Make Your Picks

Cuties

Tools    





Registered User
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?



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.
I seen Child Bride in an HoF and IMO it was made as sexploitation.
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.

What bugged me was knowing the real actress, who was a 12 year old girl at the time, appears to have been completely nude in front of a bunch of men (the film crew)...That's creepy to me and so sad. I have to wonder why this was shown in the film at all? If there had been no nudity it might have gotten a much broader release and made more money.

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.
I've not seen Cuties, so I can only guess that the close-up camera work was done to gain notoriety and thereforth lots of publicity...which results in more money and more name recognition for the director. Shock value for entertainment in films seems to be a growing trend and that's what Cuties seems to offer.

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?]
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.



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.
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).
__________________



Registered User
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.




Registered User
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).
I didn't actually time it, but even at 4 minutes, that's a bit longer than anything cuties is accused of. It just seemed over the top unnecessary. Like, the idea is to stop people from wanting to marry little girls, but everything about it is sexualizing a little girl.

Is anything except kiddie porn okay? Grrrrrr!!!! intellectually, I agree. Emotionally, I'm not convinced.