1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Sept 10, 2020 17:52:53 GMT
This has been an ongoing controversy for the last few weeks. Basically Netflix has released a film about a group of young girls deciding to start a twerking dance group and explore their sexuality
Apparently this movie is criticising the sexualisation of children in today's media and is meant to shock audiences. But at the same time the director had this group of girls be trained to do overtly sexualised dance routines for this film to make her point
And you can find clips from the film of them dancing that is being shared on twitter, including one involving a security guard, as well as descriptions of plot points and it is disturbing.
Saying that this had to be done to address the issue does not excuse it and shouldn't encourage filmmakers to do this.
Reminds me of the The Nether that addressed a more nauseating topic brilliantly and shockingly by IMPLYING what was going on.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 10, 2020 19:54:09 GMT
All the reviews I have read - by people who have actually watched the whole film, and so seen the dance sequences and content warned scenes in context - say that it is a really interesting and deliberately provocative film that fully intends to makes the audience feel very uncomfortable about the sexualisation of young girls. The dance scenes are exaggerated versions of what you’d see in Dance Moms because it wants you to be shocked by young girls dancing like adults.
I haven’t watched it myself yet - and may not ever get round to it - but even pointing out the context this much has gotten me accused of paedophilia on The Twitterz, so I’m pretty sure we’re into full-blown moral panic mode at this point.
|
|
5,582 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 10, 2020 23:40:24 GMT
Keep clear, friends
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Sept 11, 2020 0:40:47 GMT
*ignore*
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Sept 11, 2020 1:11:19 GMT
Just finished it.
Fantastic! An extremely intelligent and moving film.
It's beautifully shot and directed with excellent performances.
The people losing their sh*t about it would never have got past the first 5 minutes.
First of all it has subtitles. Second it's about African Muslim immigrants moving into a housing estate. Third it's about a child trapped in a set of very confusing family circumstance (some would say just as immoral as what she is about to learn) who is thrust into a new world where she is all but forced to abandon her traditional customs and adopt Western culture learned from the internet and her new surroundings for likes on social media and to fit into her new surroundings.
Yes the dancing scenes are uncomfortable viewing, but they prove a VERY valid point.
This is currently Number 1 EVERYWHERE...
You think young girls aren't watching it?
Netflix has done it a great disservice by promoting it in the way they did.
On the plus side maybe more people will watch it because of the controversy as it is really a great film.
|
|
|
|
Post by frappuccino on Sept 11, 2020 4:37:40 GMT
Don't think children can consent to being depicted like that. Even if children do this in their own time, adults should not film them and post it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 11, 2020 6:53:44 GMT
I remember there was a TV series here in 1983 "Minipops" on Channel 4 which ran into exactly the same controversy. It was cancelled almost immediately and Channel 4 reverted to their more intellectual high-minded content such as "Naked Attraction" and "Me and My Penis".
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 11, 2020 7:45:35 GMT
Just finished it. Fantastic! An extremely intelligent and moving film. It's beautifully shot and directed with excellent performances. The people losing their sh*t about it would never have got past the first 5 minutes. First of all it has subtitles. Second it's about African Muslim immigrants moving into a housing estate. Third it's about a child trapped in a set of very confusing family circumstance (some would say just as immoral as what she is about to learn) who is thrust into a new world where she is all but forced to abandon her traditional customs and adopt Western culture learned from the internet and her new surroundings for likes on social media and to fit into her new surroundings. Yes the dancing scenes are uncomfortable viewing, but they prove a VERY valid point. This is currently Number 1 EVERYWHERE... You think young girls aren't watching it? Netflix has done it a great disservice by promoting it in the way they did. On the plus side maybe more people will watch it because of the controversy as it is really a great film. I'm honestly not sure it matters how artistically valid it is. Adults wrote those scenes and filmed them. If the point was to examine how society exploits children, the best way to do that isn't to exploit children. It doesn't matter what the intended meaning is, the scenes exist and perverts won't care about the subtext. |
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 11, 2020 8:48:31 GMT
