"fake language, fake country"

Author has not yet seen Cuties STFU    Did we hear this before?

Compulsive contrarianism

Has anybody seen it ?

Trailer looks like that old Dance Mom’s series.

P.S.
Oh yeah And on true pedos, those that act. Definitely just off ‘em.

Has anybody seen it ?

Trailer looks like that old Dance Mom’s series.

P.S.
Oh yeah And on true pedos, those that act. Definitely just off ‘em.

Nope. I can surmise that even defenders of this movie haven't seen it.

Nope. I can surmise that even defenders of this movie haven't seen it.

A good many subscribers canceled their Netflix subscriptions.  I don't think they'll be watching.   

As for me personally, I've read enough reviews to trust that the descriptions of certain scenes are accurate.

I don't have to watch someone get their head chopped off in real life with a machete to understand it's not something we need on an entertainment video site like Netflix.  "Looking to serve the ISIS niche market."

“ But while “Cuties” is full of such inspired contrasts between the sacred and the secular, it’s also attuned to the similarities. Amy’s elders, notably a strict auntie (Mbissine Thérèse Diop) tasked with her education, are bent on molding her into an attractive marital prospect. Her dance routines aren’t that much more enlightened, insofar as they, too, cater explicitly to men’s desires. Clothing can be both beautiful and burdensome, whether it’s the traditional blue dress that Amy is expected to wear to her father’s wedding or the tight tank tops and other midriff-baring shirts she and her friends favor at school and on the stage.

That’s about as good a segue as I can muster to an unpleasant subject that I wish could be passed over without mention but which nonetheless illustrates why “Cuties” deserves a more thoughtful, intelligent audience than its own distributor seems to expect. Weeks ago, Netflix released a promotional image that sexualized the story’s young protagonists in a way that the movie itself scrupulously avoids doing. Self-styled internet moralists immediately jumped on the film (sight unseen, of course) and called for its removal, essentially likening “Cuties” to child pornography and spurring Netflix to yank the image and apologize for its mistake.”

Rotten Tomatoes rating is 86%

I haven’t seen it but probably will.
Sounds pretty complex.

Got Netflix indicted though.

Never seems to be a shortage of Internet lawyers.   

Don't need to be a real lawyer to see this one has clear hurdles to overcome from the 1st amendment if they with to obtain any type of conviction.

For starters there is the 3 prong test from the Miller v. Calivornia case on obscene materials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

However, the Court acknowledged "the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression", and said that "State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited."[16] The Court, in an attempt to set such limits devised a set of three criteria which must be met for a work to be legitimately subject to state regulation:

1. whether the average person, applying contemporary "community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2. whether the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, as specifically defined by applicable state law (the syllabus of the case mentions only sexual conduct, but excretory functions are explicitly mentioned on page 25 of the majority opinion); and
3. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[17]

I read a breakdown of the Texas law they were using and there were specific things in the statute which were not satisfied by anything in the film. Have to find the article again if you are interested.

Sexualizing children is abuse and encourages abusers to act out. You are literally condoning child abuse, and tacking on a "how dare you" disclaimer at the end does not automatically let you off the hook.

I have not seen the movie myself so I cannot verify this explanation but as I have read some say, the movie is supposed to show that it is wrong for children to be sexualized.

So let me pose this question, if a movie maker wants to make people think that sexualistic behavior (like sexual dancing) is wrong for children to do, how do they go about doing so effectively without showing us such things? If the film lacks the shock value will the audience still learn the same lessons from the film? Would the topic have gotten such attention if the movie were so tamed down? Can you effectively show someone how awful it is to sexualize a child without ever showing a representation of a sexualized child?

Take other movies that are graphic as a comparison. Would Schindler's list have been as powerful if it just faded to black when someone was going to be killed? Would it taught us the horrors of WW2 if the deaths weren't showed in such a shocking way?

The Professional was a borderline one.
Awesome movie, but hovers between father figure and seductive adolescent.



They say the whole point of the “Cuties” movie is kids do what they see as they transition between adolescence and adult hood.

I have not seen the movie myself so I cannot verify this explanation but as I have read some say, the movie is supposed to show that it is wrong for children to be sexualized.

So let me pose this question, if a movie maker wants to make people think that sexualistic behavior (like sexual dancing) is wrong for children to do, how do they go about doing so effectively without showing us such things? If the film lacks the shock value will the audience still learn the same lessons from the film? Would the topic have gotten such attention if the movie were so tamed down? Can you effectively show someone how awful it is to sexualize a child without ever showing a representation of a sexualized child?

Take other movies that are graphic as a comparison. Would Schindler's list have been as powerful if it just faded to black when someone was going to be killed? Would it taught us the horrors of WW2 if the deaths weren't showed in such a shocking way?

Would you be ok if your daughter was in a movie that “sexualizes” 11 year olds?

Shock factor of Schindler’s list I can grasp. It happened and is a part of human history that I personally hope never happens again. Personally, I think relating that to Cuties is quite a stretch.

Would you be ok if your daughter was in a movie that “sexualizes” 11 year olds?

Shock factor of Schindler’s list I can grasp. It happened and is a part of human history that I personally hope never happens again. Personally, I think relating that to Cuties is quite a stretch.

No Jews were harmed in the making of the film Schinlder's List.  It told a story that is historically and morally important.

Cuties victimized children in its making.  It was not intended as a warning message to parents.

So let me pose this question, if a movie maker Firearms Instructor wants to make people think that sexualistic behavior poor fire arm handling (like sexual dancing)  (like flagging self/others or leaving finger on trigger) is wrong for children anyone to do, how do they go about doing so effectively without showing us such things?
If the film ] instruction lacks the shock value will the audience student still learn the same lessons from the film class?
Would the topic have gotten such attention if the movie class were so is tamed down?
Can you effectively show someone how awful it is to sexualize point a gun at a child without ever showing a representation of a sexualized pointing a gun at a  child?

