The changes between the French and American posters for 'Cuties' [1] seem like a pretty obvious attempt to manufacture controversy under the "no such thing as bad publicity" approach to marketing. And it's worked, in a sense: It wouldn't be on the front page of HN otherwise.
If Netflix have got more controversy than they intended to, this seems like a pretty clear case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
The show is criticized for being essential erotic material for pedophiles, filled with up close shots of bums and panties of children. The American poster comes closer to that, but is still tame compared to the actual content, which is what this is about.
> And it's worked, in a sense: It wouldn't be on the front page of HN otherwise.
Compared to other stories, this one is already being penalized, and the top comment (yours) is about a total red herring. Ever since Elsagate I am just in awe at the collective ability to look the other way.
The director said she did want to denounce over-sexualisation of young girls with this movie. I (and 2 of my friends, feminist women) think she managed to do it, with a relatively good and a relatively subtle movie.
Talking about over-sexualisation of young girls require to show stuff linked to... over-sexualisation of young girls, to show some aspect of reality... But if you find this movie erotic, well the problem is you, not the movie !!!
No, wanting to denounce sexualization does not require showing over-sexualisation. It especially doesn't require the film maker doing it herself to these poor actresses. It doesn't matter how "subtle" it is, the movie is part of the problem. It's like making a movie denouncing puppy murders and then the entire movie is just the director shooting puppies. "But don't you get it? How can our movie be bad if it's denouncing bad things?" you may say, oblivious to the fact that this director just created a great movie for puppy-murder enthusiasts.
Requiring or not requiring showing stuff does not make things bad or wrong... What you show or not show, the way you show it just make a different movie.
If you make a good movie denouncing dog mistreatment, that is good. The fact it may sexually excite some people mistreating dogs is not really relevant... Those fetishist should see a doctor for being excite by this, and can find plenty of other exciting material on internet.
If the movie was targeting those sick people, or was using this displaced erotic tension in mistreating puppies, of course that would be wrong, because it fuels and use this "sickness"... Here this definitely not the case
And I hope we won't ban gymnastic competitions, or forbid skin-tight pre-teen jeans cause it may excite pedophiles...
>If you make a good movie denouncing dog mistreatment, that is good. The fact it may sexually excite some people mistreating dogs is not really relevant...
You've missed the point. If you kill puppies to make a movie denouncing dog mistreatment, the puppies are dead.
If you exploit children to make a movie denouncing exploiting children, the children are still exploited.
It has nothing to do with the subjective reception of the film at all.
Specifically to this point, the actresses that played the young girls in the film all auditioned in front of the director, doing the sexually explicit dances behind closed doors, along with many others that didn't get the part. The creator of the film was a victim of sexual exploitation like this at a younger age.
Additionally, it is very common for victims of various traumas to inflict those traumas on others, and it's also common for them to be in denial about their motives for victimizing new victims in the same way they were victimized themselves.
Doing twerk in a movie when you are 11 years old and have support and context is not child exploitation. Especially given that twerk is a very small part of the actor work and of the film.
And there is nothing supporting the idea that the female director took advantage of those girls in any form.
Beside that, we read the film differently. To me this film is not really about pedophilia or child exploitation...
How can you compare real child abuse to young actresses, with the permission of their parents, dancing around like they normally do anyway? You really think the actresses are traumatised after this? Why?!?
Trying to blow things out of proportion is actually a huge disservice to actual cases of child abuse. Please don't do that.
Why does the permission of their parents matter, even in the slightest? Do parents have the right to marry away their pre-pubescent daughters in our society?
In addition, a large portion of sexual abuse is from family, and the parents of child actors don't exactly have the best reputation when it comes to not abusing their children, and show business in general doesn't have the best track record on this either. Remember Corey Feldman?
> You really think the actresses are traumatised after this?
Yes.
> Why?!?
I think children being told to perform sexually explicit dances while in revealing dress for the enjoyment of adults (the nuances of such enjoyment will be lost on the child) will likely have a negative effect on their mental health later in life and yes, is a traumatizing experience, because they are being coerced into performing a sexual act, the likes of which they cannot understand or consent to due to their age. It doesn't matter if the coerced sexual act is stated to be in opposition to coerced sexual acts: the child has no choice! I shouldn't have to explain this!
If Taxi Driver could make a movie about sexual exploitation of young women without forcing Jodie Foster to literally dance in undress I think we can hold other filmmakers to the same standard.
> perform sexually explicit dances while in revealing dress for the enjoyment of adults
If you interpreted what was done in that movie using this description you're just projecting your own sick fantasies on it. When the girls finally performed for adults, they disapproved of it... a normal movie watcher would also have been a bit shocked (which was the intention of the movie makers) and would not enjoy their dance sexually unless they have a freaking pervert mind.
