Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2125028)
It's nuanced, which is why people are fighting about it so fruitlessly: because the correct position is not easily summarized or clearly to one side.
It's obvious people who assumed the film was glorifying this stuff before they saw it jumped the gun. They hadn't seen the film or considered that it might be depicting something to expose it as unacceptable. Now that the film is out, we can see this is true, but we can also see that the filmmakers probably depicted too much in the service of that. What it most reminds me of is Child Bride. An old sexploitation movie that tried showing the dangers of children being married off when they're still kids. The only problem was the 10 or 15 minute nude skinny dipping scene while some middle-aged hillbilly is watching from a bush and salivating. That's the problem with cuties. It poses as a social commentary on young girls being unnecessarily sexualized, while at the same time there's a bit too much close-up camera work. I guess Shirley Temple movies belong in there somewhere. I actually enjoy Shirley Temple movies, but there's always that scene where I'm thinking that maybe, just... umm... did we really need to have Shirley being passed from man to man while she's singing about a good ship lollipop? |
Originally Posted by Insane (Post 2185707)
What it most reminds me of is Child Bride. An old sexploitation movie that tried showing the dangers of children being married off when they're still kids. The only problem was the 10 or 15 minute nude skinny dipping scene while some middle-aged hillbilly is watching from a bush and salivating.
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 1951163)
Child Bride is notorious for having an underage girl topless. Now that's been done many times before in movies, though in 1938 it was very illegal to show an adult woman topless in an American film. As it was made, it was a 'blue film' and might have been shown at 'smokers' which were all male gatherings where the guys smoked, drank and watched racy movies. But why in the hell would they want to see a naked 12 year old!
Originally Posted by Insane
That's the problem with Cuties. It poses as a social commentary on young girls being unnecessarily sexualized, while at the same time there's a bit too much close-up camera work.
Originally Posted by Insane
I guess Shirley Temple movies belong in there somewhere. I actually enjoy Shirley Temple movies, but there's always that scene where I'm thinking that maybe, just... umm... did we really need to have Shirley being passed from man to man while she's singing about a good ship lollipop?] |
Originally Posted by Insane (Post 2185707)
What it most reminds me of is Child Bride. An old sexploitation movie that tried showing the dangers of children being married off when they're still kids. The only problem was the 10 or 15 minute nude skinny dipping scene while some middle-aged hillbilly is watching from a bush and salivating.
Other than that, I think I've already made my opinions clear in this thread (I'm perfectly OK with Child Bride, Cuties, and basically anything that isn't actual child pornography). |
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 2185715)
Hard disagree. One needs to view a film by the era in which it was made. There was nothing pedophilish in those dance scenes back in the 1930s. It was all quiet innocent.
I agree and disagree. In the era in which they were made, Shirley Temple movies were perfectly acceptable. Just a talented little girl, but always with a father who is somehow widowed, so she's the only girl for him and he's the only guy for her. Or maybe some off-branch of that such as a friend she's met along the way, she's still seen as the object of affection. So here she is on a plane filled with nothing but guys and a dress far too short, and these are some pretty hands on guys far too interested in a little girl. That's by today's standards. By yesteryears standards, I think the only thing that has changed are standards. What is bad now was good then. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDIoHvODBzI |
Originally Posted by pahaK (Post 2185723)
Insane (pun intended) exaggeration as the swimming scene lasts about 4 minutes, and for the most part it isn't any more daring than any other swimming scene. There are probably less than 30 seconds of material that's questionable by any standard.
Other than that, I think I've already made my opinions clear in this thread (I'm perfectly OK with Child Bride, Cuties, and basically anything that isn't actual child pornography). Is anything except kiddie porn okay? Grrrrrr!!!! intellectually, I agree. Emotionally, I'm not convinced. |
Re: Cuties
So it seems there hasn't been any news, so did they decide not to indict and retract that, or is it just ongoing and the system is slow on this one?
|
Re: Cuties
The answer here is still applicable. It was always a ridiculous attempt with no serious legal standing.
|
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 11:31 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums