The “Cuties” Project. Lowering the age of consent is the ultimate prize. Wherein Fr. Z rants

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You are meant to realise that it’s shocking and totaly unacceptable. You are meant to feel horror and even shame in watching them.

It’s not promoting soft porn with children. It’s an argument against it. It’s an argument for protecting a child’s innocence.

The act of getting children to perform this scenes is exploitation. Do you think there’s nothing wrong with say, showing a naked child in explicit scenes to shock the audience into being against child porn? Or would you say that a child shouldn’t be shown naked and/or in this light in the first place? The protection of children, and in this case, the girls acting, should always be more important than the message.

It’s not the same as people acting like they’re raped or abused or whatever to highlight how wrong it is. It’s the act of acting in itself that we have a problem with.

There’s a line you cannot cross. I appreciate that you feel it was crossed in this film. I personally don’t.

 

[Lea101]

There’s a line you cannot cross. I appreciate that you feel it was crossed in this film. I personally don’t

Do you truly feel like it’s okay for your daughter to be taught how to twerk by adults, told to put on underwear that they chose for her, and to have the cameraman film her butt and crotch as she does it? And then have executives sell the footage to a platform that allows anyone to watch it in whatever way they please? And still not see it as her being exploited, regardless of how ‘nice’ the intention was? If a child can’t consent to have sex with an adult, why is their lack of consent to be exploited in different ways not being taken seriously?

Or is there a level of disconnection there for you? Genuinely asking because I cannot imagine how it’s not exploitation. I wouldn’t be this outraged if they stuck to suggestive scenes (e.g. Audience shots when sexual moves are being done).

 

[MNathaniel]

That was the point of the scenes. To shock you. If you want to make an anti war film you film scenes like the opening sequences of Saving Private Ryan. If you want to make a film against the sexual exploitation of children and their loss of innocence then you need to show them being exploited. You need to show them losing their innocence.

Anything less reduces the impact. It has to shown in such a way to convince people who might not think there’s a problem that there most definitely is.

No.

No.

No.

To hell with “impact” on an audience. To the depths of hell with it.

Having their bodies permanently sexualized on video camera footage that will be on the shelves of pedophiles and assorted perverts from now until these girls die of old age (and even after), will have an “impact” on these children.

They may be temporarily insulated from the impact of what’s been done to them (for the sake of imparting a “shock” to others – if one can assume the best case scenario of what one cohort claims is the filmmaker’s intention). But eventually the horror will sink in. That impact will last. For these exploited children.

To hell with any hypothetical impact on an audience. Let’s get real. No adult actually needs to visually see children get exploited, to understand its wrongness. That’s a desperate attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

The children who were exploited for this film are the ones who will truly feel the impact. For the rest of their lives.

Exploitation is exploitation. You’re not going to find Catholic support for the idea that it’s okay to do evil that good may come of it. So you’re not going to find Catholic support for the idea that it’s okay to sexually exploit children on camera for the (alleged) purpose of horrifying adults enough to stop exploiting other children.

There are better ways.

There are always better ways.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Back during the Hayes Code days, a filmmaker could get away with a fairly large amount of nudity and sexual content if the film was marketed as “educational”.

And in “beware the horrors of” prostitution/strip clubs/venereal disiease/white slavery…

The filmmaker could have gotten her point across without exploiting real children.
If she either wanted to or had talent.

 

[Freddy]

…without exploiting real children.

We disagree about this. I find it difficult to accept that a film about exploitation can be accused of exploitation.

But I appreciate your view. It needs to be considered.

 

[Wesrock]

In Saving Private Ryan, none of the actors are really getting shot or blown up or losing limbs. In Cuties, the child actors are really simulating sex acts and sexual dancing as the camera pans over what would be their sexual characteristics if they were adult women, while one exposes herself on camera.

Intent and the guise of art aren’t enough to justify that. Both (a) regarding the girls own health and (b) legitimizing the audience watching stuff like this, especially when there are plenty of people in the world who are stimulated by material like that.

 

[RhodesianSon]

There’s ways to do that without also making soft core porn. The “you have to watch the porn to understand why it’s wrong” argument is weak.

 

[Agnus-Dei]

I create a documentary about fire and its uses. I show people cooking outdoors around a campfire, having a good time.
To show the negative: I would not put children in a dry hay-field with matches and film as they set fire to, and burn themselves to death.
The message given, good or bad, the children are no less dead.
Also, I would not set fire to someones house just to film them escaping,…or not. You cannot click “un-do” on the damage that has occurred to the people involved.
Dominus vobiscum

To add: I wonder what these girls will think in 10 or 15 years about this.

 

[Irishmom2]

I find it difficult to accept that a film about exploitation can be accused of exploitation.

Well, there is the problem then, isn’t it?

The filmmaker is doing the thing they say they are warning everyone about.

In the process of “educating” people about the idea of child exploitation, they are guilty of doIng it themselves.

How do you not understand that?

 

[RhodesianSon]

“I’m going to make a movie about how evil genocide is by killing a bunch of people, and you can’t accuse me of genocide when I’m trying to educate about the evils of genocide”

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[skelly]

Unfortunately, you have succinctly hit the nail on the head.

 

[Freddy]

There’s ways to do that without also making soft core porn. The “you have to watch the porn to understand why it’s wrong” argument is weak.

If you think that it’s soft core porn then we’re talking past each other. It’s meant to jar. It’s meant to make you feel uncomfortable. It’s completely devoid of anything sexual. It’s almost a parody of what the girls in the film think it is. They didn’t put the girls on stage and say ‘Dance sexy!’ They were actors pretending to be girls pretending to be something they weren’t.

Anyway, I’ve said my piece. I can see that some are on the verge of claiming that I’m actually supporting child porn and that wouldn’t end well, so I’ll leave you guys to it.

 

[Marinakeer]

Netflix didn’t create the movie. It was airing at Sundance in its original French language before Netflix picked it up for US distribution.

 

[IanM]

Netflix didn’t create the movie. It was airing at Sundance in its original French language before Netflix picked it up for US distribution.

Sundance co-founder sentenced again in second sexual abuse case​

Sundance co-founder sentenced again in second sexual abuse case | Fox News

 

[Lea101]

It’s meant to jar. It’s meant to make you feel uncomfortable

It’s completely devoid of anything sexual.

Okay, so why does it make us feel uncomfortable? If there’s nothing wrong with child actors acting this way, then why should anyone feel uncomfortable? It’s not like we are deeply invested in the characters/plot and not the actors.

It’s because we are watching children getting sexualised before our eyes. If we see a kid biting her fingers and a camera lingering on her butt and feel uncomfortable, it’s because we saw a kid biting her fingers and a camera lingering on her butt. It’s honestly as simple as that.

I don’t think your second statement here is accurate, or maybe your point isn’t clear here. It is sexual. They’re not break dancing or anything. The whole point of the movie, like you said, is to talk about how girls are sexualising themselves. So the point of the dance is to show that these girls are dancing like women. It is sexual, that’s why we are uncomfortable

Literally just watched a video of a guy defending cuties, and I’m not kidding, he said something about how he felt uncomfortable because “they’re hot” but “they’re children”. Yeah I know, just one guy. But it more or less shows you what I mean.

They were actors pretending to be girls pretending to be something they weren’t.

Well firstly, they are children told to dance in an adult way. The whole point of that scene we are thinking about was to show them being too adult to the point where the adults felt uncomfortable. It’s not a 6 year old with a hugely oversized bra and heels strutting up and down in all her innocence.

I know you said you aren’t going to reply, but my problem with your replies is that you’re sidestepping our main points. If you’re not going to address that, people would assume you’re defending child porn or whatever. Because we genuinely don’t know your thought process at all (because you agree to disagree) and we are curious. Naturally, we will assume you’re disagreeing with everything we are bringing up and the line you draw isn’t evident at all.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It’s meant to jar. It’s meant to make you feel uncomfortable

It’s completely devoid of anything sexual.