> because they are being coerced into performing a sexual act
You need to understand that dancing with the supervision of parents and honest adults, all the while given support and freedom to refuse to do anything they or their guardians did not approve, is NOT being coerced into a sexual act. There was no coercion. there was no sexual act. They absolutely did not perform sexual acts or anything close to it. Dancing is NOT a sexual act... if you think it is, you need to seek help.
> I shouldn't have to explain this!
When you start thinking that your own beliefs are so obvious you shouldn't need to explain them, is when you know you're no longer using reason in your arguments.
Good movie. A bit nuts. Product of a much more innocent time; set in an even more innocent time than that. Also no-one’s innocent. Free to watch with ads on Amazon Prime, or you can rent or pick it up on DVD for a few bucks.
If you turn off the sound, most film suck and don't have their message passed across.
Of course you don't have to show what you show, but then you make an entire different movie. The fact you could make a different movie, does not make a thing "morally" bad or wrong.
The public swimming-pool of you city is probably much more exciting for pedophile than this movie. Do you suggest swimming-pool are child porn ? Should we close it ?
I've watched this movie and found it to be a very touching movie. It's a shame everyone seems to focus only on the children's sexualization when that, while definitely pushing the boundary a bit further than most people are used to, is clearly contrasted to the girl's otherwise incredibly childish behaviour the whole length of the movie, as well as her desire to escape oppression by her own family.
The girls are 90% of the time behaving like completely normal kids (screaming, jumping, playing around), even while wearing suggestive clothes that would be just quite normal in any primary school in most of the western world (at least until the second half of the movie, when the main character starts to slowly go a bit too far even for her own "cool" friends).
As the movie progresses, we see a young child who is already being indoctrinated into a religion she clearly has no desire to partake. She starts to realise her destiny as she sees how the life of her mother is basically centred around being a servant to her husband, to whom she got married when she was just a little older than herself (it's not clear how much older, but it's made obvious that it's not more than a year or two). Now, the husband is preparing to take a second wife, which makes her mom suffer profoundly... but as part of her culture, she must accept that the woman (as the movie explains in the beginning) must obey their husbands always, so she must even call friends and family to "proudly" announce the wedding, adding incredible insult to the injury.
It's against this background that she starts to seek the total opposite life, which she finds in a new friend who, as so many young western world girls, is obsessed with pop dancing and its overly sexualised tones.
To anyone who did not watch the movie, this is where the movie is coming from when it shows the girls behaving, I agree, completely inappropriately for their age... however, that's so common nowadays that I find people who claim to be shocked by this to be turning a blind eye to our society.
Do you really think 11-year old children seeing the kind of dance we find everywhere will not try to emulate that, having basically no idea that they are emulating sexualised behaviour? I think this is the root of the problem which people conveniently ignore. Is it normal for a 17 year old girl to behave like that on TV? How about 20?
The funny thing is : I am a conservative, I just don't like hypocrisy. If you don't want to see children dressing and dancing as portrayed in the movie, ask yourself why you think it's ok for women not much older to do so, openly, and how you expect children to "know" it's something that they shouldn't do (even while you watch it eagerly).
I only watched some clips, so won't super address the movie context, but are you really comparing 11/12 year old girls dancing the same way as a 17 year old and say it is ok? So, is it ok to have sex with 12/13 year olds, since most girls a few years older (18) can do it with anyone? (and in Europe from 16?)
I am sorry but I don't understand. I hope it isn't what you are trying to say, but if you think a behaviour of an 11 year old is ok because a 17 year old also does it, I just can't agree and hate that train of thought.
* this coming from an european liberal with an 8 year old boy
> Is it normal for a 17 year old girl to behave like that on TV? How about 20?
I have seen 17/20 year olds in tv (I think, I don't double check actress ages, but I'm sure at least in porn there are 18 year old ones) and I WOULD NEVER expect to see a show/movie about 11 year olds emulating that.
And you are basically saying (because it is in tv) we should accept the same behaviour from an 11 year old as an 17 year old, which I strongly oppose. there is 6 years difference and A LOT of things in between for me to find it ok. I don't mind a 17/18 old to be naked on tv, I don't think it is ok for an 11 year old. I think it is ok for 17/18 year old to emulate sex/erotic things on tv, I don't think it is for a 11 year old.
There is also the concept of consent, which I don't think an 11 year old should be able to give to spread her legs on tv, while a 17 year old should (maybe not all but hey...).
I believe the person you were replying to meant that if our daughters consume media filled with pop stars dancing provocatively, then they will emulate it, whether at home alone, with their friends, at a talent show, or a cheerleading or dance team.
