Uproar over Cuties

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I think most people are missing this, but that’s the point the film makes!

Then we’re agreed. The crotch-grabbing / closeups of 11 year old bodies / exposed breasts belong nowhere - including in this film.

Kinda difficult to make a film to shock people into realising we’ve gone too far without showing how far we’ve gone. And yes, people do need a wake up call.

 

[MNathaniel]

Kinda difficult to make a film to shock people into realising we’ve gone too far without showing how far we’ve gone.

Surely that could be done by showing footage of ways things have already gone too far, past tense.

Not hiring new children to do new things on camera, present tense.

(Not that I’ve seen the film but isn’t that part of the premise? The children involved are being actively involved in this, by adults including these filmmakers, present tense. This isn’t mere found footage of past incidents and the filmmakers are just shining a light on it with an explicitly critical lens. The filmmakers made a new exploitative thing exist (and seemingly without a properly critical lens, it’s sounding like).

At least that’s what this controversy sounds like to me, a person not following closely. Maybe I’m wrong.)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There is a story, but it could have been handled without all the behind shaking.

I agree.
I watched the last 15 minutes or so of the film to see the dance in context of the ending. (I don’t know as I want or have time to sit through the whole thing.) When the girls do their dance, the audience reacts badly (thumbs down, one lady is covering her kid’s eyes). The main character realizes she’s not been acting right, quits in the middle of the dance and goes home in tears, reconciles with her mother (who realizes she’s been acting out because she’s unhappy about her father’s impending polygamous wedding), puts on some normal age-appropriate clothing, and goes to play jump rope in the street.

The ending is a good moral choice, but it was not necessary to show a bunch of closeups of children’s behinds twerking in order to get there. The dance could have been filmed in a wide shot, for example.

The plot of the film actually seems to be like one of those old “ABC Afterschool Specials” or “teen problem movies” from the 70s which usually involved a kid between age 10-15 being upset about some situation outside their control, like their parents getting divorced or their mom having a drinking problem etc, and the upset kid starts to act out by running with the “cool kids” or “bad kids” at school who use drugs or steal or get involved in teenage prostitution etc, but in those days they didn’t show graphic sexual content.

 

[DaveBj]

The underwater swimming scene of “Blue Lagoon”. If I read it right, Brooke was 14. Don’t know how that got by.

It wasn’t Brooke; it was a body double. That’s how it got by.

Cursing abounds, and coming from the mouths of little girls doesn’t work.

Was it actually bad language in French, or did the translators make it bad language for the English subtitles?

D

 

[Agnus-Dei]

Was it actually bad language in French, or did the translators make it bad language for the English subtitles?

This had no subtitles, but dialogue heard seemed to match the mouth movements. Was in English, with subs for the other “native” language of the girls’ family.
Dominus vobiscum

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It’s dubbed in English. Which annoys me also, I like to watch movies in their original language (French in this case).
A lot of people hate subtitles though and won’t watch a film that has them.

 

[DaveBj]

I saw only the trailer (on YouTube), and the dialog was was in French. I really wouldn’t have expected it to be in English. So – still a translation.

D

 

[27lw]

ReaderT:

Freddy:

I think most people are missing this, but that’s the point the film makes!

Then we’re agreed. The crotch-grabbing / closeups of 11 year old bodies / exposed breasts belong nowhere - including in this film.

Kinda difficult to make a film to shock people into realising we’ve gone too far without showing how far we’ve gone. And yes, people do need a wake up call.

Maybe, if they had used CGI kids, your reasoning would make sense.
Do you not think these particular actresses were exploited? The filmmaker herself exploited them? Along with all the marketers, etc?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

ReaderT:

Freddy:

I think most people are missing this, but that’s the point the film makes!

Then we’re agreed. The crotch-grabbing / closeups of 11 year old bodies / exposed breasts belong nowhere - including in this film.

Kinda difficult to make a film to shock people into realising we’ve gone too far without showing how far we’ve gone. And yes, people do need a wake up call.

Maybe, if they had used CGI kids, your reasoning would make sense.

If you think it was some kind of soft porn that exploited children, are you really suggesting that using CGI of young girls indulging in soft porn instead of live actors is somehow acceptable?

 

[Tridentine2Byzantine]

What’s even more shocking to me then this controversy is that there are some on here playing devils advocate almost in defense of this filth. Lord have mercy.

 

[Freddy]

Non-real people are always more acceptable to be used than real people in any situation that is violent.
[/quote]

I’m finding it difficult to come to terms with the fact that you are using the term ‘acceptable’ when it comes to computer generated soft porn involving children.

 

[Freddy]

Presumably you think that you shouldn’t use live actors because it’s soft porn. But showing cgi children doing exactly the same thing would be ok.

