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.