|
This is a thread to discuss one of the most controversial films in recent years: quote:A 2020 French coming-of-age comedy-drama film written and directed by French-Senegalese Maïmouna Doucouré in her feature directorial debut.[2] The film stars Fathia Youssouf, Médina El Aidi-Azouni, Esther Gohourou, Ilanah Cami-Goursolas and Maïmouna Gueye. The plot revolves around a French-Senegalese girl with a traditional Muslim upbringing who is caught between traditional values and Internet culture. According to the filmmakers, the film is intended to criticize the hypersexualisation of pre-adolescent girls. quote:For her feature debut, writer/director Maimouna Doucoure (the Sundance-winning short Maman(s)) sets the sexual awakening and desperate need for acceptance of an 11 year-old girl against a clash of cultures in the internet age. The sight of twerking pre-teen bodies is explicitly designed to shock mature audiences into a contemplation of today’s destruction of innocence, but some missteps hold Cuties at a distance for that demographic: a film to respect for its audacity, admire for its lead female performance perhaps, but also view as a dramatically contrived. In preparation for it's release on the behemoth streaming platform, Netflix created an ad campaign that was met with accusations of pedophilia, in which, similar to GLOW (which promoted an all-woman drama show about wrestling with sexy pictures of the cast in their costumes), the dancing troupe is posed in promiscuity. With that idiotic blunder, which has probably cost a few marketing employees their jobs, a new politicized discussion has erupted about the movie. It it exploitation? Is it pedophilia? Is it dangerous? Conservative political leaders in the USA, including Ted "Bitch Face" Cruz, are trying to rally against the film. Qanon, a fringe group in US politics that believe that there are system(s) of underground pedophilia rings and who believe Tonald Drump is on a mission to destroy the pedophiles, despite evidence linking him to Jeffrey Epstein's island of pedophilia and debauchery, has taken on a mission of disinformation to destroy Cuties, it's filmmakers, and anyone defending the film. However, many brave viewers who have seen the film, are willing to defend it, saying it handles it's heavy controversial topics with care, and that most of the talking points about the film are being manipulated by media or internet users who would rather stir the controversy with accusations rather than watch or ignore the film.  READ BEFORE POSTING:  Do not accuse posters or filmmakers in this thread of being a pedophile. To do so will result in automatic banning, unless actual proof can be provided, in which case law enforcement will be involved. Do not accuse posters, or the filmmakers, of being pedophilia apologists. Do not post Qanon talking points or misinformation as fact. If a Qanon post is posted, quote the source as Qanon. Lack of research is not an excuse for posting misinformation, and can lead to a probation. Ultimately no one will ever force you to watch the movie. You can mark it Thumbs Down on Netflix, request it to Do Not Show Me, and it will be out of your life. However, it is pretty ridiculous to constantly argue against a film you haven't seen, as context, tone, writing and performance are important to labeling a work.
Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Sep 14, 2020 |
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 13:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
Let's hear what the critics say!quote:There’s a saying in criticism that “depiction does not equal endorsement.” Art should be able to address taboos without necessarily advocating for them, but some surface-level readings miss what the work digs into because it’s not obvious at first glance. In the wake of conservative outrage over an early poster of debut writer/director Maïmouna Doucouré’s “Cuties,” this is a sentiment that bears repeating. The film actively critiques the very thing pearl-clutchers were mad about—the sexualization of children—but Doucouré received death threats. Amy Nicholson's thoughtful review, in which she chooses to discuss the film without any mention of its controversy quote:It’s a real shame that so many conservatives are condemning “Cuties” when they might find a great deal to like about the movie — and no, I don’t mean they harbor a secret taste for twerking preteens. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Sep 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 13:38
|
|
|
Yea that last review really sums up how absurd this all is. The movie is actually quite conservative in values and the entire point is the over-sexualization and rush to 'grow up' is bad and maybe we should just let kids be kids for a while. If it was a white mormon rear end movie it'd be on that godawful 'Pureflix' site or whatever and half these right wingers would be demanding to know why the sicko libs aren't nominating it for an oscar or whatever like they do whenever Sorbo makes a movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 13:55
|
|
|
A lot of this controversy reminds me of the "Drag Queens....at your local library?!?" culture warrior shitfit a few years back. I guess a couple Drag Queens mildly twerked (like, they weren't doing much more then shaking their butt) in a mixed setting, and this was considered beyond the pale for some people To cut through the obfuscation, though, I think the real question at hand is: Is modern hip hop dancing, which has heavy influences from stripper routines and dancehall twerking, appropriate to have as a mainstream dance, assuming that our children will see and practice this mainstream dance. This is the exact question the movie was asking. This question then leads to: Was it appropriate for Maimouna Doucoure to have her preteen actors do this performance, at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Yea that last review really sums up how absurd this all is. The movie is actually quite conservative in values and the entire point is the over-sexualization and rush to 'grow up' is bad and maybe we should just let kids be kids for a while. If it was a white mormon rear end movie it'd be on that godawful 'Pureflix' site or whatever and half these right wingers would be demanding to know why the sicko libs aren't nominating it for an oscar or whatever like they do whenever Sorbo makes a movie. Franchescanado posted:However, many brave viewers who have seen the film, are willing to defend it, saying it handles it's heavy controversial topics with care, and that most of the talking points about the film are being manipulated by media or internet users who would rather stir the controversy with accusations rather than watch or ignore the film. This is all irrelevant. The issue many people have with the movie is not from an analytical perspective. To me and many others it's a labour issue - they really hired 11-year-old children and really made them act out these sexual scenes. I think that that's wrong no matter how powerful or effective the message. I don't need to watch the movie to know that they did this. The whole thing has personally convinced me that we shouldn't be using child actors at all. I also disagree that it's "politicized". The first people I saw posting about it on Twitter were leftists and it's not like I've seen any Democrat politicians come out in support of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 14:46
|
|
|
Starks posted:This is all irrelevant. The issue many people have with the movie is not from an analytical perspective. To me and many others it's a labour issue - they really hired 11-year-old children and really made them act out these sexual scenes. I think that that's wrong no matter how powerful or effective the message. I don't need to watch the movie to know that they did this. Politicians arguing about the movie and demanding repercussions is absolutely politicized. Just because oppositional political parties aren't also arguing doesn't mean it's not politicized. There is definitely room to argue about how we use child actors in general. But your labour issue is, to an extent, unfounded with regards to Cuties, specifically. Here is the director talking about how they crafted the work environment: quote:The idea for “Cuties” was formed after Doucouré attended a neighborhood gathering in Paris and witnessed a group of young girls on a stage dancing in “a very sexually revealing way,” just as the characters in her film do. I can't speak entirely about France's laws with filming children and pre-teens, but I know that the US and Global film industry is stringent about that in general. Parents and guardians are on-set and approve of what their child is participating in. There are whole negotiations and contracts written up for actors and actresses--whether adult or child--about what they are willing to wear, how they will be presented, let alone what parts of their bodies will be shown on camera; so to assume that all of these practices were removed for one film is really only convenient for someone arguing against it. What bothers me about many of the arguments is that all of these ideas that "Oh these kids don't know what they're doing" removes agency from the people you claim are being victims. The actors are teenagers, there's no denying that, and there is definitely levels of maturity that they are just not equipped with. But to assume a 12 year old is--what? too stupid? too dumb? too immature?--to know the levels of the project that they're involved with really removes their agency*. You're calling them a victim, as if they somehow got roped into being in a movie, and didn't read the script, audition, talk with the director, talk with their parents or guardians, and talk with the child psychologists they hired, before the camera even rolled. In just my half hour of research and reading, more care was taken with the child actors in this film than Martin Scorsese used with 12 year old Jodie Foster playing a sex worker in Taxi Driver. Working conditions for children are pretty heavily regulated, moreso now than ever before. And exploitation can and does happen, yes. Look at Shia LeBouf, for instance. It's interesting that Cuties gets lambasted for it, when everything I read points to a lot of care being taken with how it was filmed despite it's controversial subject matter, when Nickelodeon exec producers are taking feet pictures of underage actresses and posting them on social media, and Disney execs have been creating burned-out performers like Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan for decades. Like I said, there's a lot of room to discuss child labor in general, but I don't see Cuties being a good example of how it was done badly. *The average age of a child getting their first smart phone is 10 years old. More than 50% of children aged 12 have a smart phone. The average age a child begins watching pornography is now 11 years old. The recommended age for parents to start talking in depth about sexuality is 9-12 years old. The average age a person starts becoming sexually aware and begins searching for comparisons to see if they're "normal" is apparently 8-12 years old. I'm not saying this is "good" or "morally right or wrong" or anything, these are just facts based on research and polls and psychology studies that are easily searched. Anecdotally, having worked in after school programs to help tutor students, I was informed by many school officials that many of their students had already had The Talk with their parents by the time they were 10 years old. (In tutoring Science, I had kids ask questions about sex, and had to go find supervisors and attendants to know how to even deal with that.  )
Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Sep 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 15:17
|
|
|
I prefer the 50's style of teen movie, where all the high schoolers look like they're 30.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 15:22
|
|
|
I think that ultimately, the surrounding culture war and politicization of Cuties is going to be more interesting than the actual movie. The movie itself simply has a message of "The sexual exploitation of children is bad, and don't blame the children for it" and the only conversation with that is a never ending back and forth on if the things it does to achieve that point are justified or not. I'm not sure how you can have this kind of story without showing it happening, and it's a conversation that reminds me of people arguing that a movie with well shot violence is saying that violence is cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 15:27
|
|
|
Just because lovely people are criticizing something for the wrong reasons doesn't mean something is actually good and needs to be defended. Also, yes the actual issue with the film is how it was made, not the content or message of the film. I think it was made with good intentions, and has a good message. You can debate the merits of the film all day, but it doesn't change the fact that the film was made using 11 year olds that were deliberately sexualized. The film might have shown how horrifying and terrible this is and in context its obviously not meant to arouse. It doesn't change the fact that real children who are not able to fully give consent were used to make such scenes. When they grow up, they might be fine with the message and agree that it was worth doing, but that might not be the case and they might regret the film being out there. The damage can be long lasting which is why the film was made in the first place. Also, children don't have complete agency. if children had complete agency, then the movie would have no reason to exist. No matter how mature an 11 year old may seem, their brain is literally not fully developed yet. Roth posted:The movie itself simply has a message of "The sexual exploitation of children is bad, and don't blame the children for it" and the only conversation with that is a never ending back and forth on if the things it does to achieve that point are justified or not. I'm not sure how you can have this kind of story without showing it happening, and it's a conversation that reminds me of people arguing that a movie with well shot violence is saying that violence is cool. It could have been animated or used adult actors. It might not be as effective, but if prevents potentially hurting young actors then that is something that should be done. Simulated violence *usually* doesn't actually hurt anybody.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
Are we certain the actress' were harmed by filming the scenes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 15:44
|
|
|
Roth posted:Are we certain the actress' were harmed by filming the scenes? No we are not, and it will probably be awhile before we find out, but the problem is that the potential is there, because otherwise the film wouldn't need to be made in the first place. IShallRiseAgain fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Sep 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 15:47
|
|
|
i don't really think that 11 year olds doing sexualized dancing on a film set is all that damaging to them. it's a disturbing thing to portray for sure, like a tween lighting off a whole string of racial insults and curse words because that's what they've been socialized into through like unsupervised multiplayer gaming voice chat. but this sort of seems like shooting the messenger to me, kids this age are exposed to all sorts of confusing messages about sex and sexuality all of the time, in real life. i don't know if the young performers doing this dance is any more damaging than the actual real world depiction of sexuality that these girls, and other girls like them, would be exposed to in their daily lives i think that a lot of the wider criticism around this film and how it is exploitative is a bit of projection, in that people are trying to displace the uncomfortable feelings created by this film by blaming the film's creators and distributors rather than blaming the societal problem the film is reacting to in the first place. this blame is also a super handy way to raise your media profile by voicing uncritical and misguided #savethechildren level nonsense, or sounding off about the corrupt sinful world. meanwhile completely removed from people slugging it out on twitter over who is most debased, kids are still browsing tiktok and watching highly sexual music videos and getting confused as poo poo about what the hell sex even is i wonder about the conservative critics who are disturbed by this film. talking about sex with kids is tough, and if you don't get there early enough then kids will turn to other sources of information like other kids, and the internet, and these are both horrible ways to learn about sex. but it's got to be a continual conversation, you can't just wait until the one day when you have The Talk and all secrets are revealed. i think we treat death the same way, in that hiding these heavy subjects from kids ultimately creates more confusion in the long run. for a lot of the folks who think that the topic is of kids trying to figure out sex is inherently disgusting, how do they prepare their children to deal with this themselves?