An adult wrote the film based on her research with young girls, after speaking to them about their experiences. And they told her about far worse things than are actually in the film. She was inspired by attending a dance competition that had extremely conservative mothers - in Islamic religious dress and veil - in the audience watching their daughters perform sexualised dances. She was interested in that culture clash. She has stated that of course she worked very carefully with the actors to get the shots she needed, asking them to pretend to be animals to get the movements she wanted. A lot of the impact and discomfort comes from the way she uses the camera in those scenes, according to the reviews I have read. Interview with the director: time.com/5886184/cuties-netflix-maimouna-doucoure/Should no-one ever produce work that someone might respond to in a way the artist never intended? Isn’t that a dangerous bar to set? |
|
|
|
Post by jaqs on Sept 11, 2020 10:43:37 GMT
I remember there was a TV series here in 1983 "Minipops" on Channel 4 which ran into exactly the same controversy. It was cancelled almost immediately and Channel 4 reverted to their more intellectual high-minded content such as "Naked Attraction" and "Me and My Penis". As a child I loved minipops and thought it was amazing. It was only as an adult I found out it was also loved by perverts and so cancelled. |
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Sept 11, 2020 14:29:37 GMT
I remember there was a TV series here in 1983 "Minipops" on Channel 4 which ran into exactly the same controversy. It was cancelled almost immediately and Channel 4 reverted to their more intellectual high-minded content such as "Naked Attraction" and "Me and My Penis". As a child I loved minipops and thought it was amazing. It was only as an adult I found out it was also loved by perverts and so cancelled. This. Apart from I have only just found out |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Sept 11, 2020 14:45:18 GMT
Just finished it. Fantastic! An extremely intelligent and moving film. It's beautifully shot and directed with excellent performances. The people losing their sh*t about it would never have got past the first 5 minutes. First of all it has subtitles. Second it's about African Muslim immigrants moving into a housing estate. Third it's about a child trapped in a set of very confusing family circumstance (some would say just as immoral as what she is about to learn) who is thrust into a new world where she is all but forced to abandon her traditional customs and adopt Western culture learned from the internet and her new surroundings for likes on social media and to fit into her new surroundings. Yes the dancing scenes are uncomfortable viewing, but they prove a VERY valid point. This is currently Number 1 EVERYWHERE... You think young girls aren't watching it? Netflix has done it a great disservice by promoting it in the way they did. On the plus side maybe more people will watch it because of the controversy as it is really a great film. I'm honestly not sure it matters how artistically valid it is. Adults wrote those scenes and filmed them. If the point was to examine how society exploits children, the best way to do that isn't to exploit children. It doesn't matter what the intended meaning is, the scenes exist and perverts won't care about the subtext. It's not really worth even trying to discuss the film if you haven't watched it. The dancing is only a tiny portion (probably less than 3 minutes of a 95 minute film) of a very complex, honest and believable film. It's not some trashy American teen flick, it is a very serious film which says far more about the adults than it does the children. It's beautifully and skilfully made (it was financed by Sundance after winning the un-produced script category) and I highly doubt it was not filmed with the highest sensitivity to the childrens safety and well being. The discomfort comes from viewing it with adult eyes, the children have NO idea what they are doing, to them it is merely copying what they have seen their idols do on youtube. It was nowhere near as uncomfortable as something like Mysterious Skin or frankly Kick-Ass where everyone thought it was completely fine to show a young girl being beaten mercilessly (and probably to death in reality) scene after scene by grown adult men simply because she was a 'superhero'. Now THAT I turned off! |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Sept 11, 2020 14:45:47 GMT
Should no-one ever produce work that someone might respond to in a way the artist never intended? Isn’t that a dangerous bar to set? This, so much this. |
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 12, 2020 8:23:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 12, 2020 9:02:11 GMT
Should no-one ever produce work that someone might respond to in a way the artist never intended? Isn’t that a dangerous bar to set? This, so much this. Doesn't that mean anyone can produce anything at all and then just say in their defence "I didn't intend that response" and you can do nothing to prove otherwise ? |
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 12, 2020 9:59:59 GMT
Well, that is where we are at the moment.
There are any number of times when an artist just fails to get the point they intended to make across. Some hugely popular works are popular precisely because of that failure (e.g. Springsteen’s ‘Born in the USA’ being seen as nationalistic and triumphant instead of ironic/sarcastic). Sometime the failure of the artist to get their intent across leads to the failure of the piece to connect to the audience. Sometimes the reaction is decidedly mixed - it works for some people and not others. That’s why we end up trying to explain to each other what we like about something that someone else doesn’t.
We wouldn’t have much to talk about if that was not the case.
This only becomes an issue when a moral panic is happening about a piece people have not seen, when it is clear to the people who have seen it that its obvious intent has been misrepresented at the outset of the panic. Then the argument becomes not ‘this piece is in itself immoral’, but ‘there is a chance that some people will react to it in an immoral way’, as justification for the pre-existing moral panic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 12, 2020 12:48:52 GMT
A particular problem with Cuties is that Netflix created a advertising poster for it based only on a photo of the dance scene - no context at all and no way of judging the intent of the creators or the content of the film. That was a crass mistake which was likely to inspire not just a moral but a legal problem for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Sept 12, 2020 13:28:34 GMT
A particular problem with Cuties is that Netflix created a advertising poster for it based only on a photo of the dance scene - no context at all and no way of judging the intent of the creators or the content of the film. That was a crass mistake which was likely to inspire not just a moral but a legal problem for them. Even that is ridiculous considering Dance Moms ran for 7 years and would’ve run longer if it’s star didn’t go to prison. The costumes they wore in that were exactly the same and is probably what Netflix were trying to pitch it as. Some of their dance routines were horrifying and completely inappropriate for girls their age to be performing and no one said a word because it was a massive hit. Not to mention the rampant child abuse the show openly displayed. I have 4 nieces and every one of them did dance classes and performances for years that I went along to and they all wore costumes no different to these and that was 30 years ago. Dancers wear skimpy costumes so they can move properly and get hot, this is hardly a shocking revelation. Look at male ballet dancers who basically wear leggings so tight you can tell their religion. This is purely a case of some nutjob seeing a chance to start a drama for sh*ts and giggles by attaching a meaning to something that wasn’t intended and morons following their lead for exactly the same reason. Considering the directors origins it also reeks of racism, sexism and religious bigotry to me. There is an American film called Good Boys that came out last year that has 9 year old boys doing far worse than anything in this including using anal beads as numb chucks. Of course no one battered an eyelid as it was boys and made by an American filmmaker. |
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 12, 2020 14:04:15 GMT
A particular problem with Cuties is that Netflix created a advertising poster for it based only on a photo of the dance scene - no context at all and no way of judging the intent of the creators or the content of the film. That was a crass mistake which was likely to inspire not just a moral but a legal problem for them. Absolutely, Netflix’s marketing team sparked the initial panic. It’s a feature of moral panics that once they are in progress fuller information or context is brushed aside. Panic mode channels all the free-floating stress and anxiety people are feeling towards a target, and with emotions running so high they become impervious to the sort of contextual information they would normally use to re-evaluate the situation. I guess given the year we’ve been having and how powerless people feel at the moment a moral panic was inevitable. They’re cathartic. |
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Sept 12, 2020 14:49:29 GMT
I think there is a growing trend I’ve noticed where people are becoming more vocal about certain content in media.
Perhaps this ‘moral panic’ is coming from your average joe who are finally having enough of how children are being shown this way and are speaking up about. People who are not vocal as we are on this forum, especially when it’s now natural to call someone you don’t like every -ist word imaginable.
They rather vote with their wallet and there is a trending #cancelnetflix with people declaring they are cancelling their subscriptions. Meanwhile netflix’s stock was going down the last few days
Which is unfortunate for a film that’s trying to criticise child sexualisation
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Sept 12, 2020 16:25:07 GMT
A particular problem with Cuties is that Netflix created a advertising poster for it based only on a photo of the dance scene - no context at all and no way of judging the intent of the creators or the content of the film. That was a crass mistake which was likely to inspire not just a moral but a legal problem for them. Absolutely, Netflix’s marketing team sparked the initial panic. It’s a feature of moral panics that once they are in progress fuller information or context is brushed aside. Panic mode channels all the free-floating stress and anxiety people are feeling towards a target, and with emotions running so high they become impervious to the sort of contextual information they would normally use to re-evaluate the situation. I guess given the year we’ve been having and how powerless people feel at the moment a moral panic was inevitable. They’re cathartic. Anyone who has watched it knows exactly why they used that image. The dance contest is the pivotal moment of the film. We know this because the first shot of the film is of the lead character in floods of tears in her costume. As soon as we see her in the costume later in the film, we know something big is about to happen. It is the film and characters defining moment. I can see why someone would pick it for that reason. I can't however understand how it ever got through so many layers of Netflix management stooges without anyone pointing out how absolutely inappropriate it was when taken out of the context of the film when it is already extremely uncomfortable within the context of the film. It is more dumb than anything else, unless of course they did it on purpose which is also believable. It should also be noted that their routine receives pretty much the same reaction as the film has. There are those who view it simply as a bunch of kids who are great dancers dancing and those who reel in horror at what they are witnessing. |
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Sept 12, 2020 16:43:56 GMT
I can't however understand how it ever got through so many layers of Netflix management stooges without anyone pointing out how absolutely inappropriate it was when taken out of the context of the film when it is already extremely uncomfortable within the context of the film. I would imagine it's probably because everyone who OKed it was aware of the context and saw it through context-coloured glasses. It's unlikely that anyone at Netflix was sent an email with just one image and no surrounding information. It often needs an outsider with no previous experience of something to break away from the self-reinforcing single viewpoint. Couple that with a world where some people are actively seeking out things they can intentionally misinterpret in order to create outrage and it's inevitable that eventually someone is going to slip up. You can't anticipate every malicious manipulation. |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Sept 12, 2020 16:51:27 GMT
I think there is a growing trend I’ve noticed where people are becoming more vocal about certain content in media. Perhaps this ‘moral panic’ is coming from your average joe who are finally having enough of how children are being shown this way and are speaking up about. People who are not vocal as we are on this forum, especially when it’s now natural to call someone you don’t like every -ist word imaginable. This is probably true but it is also pretty ironic considering the main problem with the children in the film is the complete and utter lack of parenting or terrible parenting. We only see the lead characters parent who is going through a horrendous situation and therefore her child fall through the cracks. Every time she goes to her Mother for something she is dealt some vaguely pious religious statement in adult language that no child would ever even understand. When she has first period, her Mother 'shows her what to do when it happens' but does not explain what is happening to her body or why. Her older 'Aunty' tells her she is 'now a woman', so why would the child think there is anything wrong with dancing like a 'woman'. The Mother is however not a bad parent or a bad person, she is simply a product of her culture/religion/situation. The co-lead child however has a brother who appears to pretty much raise her who physically abuses her and is told by her parents that she is worthless and that they hate her. Given the way the other 'cuties' act there is little doubt their home life is any different. The adults judging the dance competition still put them through to the main contest knowing full well how sexual and inappropraite their routine is. The children and their situations in the film are a direct result of the adults in charge of them and the world they are living in. Maybe instead of slamming the film, these people should be watching it. They may actually learn something. |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Sept 12, 2020 17:19:55 GMT
I can't however understand how it ever got through so many layers of Netflix management stooges without anyone pointing out how absolutely inappropriate it was when taken out of the context of the film when it is already extremely uncomfortable within the context of the film. I would imagine it's probably because everyone who OKed it was aware of the context and saw it through context-coloured glasses. It's unlikely that anyone at Netflix was sent an email with just one image and no surrounding information. It often needs an outsider with no previous experience of something to break away from the self-reinforcing single viewpoint. Couple that with a world where some people are actively seeking out things they can intentionally misinterpret in order to create outrage and it's inevitable that eventually someone is going to slip up. You can't anticipate every malicious manipulation. Very true, but even the original 'blurb' describing the film is not only completely inaccurate but gives the film a very 'sleazy' sounding tone. There is no 'sexual awakenings' of an 11 year old girl going on here. Broken down to it's simplest form it's a bunch of silly kids from crappy homes doing dumb sh*t. It is the documentary shooting style, great performances and intelligent script that elevates it. Everything in the film follows a very natural path and progresses believably from scene to scene as they all spiral towards their fate. The dancing is actually not very confronting in the beginning and progress's from say Kylie Minogue level 'sexy' to full on Cardi B across the films duration. The real question is if it was a Hollywood film about 11 year old American white boys copying male rap dance moves and doing the same stupid stuff would anyone have even batted an eyelid? The French are FAR more open about sex than most other parts of the world and the film is clearly designed to provoke discussion not outrage. The fact it is a female empowerment film about an 11 year old African Muslim girl is having a lot more to do with the controversy than any of them would ever admit. |
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Sept 12, 2020 17:31:11 GMT
Should no-one ever produce work that someone might respond to in a way the artist never intended? Isn’t that a dangerous bar to set? This, so much this. On this subject that's exactly whats happening with anime artists at the moment. Artists have raised their concerns with the Japanese government because there is a push in places like America or Australia for censorship because people on twitter and politicians, like Connie Banaros, think there is an apparent sexualisation of children in comics. Except the characters they refer to are in fact adults. It's just that the anime style makes characters look younger than they are (wide eyes etc) Sure there are anime drawings that exaggerate body proportions and some can be more explicit than others. But it is an art form that is not bound in realism and there are some talented anime artists that are now under threat of loosing money because their work can no longer be sold abroad because some people decry their comics without actually looking reading them. So in response to your reply to my comment I do agree with you but this “getting up in arms without understanding there is a grey area” is happening not just to anime but all over the place and I would like to know what these people who decry anime think about Cuties. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 12, 2020 17:50:00 GMT
A particular problem with Cuties is that Netflix created a advertising poster for it based only on a photo of the dance scene - no context at all and no way of judging the intent of the creators or the content of the film. That was a crass mistake which was likely to inspire not just a moral but a legal problem for them. Absolutely, Netflix’s marketing team sparked the initial panic. It’s a feature of moral panics that once they are in progress fuller information or context is brushed aside. Panic mode channels all the free-floating stress and anxiety people are feeling towards a target, and with emotions running so high they become impervious to the sort of contextual information they would normally use to re-evaluate the situation. I guess given the year we’ve been having and how powerless people feel at the moment a moral panic was inevitable. They’re cathartic. It’s not a moral panic though - it’s against the law to show sexual images of children, morality doesn’t come into it. |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Sept 12, 2020 17:57:01 GMT
On this subject that's exactly whats happening with anime artists at the moment. Artists have raised their concerns with the Japanese government because there is a push in places like America or Australia for censorship because people on twitter and politicians, like Connie Banaros, think there is an apparent sexualisation of children in comics. Except the characters they refer to are in fact adults. It's just that the anime style makes characters look younger than they are (wide eyes etc) Sure there are anime drawings that exaggerate body proportions and some can be more explicit than others. But it is an art form that is not bound in realism and there are some talented anime artists that are now under threat of loosing money because their work can no longer be sold abroad because some people decry their comics without actually looking reading them. So in response to your reply to my comment I do agree with you but this “getting up in arms without understanding there is a grey area” is happening not just to anime but all over the place and I would like to know what these people who decry anime think about Cuties. I'm an editor and my partner is a director, so we both watch a lot of stuff that is 'out there'. I like challenging cinema and while I don't agree that EVERYTHING is valid and worthwhile film making, I will defend stuff that I think is 'valid' and has something to say about this crazy world we live in. I am not into anime beyond the fact it is visually stunning, but I love Japanese horror and a lot of their cinema and entertainment is ULTRA violent. I can remember having a migraine from wincing after watching Itchy the Killer lol The top rated review for Cuties currently on IMDB is from someone who supposedly loves all kinds of cinema and even owns Salo and A Serbian Film, but was so disgusted by the first dance scene in Cuties that he 'HAD' to turn it off. Sorry but I just don't find his outrage at all convincing... |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Sept 12, 2020 18:00:53 GMT
Absolutely, Netflix’s marketing team sparked the initial panic. It’s a feature of moral panics that once they are in progress fuller information or context is brushed aside. Panic mode channels all the free-floating stress and anxiety people are feeling towards a target, and with emotions running so high they become impervious to the sort of contextual information they would normally use to re-evaluate the situation. I guess given the year we’ve been having and how powerless people feel at the moment a moral panic was inevitable. They’re cathartic. It’s not a moral panic though - it’s against the law to show sexual images of children, morality doesn’t come into it. Just as well they didn't do that then isn't it. |
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 12, 2020 20:18:28 GMT
Absolutely, Netflix’s marketing team sparked the initial panic. It’s a feature of moral panics that once they are in progress fuller information or context is brushed aside. Panic mode channels all the free-floating stress and anxiety people are feeling towards a target, and with emotions running so high they become impervious to the sort of contextual information they would normally use to re-evaluate the situation. I guess given the year we’ve been having and how powerless people feel at the moment a moral panic was inevitable. They’re cathartic. It’s not a moral panic though - it’s against the law to show sexual images of children, morality doesn’t come into it. You cannot seriously be suggesting that Sundance, the French Government (who support it) all the film ratings bodies that have classified it, and Netflix all somehow missed that this film breaks the law? As well as literally every film critic who has seen it. If that was true, everyone tweeting that poster or the clip of the dance scene would *also* be breaking the law. Because that would be a crazy thing to think. If further evidence were needed that we’re in moral panic mode, that would clinch it. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 13, 2020 8:10:16 GMT
It’s not a moral panic though - it’s against the law to show sexual images of children, morality doesn’t come into it. You cannot seriously be suggesting that Sundance, the French Government (who support it) all the film ratings bodies that have classified it, and Netflix all somehow missed that this film breaks the law? As well as literally every film critic who has seen it. If that was true, everyone tweeting that poster or the clip of the dance scene would *also* be breaking the law. Because that would be a crazy thing to think. If further evidence were needed that we’re in moral panic mode, that would clinch it. None of those bodies approved the poster and marketing campaign - except Netflix marketing department it seems. Even if people’s genuine concerns about that were moral rather than legal I don’t think they’d accept them as the final arbiter. Just loftily dismissing people with genuine concerns as a pitchfork wielding mob in the grip of panic is somewhat condescending. |
|
