Submit Your
All-Time
List
The deadline for the Movie Forums All-Time Refresh List is TODAY! Get yours in!

Cuties

Tools    





Fancy linking an article you have to pay for (or free trial)
That would be mighty mean, and I was worried I might do that accidentally as I do have a Telegraph subscription. But I checked it via private browsing mode and it seemed to work.

Could be a sneaky marketing move, though!



We've gone on holiday by mistake
That would be mighty mean, and I was worried I might do that accidentally as I do have a Telegraph subscription. But I checked it via private browsing mode and it seemed to work.

Could be a sneaky marketing move, though!
For me I could only read first paragraph then would have to sort the free trial out, which of course I'll forget to cancel and lost like £7.99 or whatever it is.
__________________



There's a quote, I think from Soderbergh, that when an actor takes their clothes off in a film it's "no longer a film, it's a documentary." You can pretend to do a lot of things in movies, but you can't pretend to be naked, in other words, it's a thing you literally have to do to depict it. This is kind of the same idea. You can fake a robbery or a murder, but you can't fake having kids do things like this. That creates a more complication that doesn't exist in the depiction of lots of other things.
This also reminds me of something Neal McDonough said when he talked about why he won’t kiss costars or do sex scenes:

“Killing people on screen – that’s fake, that’s not real. When you’re in bed with another woman on screen, guess what? That’s real.”



For me I could only read first paragraph then would have to sort the free trial out, which of course I'll forget to cancel and lost like £7.99 or whatever it is.
Oh, dear. @Yoda, feel free to delete the damn thing...



I just wish there was better taste, and better movies, but I'm not holding my breath.
Bad cinema is just bad cinema.*

Bad cinema that tries to argue it’s a critique of more exploitive realities so as to avoid getting called out for something clearly distasteful and, in the process, getting awards and critical praise is just a symptom of the times.

Most of the reviews I’ve read of this movie are from keyboard warriors who think it’s a cinematic success.
Interesting to read everyone's thoughts but I'm a bit surprised with some of the people I have seen put the film down and criticise it as a bad piece of cinema.

Without trying to sound pretentious, I found Richard Brody's review fascinating - as I've already mentioned. He's a man who's hard to impress and is always fascinating to read in his analysis of cinema. Hardly some keyboard warrior.
__________________



Ghouls, vampires, werewolves... let's party.

STATEMENT – Netflix’s ‘Cuties’ is Prime Example of How Racist Stereotypes and Sexual Exploitation are Connected

Washington, DC (August 21, 2020) – The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) decried Netflix for its new movie, “Cuties,” which sexualizes pubescent girls and says is a prime example of how racist stereotypes and sexual exploitation are connected. Netflix is listed as one of NCOSE’s 2020 Dirty Dozen List of mainstream contributors to sexual exploitation.

“Quite sadly, Netflix has given us a clear example of how racist stereotypes and sexual exploitation are connected. ‘Cuties’ clearly sexualizes children, and in particular, girls of color. The pornography industry is built on these stereotypes, and Netflix is taking a page from this playbook by featuring these children in such a manner. Netflix must stop this practice immediately,” said Dawn Hawkins, senior vice president and executive director of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. “While Netflix apologized for its sexualized marketing, it has not apologized for hosting the film.”

“The fact that ‘Cuties’ features pubescent girls doing hypersexualized dance is abhorrent. In the midst of the child sexual abuse materials crisis, this sends the message that girls’ bodies are supposed to be sexualized, and this normalization can lead to a host of problems.”


https://endsexualexploitation.org/ar...are-connected/



Interesting to read everyone's thoughts but I'm a bit surprised with some of the people I have seen put the film down and criticise it as a bad piece of cinema.

Without trying to sound pretentious, I found Richard Brody's review fascinating - as I've already mentioned. He's a man who's hard to impress and is always fascinating to read in his analysis of cinema. Hardly some keyboard warrior.
First, I don’t subscribe to Netflix for political reasons, so the fact that was the primary backer of this film was a mark against it. But it makes sense that a network known for the exploitation of women and marginalized groups would pick it up.

Second, I have never given any stock to film critics, as the job is one of little worth. I have never understood the allegiance to the opinions of strangers.

Finally, the film topic/story has merit and potential, but based on the synopsis and few clips I’ve seen of it it is painfully obvious that the director is a bad director. And I’m glad you shared that article because now I know why. They approached this material in a cold scientific way and it has no feeling: Perfunctory cinema is bad cinema.

EDIT and TL; DR: I suppose what I mean to say is everything that Brody’s review touches on and forms his opinion of it is the same thing that makes me not like it.



Ami-Scythe's Avatar
A bucket of anxiety
I saw one of the dancing clips on twitter. I get the point but that scene just goes on for waaayyy too long, and that's what people are upset about. They know it's social commentary but it's so explicit that it starts to feel or look like the filmmakers wanted to sexually exploit children, using commentary as an excuse, which is similar to how offensive people speak their uncouth opinions and pass their own comments off as comedy. Admittedly, I cancelled my subscription after seeing that because I almost lost my lunch. I understand that to get these kinds of points across you have to disturb the audience but it would seem that at some point the intention to shock was focused on too much. I wanted to see it for myself to see how bad it was or if it was worth the fuss but children being sexually exploited like that, even for a message is honestly sickening to me, especially because I've seen the same message be done plenty of times in a more tasteful manner. And sure, France is probably more accepting of this kind of stuff but in that case, why can't Netflix just take it down from the American server? Or edit the scenes down? It's like, "I get the point," but it keeps going and it just gets worse and worse. It's unfair for squeamish people like me who already understand the message going in and I'm sure mothers who actually exploit their children in pageants or fail to teach them about how deceptive the television is would find it so disgusting that they would fail to associate themselves with it. And I know, I'm judging it by one literally clip but like I said, I can't watch stuff like that without getting physically sick so all I have are educated guesses.
__________________
|>
|
Ami-Scythe



