Is the Netflix film, "Cuties", the target of right wing nut jobs?

1. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 3 years ago

   According to various media outlets, they're claiming not only does the film, "Cuties", NOT condone child exploitation, and child pornography, but the film is essentially a social commentary against such things...even though it's been confirmed by various critics that have seen the movie that the film does contain a LOT of close up shots of the girls' asses, crotches and breasts as they dance in various parts of the movie.....   
   
   I'm not going to rant or offer any definitive opinions about the film itself, since I haven't seen it, nor do I intend to.  However, based on what I've seen from the trailer alone, and the reviews I've read and seen, I do believe that I have more than enough information about the movie to decide that I don't want to see it. 
   
   Granted, I know some of you that may have seen, and probably liked it, may argue it's a great film.  And to that I quote Samuel L. Jackson from "Pulp Fiction."  "Sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I wouldn't know because I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker."  Same case with "Cuties."  "Cuties" might be a great movie, but I'm never going to know because I would never watch it under any circumstances. 
   
   However, various media outlets like the Young Turks, Rolling Stone and others have said that "Cuties" is a great film that's been the target of Qanon and right wing nut jobs.  John Campea, who's a podcast movie host on YouTube, claims that the only people bashing cuties are either people who haven't seen the movie, which is true, but he's also claiming that the vast majority of people bashing it are primarily Trump supporters, whom he considers less than morally just.  Citing how it's because Trump's incompetent leadership that lead to the deaths of many people during the pandemic, yet Trump supporters still endorse him in spite everything he's done, and put up with his hypocritical rhetoric and actions that he feels they have zero room to criticize "Cuties" or even talk to anyone about morality. 
   
   Tessa Thompson, who played Valkyrie, in "Avengers Endgame", "Avengers Infinity War" and "Thor Ragnarok", claims the movie is worth defending because it has a woman of color named Maïmouna Doucouré, who both wrote and directed the movie, and it won her the "Best director" award at Sundance....the same Sundance where it was recently reported one of the co founders was arrested for molesting a minor.....   Let that sink in.
   
   Look, I'm not going to spend my time bashing a film that I haven't seen, as Campea is right that you can't really attack a film you haven't seen. However, as I said before, I know enough about the movie already to know it's not my cup of tea, which is why I'll never watch it.  However, I do feel it's wrong for the media to try to say that only right wing nut jobs would hate the "Cuties" movie, when in reality, I've met several democrats that openly hate it as well, so I don't know where this narrative is coming from, but maybe someone in the forum can explain that to me. 
   
   Anyways what are your thoughts?  Do you think "Cuties" is this great empowering film made by a woman of color to try to add social commentary against child exploitation yet it's being attacked unfairly by Trump supporters and right wing nut jobs?  Or do you think the media is full of shit, and needs to stop trying to make this into a political issue, and distract from the fact that in spite whatever Maïmouna Doucouré says, her film still does exploit children in the very same way she claims her film is against?   Please discuss.

   replyreport
2. 87

   ReViewMeMediaposted 3 years ago

   Cuties is the disgusting exploitation of 11-year old girls that tries to insist that sexualizing children is bad while blatantly sexualizing children.  The fact that you're making this a political issue when people on both sides of the political aisle have condemned this movie is not a good look for you.
   
   This movie is nasty and disgusting and it's something people on both sides agree is gross and should have not been made.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I never made this into a political issue, but the media is if you bothered to read my entire opening statement.     
      
      Edit:  As far as everything else you just said, I agree that the film never should've been made; hence part of my reason why I never intend to watch the film itself.   But again you would know that if you actually read what I said, but it's fine.  I understand most people would rather take what I say out of context and read what they think I said versus what I actually said.  It's fine. 

      replyreport
3. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 3 years ago

   So is anybody going to reply to what I actually said vs whatever you think I'm saying like ReviewMeMedia did?

   replyreport
4. 88

   WryLiltposted 3 years ago

   Having seen the film, I think the original intentions of the movie were good - the writer spent 18 months talking to the age group in the film, seeing how they engaged and learned from pop culture and peer pressure.
   
   The movie used such young actors as a form of shock value to drive home the point that this represented our children. However, the poses, videography and outfits that the children word were NOT necessary to drive home the message of the movie. Yes, psychologists were on set with the children, but there was nothing about the movie that required that type of content to be performed by 11-year-olds.
   
   Another underlying point of the movie was that the 11-year-olds were copying 15-year-olds who were performing highly sexualised content; the question could be asked why we think it's ok for 15 year olds in pop culture (such as singers and dancers) to perform these types of acts, too.
   
   In the end scene of the movie, the protagonist bursts into tears during a highly sexual dance scene, then returns home to enjoy life as a child, in her old clothes, with her family, having old fashioned fun.
   
   TL;DR - I appreciate the message about how we're oversexualising our youth, but the delivery of the movie and choice of cast made me feel very uncomfortable and grossed out. I think the same message could have been delivered much better in a different way.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah that's general consensus that I got from most of the reviews that I've read and seen on the film.   
      
      I appreciate you sharing that with us.    Honestly, there was literally other ways they could've gotten their point across without actually exploiting children to do it.  I mean they could've easily hired older actors to pretend to be 11 years old, as that's not uncommon for movies to do.  Heck, Gabourey Sidibe was in her 20's when she played a teen girl in "Precious."  Tom Holland was in his early twenties, but he was still cast to play a 15 year old Spider-man for the marvel movies, so it's not uncommon for movies to do that.
      
      Or heck, why not make a documentary?  I heard the director say in interviews that she filmed herself doing interviews with various other girls about why they dance provocatively while being dressed scantly for attention, when she trying to gather enough information as she was putting together her script for "Cuties."  My only question is why not just edit those interviews and use that for a documentary?  It would've driven the point across a lot clearer in my opinion, and probably without all the backlash as well.
      
      Honestly I think the media shouldn't be trying to turn this into a partisan issue, as I said earlier because all they're going to do drive more support for Trump if that's the case, as he already has his voters locked into the "us vs. the world" mentality.  You don't want to add more fuel to that if you're not wanting to see him win this year's reelection, as I know Netflix doesn't want that.

      replyreport