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:No we are not, and it will probably be awhile before we find out, but the problem is that the potential is there, because otherwise the film wouldn't need to be made in the first place. Right, but then we are arguing based on hypotheticals, and the potential ethical issues of child actors. Not on the morality of the film's message itself. We could instead use animation, at which point the argument becomes "You just drew sexy children" We could instead use adult actors, at which point the argument becomes "The characters depicted are still minors" If we are framing the conversation around potential harm, then none of these really fix the problem as a film could do these things and have the opposite message of Cuties. What the film condones and approves of is more important to me than how it achieves that message.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 15:57
|
|
|
Roth posted:I think that ultimately, the surrounding culture war and politicization of Cuties is going to be more interesting than the actual movie. I personally think it falls into the same trap as "you can't tell an anti-war war movie". Everyone who picks up on what it's trying to say already gets it and everyone who could use to learn the lesson won't understand the text, will just absorb the images, and will either be disgusted in a way that deeply misses the point like the Q-Anon folks or will just watch for the thing it's trying to condemn. Understanding the images but not the text is also the calling card of the right so it's not surprising it's seeing this backlash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 15:58
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i don't really think that 11 year olds doing sexualized dancing on a film set is all that damaging to them. it's a disturbing thing to portray for sure, like a tween lighting off a whole string of racial insults and curse words because that's what they've been socialized into through like unsupervised multiplayer gaming voice chat. but this sort of seems like shooting the messenger to me, kids this age are exposed to all sorts of confusing messages about sex and sexuality all of the time, in real life. i don't know if the young performers doing this dance is any more damaging than the actual real world depiction of sexuality that these girls, and other girls like them, would be exposed to in their daily lives Ding ding ding, we have a winner. USA is terrified of discussing sex and sexuality, and would rather crucify a cinematic insight into uncomfortable cultural manifestations that are also widely available through TikTok, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, etc for free.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:Stuff. Incredible post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 16:19
|
|
|
The Human Centipede of social commentary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
Roth posted:Right, but then we are arguing based on hypotheticals, and the potential ethical issues of child actors. Not on the morality of the film's message itself. If the fact that they implemented these workarounds were even faintly lampshaded, then I think it could very well be consistent with the film's underlying message: that it's wrong for kids to do these things and we should really be skeeved out by it. Could just start the dance off, show the audience clapping and cheering, and have the "normal person" character who's there to guide the viewer through the story wondering what the gently caress is wrong with these people. Roth posted:Are we certain the actress' were harmed by filming the scenes? If the life Sue Lyon lived was any example, I'd strongly suspect that harm. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Sep 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
An open secret in Western, especially American, society is that the most popular media with kids, especially preteens is media that is geared toward adults. The most profitable piece of media in entertainment history isn't a Star Wars film, a Michael Jackson CD, or Minecraft, it's Grand Theft Auto V. Amongst the most popular musical artists today, and certainly the most talked about, are Cardi B and Tekashi 69. Game of loving Thrones was easily the most popular television series of the previous decade and arguably had a bigger following than The Lord of the Rings in the 2000s. Let that sink in. And yes not everything that is mainstream isn't so explicit, but is the Last of Us Part II, Drake, or Netflix original series that much of a step up? Now to be fair, there is the argument to make of how much this all really matters. teen pregnancy is at a record low and is less than half of what they were a decade ago. It's also widely known that the US crime rate is also declining to half century lows. But at the end of the day, there still the conversation to be had is even if society is headed in the right direction in those categories is it still not a cause for concern that preteens are engaging in this media and copying their acts without being aware of what it fully entails? The film disgusts people who have had brief glances at the overly sexual scenes, with the discussion being "how could they have a movie that portrays such young girls as this?" when in reality this is how many young girls act. There is a reason why whenever there is any sort of community talent show that is focused on dancing, there is an obligatory 11 or 12 year old kid who performs a dirty dancing routine and has to be taken