I think you were interpreting their comment as saying that we should expect society to allow kids to act this way on a public stage, when they were in fact just commenting that we can only expect kids to act this way at home given what they are exposed to. They are not saying that this is a positive outcome.
Perhaps you’re confusing it with Dance Moms? Or preteen beauty queen pagents? Both of which are obvious targets of this film, being an attempt (whether good or bad) to criticize that culture. And both of which are also, I’d wager, solidly red state phenomena.
Besides, at this point it’s pretty much a given that everything the Titular Right accuses its enemies of is what it’s balls-deep in itself, so outrageous hypocricy there is no surprise either. See also: alt-right incels, Qanon’s 21st-century blood libel, Kentucky and Oklahoma Trump campaign officials currently serving time for child sex trafficking, undocumented kids stolen from family and locked in cages, and so on.
None of which should Netflix’s appalling advertising campaign nor its lousy attempts to suppress the right-wing tweets attacking them, but let’s not pretend all these Twitter “critics” are suddenly thinking of the children. Obvious propaganda war is so obvious that even a passing student of history can see exactly what’s going on.
I found that movie to be the lamest and most cringeworthy material and couldn’t watch more than 2 minutes of some of the clips
The people complaining about it seem to have their own discomfort that they project onto a phantom pedophile
Has anyone noticed that?
Actual pedophiles have plenty of actual explicit material from that age group and the older teenagers that could still land them in hot water but plenty more under they can just lust over, so what do actual pedophiles think?
All I see are men on twitter doing a scene by scene breakdown of fairly benign but cringeworthy material of a dance scene that really is like that in the real world, is this really insight into what phantom pedophiles are turned on by? Is it the overprotective brother or father hoping for a different world? Or are these people having their own internal struggle with lust? Does it matter?
I don’t think this movie crosses any community standards, it is just annoying child actors in an annoying plot because its just not that good, like it needs the controversy in order to be viewed
> The people complaining about it seem to have their own discomfort that they project onto a phantom pedophile
> Has anyone noticed that?
How can I "notice" something you're just claiming, based on nothing, that doesn't even make sense on top of that? I'm not projecting my own discomfort at sexualized depiction of underage girls on a phantom pedophile, since I would assume such a pedophile wouldn't feel discomfort, but arousal.
> I don’t think this movie crosses any community standards
And if anyone disagrees, you speculate a bit, then say it doesn't even matter.. yet think your assessment matters. These aren't "community standards", these are yours. The suppression of how "the community" actually reacts speaks volumes in and of itself.
> like it needs the controversy in order to be viewed
I don't need anything for any Netflix stuff to be viewed. I simply call things as I see them.
edit: and for the "men on Twitter" thing (as if there's not plenty men calling this a profound something or other), here's shoe0nhead's take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFyhqSE51A
I don't know anyone who is concerned with pedophiles getting off on the film. Almost all the arguments I've heard against it are based on potential exploitation of the child actors and people generally being uncomfortable with overt sexualization of children.
Or we can condemn it for the filth it is and the blatant attempt to normalize absolutely disgusting behavior.
People love to dismiss slippery slope arguments, but we see time and time again "oh, we only want X" soon turns into Y, Z and infinity and beyond.
People are amazed that Harvey Weinstein got away with what he did for so long. Matt Lauer - the lists go on. Hell do we even need to talk about Roman Polanski or indeed the co-founder of Sundance (where the award that Netflix points out they won) was CONVICTED of child pornography?
How does this keep happening? It's because there were people like you willing to make the argument you are making - "oh, it's just a little bit - it's not that bad".
Nope. There is NO QUARTER. Not one more square inch. This movie is flat out unacceptable in and of itself and that is more than enough. You can defend kiddie diddlers if that's really the legacy you want to leave here but I have zero problem being unequivocal on where I stand on this issue.
I wish that having people willing to compromise even the slightest on the exploitation of children could shock me - that's what's even more disgusting to me about this thread.
That's not quite it. It's that there are some people crying wolf who see something as erotic material when it's not. Do you see the difference there? Getting to the heart of why they see it this way when others don't is an interesting question.
There's an ugly implication of the "I know it when I see it" standard -- something in the individual's brain has realized that what it's getting from the eyes is supposed to be exciting. How could they otherwise make the claim? That's got to be an unsettling experience for a lot of people. The self-disgust this causes is likely to be so visceral and panic-inducing that it will be hard for someone experiencing it to understand that the reaction is not universal.
> something in the individual's brain has realized that what it's getting from the eyes is supposed to be exciting.
If you motion captured someone dancing sexually I would recognize what it's supposed to be even if you applied that animation to a wireframe of bones. I could even do that even if I didn't find grown women (or men) dancing sexually attractive myself, just by osmosis, just like I know an ad for a car is supposed to elicit this or that association, while not caring much for cars myself.