Ami-Scythe's Avatar
A bucket of anxiety
Second, I have never given any stock to film critics, as the job is one of little worth. I have never understood the allegiance to the opinions of strangers.
I just wanted to comment on your curiosity as to why people are interested in what critics have to say. They are known to have more knowledge about film and therefore have more "insight" as to what makes a good film. This obviously isn't true for every critic as some of them are just your average joe who sees what everyone else sees instead of getting paid to see everything and therefore picking up on patterns that would sneak past a casual viewer and some critics who do see a lot of movies just enjoy movies and therefore don't really have any in depth input for them other than "it was a movie." But people like to take them seriously and tailor their own opinions to these critics to make themselves feel more "educated."
Another reason (my reason) is that some critics are charismatic and are just interesting people. Like most celebrities, you want to know what makes them tick, what they found funny, what found annoying etc. In this case the celebrity is literally famous for having opinions.
Lastly, depending on the critic you listen to, they can be useful for gaging an idea of what movies you are willing to pay to see. If you look over reviews from a critic who watches a lot of sci-fi and likes a lot of movies that you also like then he/she can probably predict whether or not you in particular would like Tenet. As opposed to a critic who watches a lot of history films or other genres you find really boring. That critic will not be able to tell you whether or not you should see said movie.
This wasn't to persuade you into liking or listening to critics. I simply wanted to give you insight as to why other people do



This movie is great for anyone who has a pre teen girl or is a pre teen girl or was a preteen girl or just wants to know what is in the head of a preteen girl. They are not children and that is the problem. They are very young women going through a quite a number of stressors not the least of which is social media, becoming a sex object and dealing with their own burgeoning sexuality. Add watching your mother being ousted from her place in the family by a woman who is probably not much older than Amy the main character. And you have the basics of this story.
I didn’t feel that it was criticizing so much as watching the girl explore these issues. My favorite scene is when she is sitting in the mosque and pulls the Hijab (I think that is what it is called) over her head to watch a raunchy hip hop video while the women around her are praying. It made me laugh. There was nothing salacious for the sake of being salacious. And the director makes sure you know what is going on in the head of the main character as she navigates these treacherous waters. It is a highly nuanced film.
The only place where I see criticism is at the end where she eschews both the whorish get up she wore in the dance competition and the native dress she is supposed to wear to her father’s wedding to his second wife. She joins in with a bunch of children who are jumping rope in the street and she rises in the air slowly her face glowing with a smile. It’s a very upbeat ending. I don’t know if you are meant to see her as having finally traversed the murky waters of preteen hell or she is taking a brief respite to enjoy herself as any other child would. I like this movie. I don’t love it. It would’ve had to move a little faster for me to love it. But I do think this director is very promising.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Well there is also this latest news lately:

https://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...1f2485022ccfe1



I guess this quote from that article sums this up quite well:

“This is actually disgusting,” one woman wrote on Twitter. “11 year-olds twerking and the show is rated for mature audiences? Whoever came up with this idea needs to be fired and promptly arrested, and this whole thing needs to never see the light of day.”
It's a French film that's suitable for all ages in there. So it's no one's idea to make a film that has "11 year-olds twerking and the show is rated for mature audiences". The Twitter twits don't seem to understand that the USA does not equal the whole world.

The whole indictment is ridiculous and in any sensible judicial system it would be laughed out of the court. Not in the US though, I'm afraid. If people on the left like it, the people on the right will attack it and vice versa. Nobody gives an F about the facts and topics anymore, it's all about who says instead of what.
__________________



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh okay, but if the movie is for suitable for all ages, then why is it rated TV-MA, doesn't that mean mature audiences? Also, the filmmakers never submitted to the MPAA for a rating, which raises suspicion. Does this mean they were afraid they were going to get an NC-17, and thought that would hurt the movie, and therefore didn't submit?



Oh okay, but if the movie is for suitable for all ages, then why is it rated TV-MA, doesn't that mean mature audiences? Also, the filmmakers never submitted to the MPAA for a rating, which raises suspicion. Does this mean they were afraid they were going to get an NC-17, and thought that would hurt the movie, and therefore didn't submit?
In France its rating is Tous publics (universal/U): suitable for all audiences. I'd assume that as a French movie they were mostly concerned about their local rating system.

I guess this whole spectacle shows why Netflix chose TV-MA as the US rating. What comes to MPAA I'm under impression that they have no legal authority and submitting to them (or to their standards) is wholly voluntary. It really boggles my mind why anyone gives a damn about them anymore. And no, there's nothing to warrant NC-17 (or anything above PG really) in Cuties.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh I know it's voluntary, it's just that people still do it, so I asssumed therefore audiences still gave a damn about it?

I haven't seen Cuties, but I read there is a scene where a 11 year old girl takes a photo of her vagina and sends it out online. I thought that would get a PG-13, along with the dirty dancing at least, wouldn't it?