off stage, especially in disadvantaged communities. I still remember as a kid I was in Puerto Rico and my family took me to music festival and they asked various teenagers in the audience to "show how they dance" to which most of them did so in a sexual way. Possibly wanting the next dance to be something more wholesome, he calls up a kid who is maybe a year or two older than me at most. He asks him if he knows how to dance to which the kid responses enthuastically with "Of course I do! I dance all the time!" The guy on the mic asks the kid to show us what he's got, to which the kid proceeds to turn around, puts his hands on his knees, and starts slowly moving his butt around in an extremely sexual way. All the adults in the audience were :gawk:, while all the kids were cheering him on. So there's your "Cuties" moment right there. While I will agree that the girls in the film aren't the norm, whether we like to admit it or not they aren't exactly rare or as far from the mark of the median as we like to think. I'm not saying that we should ban or shame Cardi B at all what so ever, but as adults the film gives the message that growing up, especially as a female, can be very turbulent and that parents need to be made aware of the type of media their kids are indulging and that they should be properly educated about the things the songs portray and why it isn't geared toward them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 17:18
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:But to assume a 12 year old is--what? too stupid? too dumb? too immature?--to know the levels of the project that they're involved with really removes their agency lmao yes? they have no agency they're 11 dude. That's why we assume they're too dumb and immature to vote, drive a car, smoke cigarettes, etc. when I have a kid I'm going to get them to "establish trust" with the foreman and have a discussion with them so they can work on the floor of a toyota plant. Labour laws exist for a reason and the movie industry has been getting a pass, given their history with children I think it's about time we took that pass away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
Starks posted:lmao yes? they have no agency they're 11 dude. That's why we assume they're too dumb and immature to vote, drive a car, smoke cigarettes, etc. i think you're confusing "agency" here for "consent". kids cannot legally consent to many things but they certainly have the agency to understand things like dancing, or even inappropriate sexy dancing if it were explained to them going on a tangent about the exploitation of child labor is a bit distinct from whether or not an 11 year old is able to process the idea of twerking and why kids shouldn't do it. or why doing so in the context of a performance would be damaging to a child actor i'd say that treating kids like simpletons is part of why this problem even exists. like if we don't discuss adult topics at a semi-adult level with kids then they're at risk of trying to find out about the topic themselves, and with the internet who knows what rabbit hole they'd fall into i think it's valid to say that this performance was exploitative, and that the exploitative nature of the scene was too much to support the argument in the film. but i don't think it's valid to say that these kids simply couldn't understand the performance and thus when they realize what they've done, they'll be scarred
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 17:46
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i think you're confusing "agency" here for "consent". kids cannot legally consent to many things but they certainly have the agency to understand things like dancing, or even inappropriate sexy dancing if it were explained to them Yes, exactly; thank you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i think you're confusing "agency" here for "consent".kids cannot legally consent to many things but they certainly have the agency to understand things like dancing, or even inappropriate sexy dancing if it were explained to them No I don't think I am? Here's what google gives me: "Agency is defined as the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices". Children don't have that freedom for their own safety because their brains are literally not developed enough to understand the consequences of their own decisions. Read this thread by Mara Wilson. Do you think the children understand that they will end up on CP websites? It was wrong for the director to cast them in this movie, and I think that even without the sexualization it's wrong for people to profit off the work of children. https://twitter.com/MaraWilson/status/1304883825789423616?s=20 It's funny that someone brought up Taxi Driver because they absolutely should've used an older actress for Foster's character. We know now that Scorcese's behaviour towards her on set was abhorrent, and at the time the his defense was "We went through all the precautions to ensure that the actress and her parents were comfortable with the environment". The same thing people in this thread are saying. Starks fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Sep 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 18:15
|
|
|
i mean, if you think we shouldnt use kids in movies at all, i can buy that argument, but thats an argument that extends far outside this one movie
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
Starks posted:No I don't think I am? Here's what google gives me: "Agency is defined as the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices". Children don't have that freedom for their own safety because their brains are literally not developed enough to understand the consequences of their own decisions. kids have the agency to dance. like there are kids this age dancing like this every day for their own amusement and the amusement of other kids. a critical theme of the movie is what happens when children use their agency to try to understand something which is both a highly visible part of the adult world and also very confusing because they are just on the cusp of being able to understand things like making yourself sexually attractive to others Starks posted:Do you think the children understand that they will end up on CP websites? kids end up on CP websites just existing in public. like this specific tweet seems to undercut your argument https://twitter.com/MaraWilson/status/1304885731916017664 i'm not saying that the dance scene was not exploitative. what i am saying is that if you're trying to stop perverts from sexualizing kids then we might as well just hide all the kids under a giant sheet or something until they're 18. the existence of perverts is not a sufficient reason to not tell this story about girls featuring girls. like saying things like "it is wrong for people to profit off the work of children" means that we may as well remove all representation of living children in media, which is not a great outcome really ultimately while the sexy dance scene is disturbing, it's something that really happens all of the time in real life. kids dance like this, maybe not in public on a stage, and certainly not as well choreographed, but they do this and many other things as they clumsily try to figure out a path towards adulthood as portrayed by the media surrounding us. it seems like we first have to assume the child actors were exploited before we can then criticize that exploitation, but i'm not really sure that the actual practice and performance of the dance sequence was sufficiently exploitative of the actors (as opposed to how it could have been alternatively shot to be less disturbing to the viewer)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
Endorph posted:i mean, if you think we shouldnt use kids in movies at all, i can buy that argument, but thats an argument that extends far outside this one movie yea pretty much it's wild that somehow all these people suddenly decided the crusade of 'kids shouldn't be actors' needs to start right now because of this movie and not, ya know, years ago when literal pedophiles were running Nick and Disney was using its child stars terribly and all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
Also using Mara Wilson's thread as proof that the movie is exploitation is kinda rich, she herself said she's not really sure how she feels about it and her entire point was SHE got on child porn sites doing nothing but kid's movies, unless you think Matilda was also secret pedo code. The issue is how society treats women, even in their childhoods, and that issue is a lot deeper than 'movie bad'. Also the best way to fight that issue is to, you know, give space for women who have dealt with that exact conflict to tell their stories and speak to others, like this movie does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Also using Mara Wilson's thread as proof that the movie is exploitation is kinda rich, she herself said she's not really sure how she feels about it and her entire point was SHE got on child porn sites doing nothing but kid's movies, unless you think Matilda was also secret pedo code. The issue is how society treats women, even in their childhoods, and that issue is a lot deeper than 'movie bad'. I didn’t say it’s proof the movie is exploitation, my point was that there’s no way the children have the “agency” to understand these complicated feelings that child stars wrestle with well into adulthood, and that it’s not right to put them in this position. I think the story could’ve been told in a way that didn’t use twerking 11 year old actresses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
Whatever legitimate issues may exist with the labour conditions involved in the making of this film, the fact that this is being latched onto by a bunch of weird, anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists should give anyone pause about simply writing the film off without critically evaluating it. Let's be honest: most of the criticism is not reasoned discussion about whether it's acceptable to depict something of this nature in the process of criticizing it, or whether there were adequate protections for child actresses involved in the production, both of which are reasonable questions with no 100% clear answers. The crusade against this film is based entirely in nonsense, conspiracy theories and larger culture wars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
Starks posted:No I don't think I am? Here's what google gives me: "Agency is defined as the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices". Children don't have that freedom for their own safety because their brains are literally not developed enough to understand the consequences of their own decisions. It's not someone; it was me, the person you are arguing with; the one who explicitly said "exploitation does happen, it's a constantly evolving situation as these situations become public". As for the Mara Wilson thread, I just don't really have an answer for it. You're right, a 12 year old child may not be able to think about every disturbing way their performances may be perverted, but, again, they have to have parents or guardians who do think of those things, sign off on the children. That still doesn't mean a child doesn't realize what they are signing up for in their performance. What you're positing is, sadly, inescapable. I've heard adult female actors I admire say they found photoshops of them in bondage, rape fantasies, WikiFeet, etc. Showrunners, artists and animators get sat down at the beginning of their show or whatever being published and get told "Rule34 exists. We are going to show you what can and will happen to your characters," and then proceed to show them Rule34 stuff. This is true of any type of character, whether a bipedal rabbit with breasts or, like, Dexter from Dexter's Lab. Look at what happened with Mrs. Incredible last year. I bring this up not in defense of it, it's literally the inherent risk of being a content creator, including acting. And I understand the individual choice of saying "I wouldn't let my child be an actor." I wouldn't want my child (I don't have kids, mind) being a child actor until they're done with high school. But I also loved acting as a kid, and did plays and theater and dreamed about being in movies, and while fame or fortune aren't good goals for a child, learning the skills of acting, performance, team work, and everything else that goes into the artistry of acting, is valuable to a child. But what you're saying is really a bigger problem with society. Society and internet culture allows a space for perversity to flourish. Mara Wilson was Matilda and the little girl from a few Robin Williams movies, she never did a movie like Cuties, and she was still a victim. Saying "She was too young/dumb/stupid/ignorant to predict that she would be sexualized" is still victim-blaming. And your solution is "No more art that involves children." Which would still, in order to avoid what you're saying, involve no more animated films either. Which feels like a complicated, impractical band-aid to a bigger wound. You're saying "Let's stop making art that pedophiles/sexual deviants/disturbed perverts can masturbate to!" Why not put the same effort into arresting/rehabiliting sexual deviants and making sure they can't harm children or make art that makes them victims. It just seems like a really backwards solution that ignores the actual problem. It's certainly a bigger discussion beyond Cuties, even though as a film it is inherently going to be victim to that process.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Starks posted:I didn’t say it’s proof the movie is exploitation, my point was that there’s no way the children have the “agency” to understand these complicated feelings that child stars wrestle with well into adulthood, and that it’s not right to put them in this position. eh, i think there is merit to this argument even if i disagree with it. i think that if we end up removing kids from acting roles for their protection, we end up not telling stories that feature kids, and this may be more harmful overall i'm an old man but i remember kids in my middle school dancing in similarly adult and provocative ways. a much tamer and less stylized version but still, it was clear the kids i grew up with were consuming media intended to titillate adults. i think that child actors on a set, in the context of a performance, would be able to better understand what they were doing and would have sufficient support for the performance to not come back to haunt them - or if they are haunted, it will likely be in response to the controversy around the film now Franchescanado posted:Why not put the same effort into arresting/rehabiliting sexual deviants and making sure they can't harm children or make art that makes them victims. It just seems like a really backwards solution that ignores the actual problem. i think we all agree that this is where the greater emphasis should lie, it's just not something which has otherwise been within the scope of this thread and the film Starks is i think, emphasizing a very anti-exploitation of any kind stance towards children, and this is a noble attitude to have - i personally think it also locks kids out from participating in society which may be a net loss for that kid. as you say, being on stage in a performance can be enriching to a child. "no exploitation at all" is a fair argument though imo Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Sep 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Starks posted:I didn’t say it’s proof the movie is exploitation, my point was that there’s no way the children have the “agency” to understand these complicated feelings that child stars wrestle with well into adulthood, and that it’s not right to put them in this position. I think the story could’ve been told in a way that didn’t use twerking 11 year old actresses. but the point of that thread was that society as a whole treats them so poorly that children are sexualized loving walking down the street, and it's a much broader issue than 'hollywood issues'. The story is about children, that's just what it is, it's about an actual human being's actual journey that took place when she was an actual child, what are you going to do, have a stunt 21 year old gymnast for the dance scenes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:It's not someone; it was me, the person you are arguing with; the one who explicitly said "exploitation does happen, it's a constantly evolving situation as these situations become public". Personally I really don't think you need to go as far as banning any depiction. Just no children working in movies. Like I said, the use of child actors is already an exception to child labour laws; all we need to do is take that exception anyway. If you're too young to work at the GAP then you're too young to be in a movie, it's that simple. Anyways I take everyone's point that this is larger than the scope of the thread so I will drop it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
