Cuties

Tools    





I just want to hug (your FACE)!
Watch this movie make top 10 in the all-time 100 list coming up. Mid January expect a press release stating that that was their only intention the whole time, thanking all the social media hits for pushing their dream to reality.
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you."
- Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy."
- Captain Steel



What's the "above"?
The "above" referred to your first "claim" which I agreed with.

The question I'm posing is, even granting that this is what the film is about, and even granting the intentions here are pure, are the depictions of the behavior appropriate and necessary to the end of making that point?
I believe they are.
__________________



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I think Ironpony is onto something with this thought from one of his post:
I can see what you're saying...it's not the subject matter per say, but how the director chooses to frame it.
Perhaps that could be it. When it comes to how things are portrayed, for example, I have a friend who finds Schindler's List to be exploitative because the cinematography was too goodlooking and too sensational looking, for such dark, true subject matter. I guess that is just an example, how something like cinematography or shots, can make something look exploitative to someone.



The "above" referred to your first "claim" which I agreed with.
Ah, got it.

I believe they are.
You think it won't be disturbing enough if it's only shown from a distance or for a few seconds?
__________________



You think it won't be disturbing enough if it's only shown from a distance or for a few seconds?
It's not about being a certain level of disturbing, but showing how the show biz role models apply to children. In my opinion, it requires imagery that properly imitates the influencing material. So, in a way, yes, the watered-down versions wouldn't work in the context of the film.



Perhaps that could be it. When it comes to how things are portrayed, for example, I have a friend who finds Schindler's List to be exploitative because the cinematography was too goodlooking and too sensational looking, for such dark, true subject matter. I guess that is just an example, how something like cinematography or shots, can make something look exploitative to someone.
I'd have to disagree with your friend about Schindler's List being exploitative because the cinematography was too good looking. It wasn't that good looking and it certainly wasn't overly artsy or stylish. In fact I'd say the cinematography style matched the austere feeling of the movie.

And in the same way I'd be curious if the cinematography style matched the tone of the story line in Cuties. Though I'm not real interested in seeing the movie myself.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Yeah I agree, I love Schindlier's List. He said that film noir lighting in a lot of the scenes is too stylistic for such a true tragedy movie. But I love the movie and no complaints from me.



In my opinion, it requires imagery that properly imitates the influencing material.
Right, but that's just about whether it should be depicted, in a binary sense. The thing I've been asking about this whole time is how that's done. For example:

Similarly, does everyone agree that, in doing the above, you can depict too much of it?
I don't think it's plausible that something like 20-30 seconds of close-ups on kids gyrating in overtly sexual ways is necessary to make the point.
This is what I've been asking, so I think we might not be on the same page, if your responses are just about the decision to depict it at all, if you follow.



This is what I've been asking, so I think we might not be on the same page, if your responses are just about the decision to depict it at all, if you follow.
I don't know why you cut the following sentence from my quote which, in my opinion, should clarify my meaning:
So, in a way, yes, the watered-down versions wouldn't work in the context of the film.
So to be 100% clear. I think that the "how much" in Cuties is in a right place. I don't think that wide shots or short flashes would have the same effect in its context. In my opinion, Cuties doesn't depict too much.



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
I only made it to the trailer last night. Actually, it looks like a good movie. It presents itself as a story about (I assume) a daughter of an immigrant family trying to find her way from the more conservative expectations of her family and wanting to fit in with kids in school. It looks like that bridge is in the form of dance. Without all the social media frenzy, I'd probably just take it from the trailer that this was a more adult'ish ...Footloose? I mean adult in the sense in how the topic of social acceptance is treated, not in the sexuality.