Okay, so why does it make us feel uncomfortable? If there’s nothing wrong with child actors acting this way, then why should anyone feel uncomfortable? It’s not like we are deeply invested in the characters/plot and not the actors.

Against my better judgement I’ll reply.

You are meant to feel uncomfortable not because these are child actors playing parts in a way with which you disagree. You are meant to suspend belief (it is a film) and think about what leads a group of young, immature girls to think that dancing like this is ok. Which is not ok.

I appreciate that there are two levels to this. On one hand, and this is what almost everyone is talking about, is the fact that these are young actors and they are playing a part in a way with which most people disagree. I get that. But I don’t agree with it. There are exceptionally severe restrictions on what child actors can and cannot do. And there would be people on set to make sure that they weren’t exploited in some way.

There is obviously a monstrous difference between young girls thinking it’s reasonable to dance like that and some young actors playing the part of young girls thinking that.

And what almost everyone has entirely skipped is the raison d’etre of the film in trying to bring home to people that this is how some young girls are growing up. If anyone wants to vent or mount a high horse then that is the topic they should be ranting about.

 

[Maxirad]

Is Monica Castillo on the right track?

Cuties movie review & film summary (2020) | Roger Ebert

 

[Lea101]

You are meant to suspend belief (it is a film) and think about what leads a group of young, immature girls to think that dancing like this is ok. Which is not ok.

I honestly doubt this is why everyone is uncomfortable by it, that’s the thing. They’re uncomfortable because they’re watching children dancing suggestively. This is evident as most people didn’t watch the film, they watch certain clips that are going around and they’re disturbed by it. One guy who did watch it literally called them “hot”, he didn’t sit there and think “Gee, these awkward girls are trying to be sexy, gross”. Most people are thinking “Oh my gosh, they got these girls to act this way”. I also notice how you keep sticking to intention and not the reality of the scenes. By that logic, almost anything can slide as long as there’s a public intention to educate.

Sure, one can say they’re “meant” to feel X when it reality they’re feeling Y, but that’s not a good enough defense. To give an extreme analogy, someone can film two kids acting like they’re having sex and say they meant you to feel uncomfortable and wonder why they are having sex nowadays. Of course you would say that’s BS. The intention doesn’t matter if the execution is wack.

There are exceptionally severe restrictions on what child actors can and cannot do. And there would be people on set to make sure that they weren’t exploited in some way.

Again, our point is that them making them act this way IS the exploitation. Additionally, even child actors who aren’t doing sexual scenes have talked about they’re exploited behind camera. So idk you seem to have too much faith in the crew. I’m sure the director herself may be kind and sweet, but what about the editors? They certainly chose to keep the shots of a camera on their butts and chests. What is being done to the audition footage?

There is obviously a monstrous difference between young girls thinking it’s reasonable to dance like that and some young actors playing the part of young girls thinking that

There’s a difference, but it doesn’t mean one is bad and the other is completely okay. I wouldn’t want my 10 year old kid to dance suggestively on Tik Tok to “troll around”, or have someone tell her to do it because they want to show how bad the dance is. It’s the act of recording such things in the first place. It’s the act that there’s now one more clip of a child dancing this way, and for anyone to do what they please with this footage.

to people that this is how some young girls are growing up.

I deal with children of this age group. Most of us know this. The problem is that it doesn’t justify the execution of the film. That’s basically it. Who gives a bleep about the intention if the execution is perverted?

Teenagers are having sex all, it doesn’t mean I can take two child actors (even if they’re against sex in real life) and make them do sex acts (simulated or real) and make the footage accessible because I want to shock viewers.

 

[27lw]

The fact that freddy won’t answer the question is telling. He won’t answer the question about whether making this film was inappropriately using these young people, these young actresses.

 

[pnewton]

Against my better judgement I’ll reply.

The fact that freddy won’t answer the question is telling.

Not for a Christian. It tells nothing. From the Catechism:

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. and if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved

People must have the right to discontinue fruitless discussion, or anything they want here, without you, are anyone, assigning what every meaning you see as telling, especially with such a delicate topic, were. Remember the Gospel teaches that we will be judged according to how we judge.