I think you need to re-asses your position.

 

[Tridentine2Byzantine]

You’re reading past the argument Freddy. (name removed by moderator) isn’t saying CGI soft porn of children would be ok. It would be gravely immoral and no Catholic (or any person with a sense of morality) could support it. But if the director of this movie doesn’t have morals and chooses to make this film to present whatever her message is, then it would have been better for her to use CGI models. It would still have been immoral and grotesque, but it would have been objectively better than using actual girls and sexualizing them, robbing them of their innocence, and exploiting their bodies in a way that will likely make the rounds on the internet forever.

 

[Freddy]

You’re reading past the argument Freddy. (name removed by moderator) isn’t saying CGI soft porn of children would be ok. It would be gravely immoral and no Catholic (or any person with a sense of morality) could support it. But if the director of this movie doesn’t have morals and chooses to make this film to present whatever her message is, then it would have been better for her to use CGI models. It would still have been immoral and grotesque, but it would have been objectively better than using actual girls and sexualizing them, robbing them of their innocence, and exploiting their bodies in a way that will likely make the rounds on the internet forever.

Then I think the terms you are looking for would be something along the lines of ‘marginally less grotesque’ rather than ‘more acceptable’ or ‘would have been better’.

I can only respond to what is written.

 

[Tridentine2Byzantine]

You can also not get so bogged down in semantics. You give the impression for arguing for the sake of arguing, and I doubt anyone is interested in that kind of dialogue. I think it’s fair to assume you knew what I meant.

 

[Wesrock]

Is 11-year olds wanting to dance provocatively really a thing? By the description of this movie it sounds like it would have been more realistic if the girls were 14 or 15. Most 11-year olds are prepubescent! Twerking etc. doesn’t seem like something a typical girl of that age would come up with herself.

Yes, it’s a thing. And it’s not something they come up with themselves but what they emulate from things they’ve seen.

 

[Freddy]

tuffsmurf:

Is 11-year olds wanting to dance provocatively really a thing? By the description of this movie it sounds like it would have been more realistic if the girls were 14 or 15. Most 11-year olds are prepubescent! Twerking etc. doesn’t seem like something a typical girl of that age would come up with herself.

Yes, it’s a thing. And it’s not something they come up with themselves but what they emulate from things they’ve seen.

Exactly. There appears to be an amount of naivity exhibited in both threads dealing with this film. Of course young girls are doing this. Did anyone think the writer just made this up to shock people? She made it as a wake up call.

If it has done nothing else then it might help to inform people of what young girls think these days. The film is meant to prompt discussion about that.

 

[27lw]

27lw:

Freddy:

ReaderT:

Freddy:

I think most people are missing this, but that’s the point the film makes!

Then we’re agreed. The crotch-grabbing / closeups of 11 year old bodies / exposed breasts belong nowhere - including in this film.

Kinda difficult to make a film to shock people into realising we’ve gone too far without showing how far we’ve gone. And yes, people do need a wake up call.

Maybe, if they had used CGI kids, your reasoning would make sense.

If you think it was some kind of soft porn that exploited children, are you really suggesting that using CGI of young girls indulging in soft porn instead of live actors is somehow acceptable?

Where did I say it was acceptable? Your word, not mine.
Why do you think it is acceptable to damage these young people, and have their provocative child dance moves on film forever?
You know these young people are real actual people, right?
I noticed you just ignored my questions about “aren’t these young actresses being exploited?”

 

[DisorientingSneeze]

I had not planned on watching this film, but a Facebook friend shared just a clip of the uncomfortable dance scene that was playing as I scrolled my feed.

My take on it having seen just that clip is that the film maker is no better than people who blast pictures of kids online with captions like “smh” or “what is wrong with their parents?” for whatever reason. (Ok maybe they are better at constructing a narrative or better in many ways but not morally) Whatever point or message is supposed to come from kidshaming or parentshaming posts is ruined by those people’s inability to protect kids by not sharing the post in the first place. People will try to justify their bad behavior by saying “well they WERE out in public.” The film maker is doing that, just on an expensive, artistic level.

 

[Polak]

You can also not get so bogged down in semantics. You give the impression for arguing for the sake of arguing, and I doubt anyone is interested in that kind of dialogue. I think it’s fair to assume you knew what I meant.

That’s Freddy for you, he definitely likes to keep arguing even when the counterpoint is very clear.

I would also note what somebody mentioned earlier, that in her interview, the director seemed more concerned about young girls learning a way of life where women get exploited for their bodies. It definitely seems heavily feminist and focuses primarily on how women should not be objectified and how these your girls are beginning their transitioning process into adults by thinking this is normal behaviour and the only way to be liked, and that I agree with, but I don’t recall her mentioning the problem of young girls being sexualised at such an early age.