> The self-disgust this causes is
an assumption of yours, and you might as well ask what makes you engage in these mental gymnastics. I don't find children dancing sexually arousing in the least, yet still recognize it as dancing sexually, which isn't weird or interesting at all, much less "ugly".
You say there is "something in the brain" of someone who recognizes this for sexual dancing, as something that is supposed to be exciting (which to me in this context is just an euphemism for arousing) -- but you don't say what that is, just call it an "ugly implication".
I say that all that's required in the brain is a passing familiarity with general society, and the same behavior/dancing in adults. That's neither ugly nor interesting nor an insight. The only interesting thing is how you first assume some sort of denial in anyone criticizing the movie, then turn around and can't even handle that I do, in fact, disagree with you, because you're wrong.
Not sure about this particular topic, but what you describe does happen. I used to be a schoolteacher and there were instances of students doing sexual dancing, wearing reavealing clothes or flirting. You're startled and make yourself ignore it. Think of their last assignment or something.
This got to the front page of HN because they're specifically using the DMCA against opinions Netflix dislikes. I don't think it has to do with the show specifically.
“In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at LumenDatabase.org.”
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity". I don't think the makers wanted to create a controversy -- especially on a sensitive issue like sexualisation of minors. This was more of a disregard on their part.
Strange, can't find any downplaying. You know it's not only the movement that matters but the right body to do them.
The same movement of a child and women have different effects, or would you think the same if it were stick figures?
I don't think the bodies and the movement are the only factors. The camera zoom, cropping, and background music is also relevant.
I find a zoomed crop slow-pan camera shot on an 11 year olds crotch in jeans pretty strange. After having seen similar shots in numerous music videos involving adults, I tend to think it's sexual particularly when the background music is sexually charged
I don't think "it's not an adult body, so it's not sexual" is a very compelling argument all-up.
Controversy or a move to normalize the sexualization of children? Some claim the latter.
Generally speaking, film is a powerful medium through which things are normalized. Think of the shows and film that helped normalize homosexuality or promiscuity and shaped attitudes toward sex and sexuality (often through humor; levity is a powerful tool). They worked. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy to make this happen, just a cultural trajectory. The backing of powerful and moneyed industry figures helps grease the wheels and deliver the same message very cheaply to millions, or billions, of people. The education system also plays a role, of course.
It's just a shame that people aren't aware of how their attitudes are shaped by their environment, for good or for ill. Things we grow up with are merely taken for granted.
During the Hollywood Code years of 1934-68, American movie productions were strictly regulated on moral grounds to ensure they don't present positive views of homosexuality or promiscuity. Look at how well that worked.
Anyway, that's irrelevant here because the French movie in question is fundamentally critical of the existing normalization of sexualization of children. A lot of fault must be put on Netflix for jacking up the controversy in their US marketing.
That's a pretty thoughtless view. Maybe it did work, and it delayed gay marriage for two decades. Maybe it did work, and marriage rates would be 10% without a top-down media campaign, instead of the 50% it is today.
Clearly it didn't WIN completely, but that argument's like saying "Well we've banned murder, and look at how well that worked!"... it's really hard to find natural experiments to test a thesis that these initiatives work or not.
You cannot seriously mention homosexuality between consenting adults and sexualization of children in the same sentence.
> because the French movie in question is fundamentally critical of the existing normalization of sexualization of children.
By engaging in it.. this isn't even a fig leaf, that's like posting insults and slurs to criticize insults and slurs, or saying "no offense, but $incredibly_offensive_thing". Even if that actually is the intention, that is irrelevant, the actions are what matters.
> A lot of fault must be put on Netflix for jacking up the controversy in their US marketing.
Nobody but the defenders of this even care about the marketing; it's about the content, about the minute long close up shots of children "grinding".
Regardless of the attempts to frame it that way, "thinking of the children" isn't just a monopoly of hypocritical, puritan "outrage", it's also what any healthy adult does by default. Even (non-predator) animals in some cases treat the young of other species that way.
> "it's about the content, about the minute long close up shots of children 'grinding'"
This is not the right criterion to evaluate a film's intent.
Action movies spend most of their screen time showing killing. Horror movies contain extended torture scenes. Gaspar Noé's "Irreversible" has a 10-minute extremely realistic rape scene, but it would be absurd to claim that it's a pro-rape film.
Just because Hollywood has been doing this crap for a long time still doesn't excuse it. If anything one would hope it would make people less inclined to make excuses for them :/
If Netflix have got more controversy than they intended to, this seems like a pretty clear case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=cuties+french+vs+american+po...