Are the actual actors that young? It's typical to have people playing a few years younger, and it seems to me that she intentionally cast people who were a bit older (but could also look younger) to heighten the effect. Obviously they are not adults so there's still the exploitation issue; I just think it's a better to be accurate when considering these issues. Because I also think that when kids see media that says, "this is how a child your age looks", which the majority of media does using older children, it is going to have an effect on how they perceive themselves. e: Apparently I'm wrong, so I'd have to see the film to understand that choice. That doesn't mean I necessarily think the film should not have been made since it is an important discussion. The marketing and controversy have really pushed it into a position it was never meant to be in. I heard a reviewer mention that he wrote a review after seeing it earlier in the year (maybe at Sundance?) and now he's being labeled a 'pedophile' since he gave it a positive review and naturally never mentions the controversy, since it was not a thing at the time. The fact that this is hitting in the middle of the Qanon 'save the children' movement is certainly not helping the effect either. Kangra fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Sep 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:The story is about children, that's just what it is, it's about an actual human being's actual journey that took place when she was an actual child, what are you going to do, have a stunt 21 year old gymnast for the dance scenes? To emphasize this, the director has, in multiple interviews (and in reviews posted earlier), said the film was always intended for a pre-teen and teen audiences, for this very reason. While it was argued earlier in the thread that most media will always be marketed towards adults, that doesn't mean the artist--writer and director--had anything but her pre-teen and teen audience in mind when making the film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Trying to prevent child sexual exploitation by keeping children as far away from the public eye as humanly possible is like trying to prevent rape by having women dress modestly. It's never the victim's fault that some criminal, abusive piece of poo poo makes a decision to commit an abhorrent crime. Let's face it: well before the age of 18, children develop some sense of sexuality. It is our job as a society to allow them to develop in healthy ways, and protect them from abuse and exploitation. It's not a child's responsibility to ensure they are safe, it is the job of society to make sure that children are not sexually exploited or abused even as they wrestle with the transition between childhood and adulthood.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
Child labor laws aside, was the framing of the scene itself (the full scene, not the edited one posted by conservatives online) objectionable? I've only seen the clip, but it struck me as being a fairly neutral and dispassionate framing even in that. There was no close-up "sliding" of the male gaze up and down the body like you see in rap videos to create a tantalizing effect, it was a set of fairly static shots and reaction shots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
has anyone in here actually watched the movie?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
Starks posted:Personally I really don't think you need to go as far as banning any depiction. Just no children working in movies. Like I said, the use of child actors is already an exception to child labour laws; all we need to do is take that exception anyway. If you're too young to work at the GAP then you're too young to be in a movie, it's that simple. there's a lot of other exceptions to child labor laws, iirc at least in hollywood there's some pretty stout restrictions around working with kids, how long they can be on set, special considerations you need to give to child actors like on-set tutors, how many adults need to have immediate and constant supervision of the child on set, etc. meanwhile in the united states children as young as 12 can perform agricultural labor with little oversight, involving stuff like spraying pesticide and cleaning out grain bins, which produces some number of fatalities yearly i don't mean to say that your concern about child labor and exploitation is misplaced, but relatively that a well run set may be a positive experience for a child and not entirely just a one sided transactional theft of the child's labor. like nobody wants to work at the GAP but plenty of people want to act in plays and movies because it's fun e: i'll also stop talking now because we're getting on the track of child labor in general, but i think that like sexuality, work is also a vital part of the adult world that kids need to be transitioned into in a healthy and supportive way. being in movies is a lot more fun of a job than, say, caring for livestock Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Sep 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
Here's another weird wrinkle: Cuties is being lambasted for it's portrayal of pre-teens stepping into sexuality. And yet last year Good Boys had pre-teens stepping into sexuality, with jokes about getting blowjobs, the kids carrying around a sex doll (which they sell to a grown man), playing on a sex swing, and being in sexualized situations with teenage girls (played by actresses in their early 20's), and watching porn to learn how to kiss. The three titular Good Boy are the same ages as the Cuties stars. The movie was a hit and met very little controversy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 19:16
|
|