The Professional was a borderline one.
Awesome movie, but hovers between father figure and seductive adolescent.



They say the whole point of the “Cuties” movie is kids do what they see as they transition between adolescence and adult hood.

I agree. The Professional was a movie from the fake country with the fake langauge

I agree. The Professional was a movie from the fake country with the fake langauge

"Mathilda looks up to Léon and quickly develops a crush on him, often telling him she loves him, but he refuses to reciprocate."

That's a very typical scenario, especially after a traumatic life event (her family was murdered and the killers are now after her).

Many books and movies have been about a preteen girl thinking she was in love with a much older boy/man.  Not the same as adults exploiting children for sexual entertainment. 

I find it disturbing a few people on here can't draw a line between the natural affections of a young girl for an important person in her life versus sending a child to classes to learn how to arouse older men through lewd dancing and masterbation -- all caught on camera and publicly shown for the money it makes.

I'm surprised certain people haven't mentioned American Beauty.  Even Kevin Spacey's character knew enough to stop before doing something he knew was wrong.  That, after all the other wrong things he did in the movie leading up to the final night.  He had an obsession over a young girl, but then, at the moment of satisfying his obsession, he realized if he followed through, he would be harming her for life. 

It was a sick fantasy, but he stopped short of making it a reality.  There are school teachers in prison who failed to draw that line with their students.

Would you be ok if your daughter was in a movie that “sexualizes” 11 year olds?

Shock factor of Schindler’s list I can grasp. It happened and is a part of human history that I personally hope never happens again. Personally, I think relating that to Cuties is quite a stretch.

Obviously we can't read the mind of the director who made the movie so it is hard to say whether it is some BS explanation or sincere but arguably misguided. The director is a female though which I would say reduces the chances that the movie was meant in a pedophilic way.

I do agree that I wouldn't want my daughter to play the role but if no one played the role, would we ever be shocked? The solution I thought up for this problem would be to use CGI to represent them dancing without actually making the actresses undertake that type of dancing. This doesn't solve all the moral dilemas raised by the movie but it solves the big one of not wanting young girls to dance like that.

Perhaps a drama was not the ideal way to address this issue. Some sort of documentary may be more appropriate yet still effective.

Obviously we can't read the mind of the director who made the movie so it is hard to say whether it is some BS explanation or sincere but arguably misguided. The director is a female though which I would say reduces the chances that the movie was meant in a pedophilic way.

I do agree that I wouldn't want my daughter to play the role but if no one played the role, would we ever be shocked? The solution I thought up for this problem would be to use CGI to represent them dancing without actually making the actresses undertake that type of dancing. This doesn't solve all the moral dilemas raised by the movie but it solves the big one of not wanting young girls to dance like that.

Perhaps a drama was not the ideal way to address this issue. Some sort of documentary may be more appropriate yet still effective.

So, based on your words, the INTENT of the director is more important than the OUTCOME of the

production,
casting,
storyline,
age of actors,
lessons being taught to children,
editing,
post production,
marketing,
and so on.

Intentions are whatever they say they are.  Results are obvious.   If you drive drunk, but didn't intend to kill a family of 5, I guess that mitigates the outcome.

So, based on your words, the INTENT of the director is more important than the OUTCOME of the

production,
casting,
storyline,
age of actors,
lessons being taught to children,
editing,
post production,
marketing,
and so on.

Intentions are whatever they say they are.  Results are obvious.   If you drive drunk, but didn't intend to kill a family of 5, I guess that mitigates the outcome.

When it comes to issues of artistic expression, intent matters, especially if you are trying to prove a criminal challenge.

When it comes to issues of artistic expression, intent matters, especially if you are trying to prove a criminal challenge.

Bullshit.

Putting a crucifix in a jar of urine has but one intent:  offending a group of people for attention.

Nothing to do with "art".

Bullshit.

Putting a crucifix in a jar of urine has but one intent:  offending a group of people for attention.

Nothing to do with "art".

Art is in the eye of the beholder though. Plus even if the intent was to be offensive, that still doesn't make it a crime.

Art is in the eye of the beholder though. Plus even if the intent was to be offensive, that still doesn't make it a crime.

Anyone can crap on the sidewalk and call it art, then.  No laws broken.

When the results are ILLEGAL, then it's a CRIME.  Kind of easy to see when the law broken and charged directly describes the film in question.

Anyone can crap on the sidewalk and call it art, then.  No laws broken.

When the results are ILLEGAL, then it's a CRIME.  Kind of easy to see when the law broken and charged directly describes the film in question.

Incorrect. Laws have states if mind attached to them. If you can't prove the requisite state of mind then you don't have a crime regardless of the outcome.

Here is the Texas law used to indict Cuties
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-43-262.html
(b) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly possesses, accesses with intent to view, or promotes visual material that:

(1) depicts the lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of an unclothed, partially clothed, or clothed child who is younger than 18 years of age at the time the visual material was created;

(2) appeals to the prurient interest in sex;  and

(3) has no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.



The state of mind listed is knowingly and it has to apply to all three requirements.
1. Does the movie depict lewd exhibition of genitals or public area? I haven't seen the movie but I have read that it does not show this.
2. Appeal to the prurient interest? This is a fairly subjective question
3. Has no serious artistic value? Again fairly subjective and very debate-able.

So the prosecution would have to prove that the director, or production company knew that the film did all 3 of these things. #1 would probably be an easier argument to make if the film did it but good luck overcoming the freedom of speech issues associated with #2 and #3.