There were blips in the trailer that I caught that I would never have questioned without knowing what I already knew before watching it. For example, it seems that the daughter steals some money from her mother to help her dance friends buy costumes. For a beat, you see the girls more or less skipping down the sidewalk with shopping bags and one of the kids had a bra on the outside of her shirt. It looked like an old Madonna standard, but on a kid. I'm not sure I would have questioned that cut, knowing where social media is today. Side story incoming: My boss has a daughter that's around 14. She (my boss) is always telling me her fears and, from time to time, a horror story of how some of her daughter's friends have private Instagram accounts that they share in their circle of friends. Apparently one friend in particular posts inappropriate pics of herself to share with boyfriends. This is, of course, third-hand knowledge. The kid tells the mom/boss, and the boss tells us at work when she reaches a limit and needs to vent. I have no idea if it's true or just another urban legend projected onto "that one kid." It's unfortunate, but ultimately matters like this fall on the parent to teach their kids restraint and of the risks that this world has. That's another topic, I know. But it touches back on parents flipping out over this movie when I genuinely would not be shocked in the slightest to learn that their own kids are doing worse things. I'm not sure what to make of that as I'm not a parent and technically am only sitting on the sideline here observing others interact. Seems off though.

All that out of the way, the trailer looked interesting and thoughtful. I did pick up a sense of tension but not to the level or even the topic of what's being criticized of it. This felt more of a conflict between parental and social norms and acceptance. I can see that spilling over into the appearance of sexuality, specifically in dance and not the actual act of it, but at a glance I would assume that would be more to heighten the tension of the religious conservativism (I'm still assuming this btw) of the immigrant mother and the divide that will probably create in losing her daughter to worldly standards. That by itself is an interesting subject and seems legit, given the trailer. Based on reactions and even posts here, I feel that I'm way off base though so who knows. I don't yet.

I will try to watch it this weekend. It's not a movie I would normally have interest in but you know. People screamin' bout stuff gets attention. It's French and it's sub-titled, so there's that.



I don't know why you cut the following sentence from my quote which, in my opinion, should clarify my meaning:
I cut it because it did not, in fact, clarify your meaning for me, and actually seems dissonant with the rest of it. Just to be clear that it was done for clarity and not to try to hide some obvious meaning (it is still not obvious for me how the two ideas are meant to work together, but nevermind, since you go on to clarify explicitly right after this, below).

So to be 100% clear. I think that the "how much" in Cuties is in a right place. I don't think that wide shots or short flashes would have the same effect in its context. In my opinion, Cuties doesn't depict too much.
Understood, thanks for clarifying.

I guess I don't really understand that position, since you specifically say it's not about the length being sufficiently disturbing, and that the depiction is just about accurately representing the type of thing kids are shown. If that's the case, I don't see any reason why very little of it, along with explanations of how long or explicit it might be in the media they consume, wouldn't suffice. I keep asking about whether "disturbing people is the point" because that's literally the only argument I can fathom for depicting it this way.

Perhaps we're just at an impasse, then.



I don’t know whether this will open for everyone, but it explores the issue rather well:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/...-poster-right/

The poster very much misrepresents what it’s about and does the film a great disservice.



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.

I don’t need a film to tell me that a hyper sexualized world is making it more difficult/dangerous for girls to become adults, but when child marriage is still legal in the United States I couldn’t careless about the ramblings or knee jerk reactions of critics.

Most of the reviews I’ve read of this movie are from keyboard warriors who think it’s a cinematic success. I can smell their moral apathy through my screen.



Does the same "logic" apply to movies depicting theft, robbery, violence and murder? If not, why?
Good point! Tulsi Gabbard's opinion matters to me about as much as Dell Monty's does, though they do make a good can of fruit

But just say movies were always responsible for their subject matter, then Scorsese and Tarantino must be Public Enemy #1 and #2



Does the same "logic" apply to movies depicting theft, robbery, violence and murder? If not, why?
Meh. Weak to me. Those are actors acting in a fake movie about those subjects. These are legitimate kids being sexually exploited in my opinion. The marketing of the movie isn't helpful as they seem to be celebrating it. A movie like Spotlight was about pedophilia but it was not celebrating it.

It's just not reading the room very well. By all means make the movie, but don't expect people to love seeing real children twerking as a legitimate world wide pedo ring comes to light. Not a good look.
__________________
I came here to do two things, drink some beer and kick some ass, looks like we are almost outta beer - Dazed and Confused



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.



We've gone on holiday by mistake
I don’t know whether this will open for everyone, but it explores the issue rather well:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/...-poster-right/

The poster very much misrepresents what it’s about and does the film a great disservice.
Fancy linking an article you have to pay for (or free trial)
__________________