sexualized clothes because she’s streetwalking. Standards change. Alien’s gore was controversial. Taxi Driver was especially controversial over its violence (as you call out), to the point where they altered the color of the final sequence. But now, it would probably be a drop in the bucket. And again, no one has brought up the issue of children and on-set violence for years now despite gore getting more extreme. The point I’m trying to make is that Cuties has the right to exist as is. That the intentions of the people creating it matter. That it’s important to consider our culture’s views on violence and sexuality. And how they may differ from someone else’s. There’s context to art, and I feel like a lot of it is being wiped away when discussing the broad strokes of the movie. I can drop it if anyone else wants to say anything, I’m not trying to derail or anything. I just wanted to speak to some points. Also, I wish these Disney remakes flopped more and harder. I understand it’s important to have these portrayals, but everyone of these films just reeks of cashing in on IP and being out of ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
hard counter posted:Good points Thank you. I understand where you’re coming from now. I appreciate you taking the time and patience on this!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:CGI remakes but made to look as realistic as possible is some real nightmare scenario poo poo. Absolutely awful and uninspired. There’s so much style to some of those mid-90s Disney releases. Aladdin and Lion King especially. As someone said last page, going with realism when part of the benefit of the animation was the flexibility of the medium. It’d be like trying to make a live-action Simpsons with realistic blood and guts during Itchy and Scratchy (who would look like an actual mouse and cat.).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2020 03:02
|
|