Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

halfmanhalfbronco

Criticism of Netflix "Cuties" is now right wing, QANON, racist, sexist BS?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I’ve seen the trailer. So the clips and editing I’ve seen were done by the creators and distributors. That too is a conscious choice on their part. It’s marketing was meant to be provocative. And like pretty much everyone else here who hasn’t watched it and won’t watch it, that alone is enough. Add in the accounts and descriptions of those who did watch it, and it’s not even a question that the revolting aspects are not overblown. They’re not even denied, in fact by the artists own admission they are central to the point she tries, and is failing, to make. 

That is fine.  I agree the trailer is less biased than something from an advocacy group.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Well that might require admitting Ted Cruz and Josh Hawkeye have something of a point and a place to get answers from those Netflix executives to justify it.  

Congress is not Rotten Tomatoes. Did the movie break the law? If not, elected representatives should +++++ right off. I think ted Cruz knows that, which is why he had to make up an exposed 11 year old naughty bit in his letter to the justice dept.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smltwnrckr said:

Congress is not Rotten Tomatoes. Did the movie break the law? If not, elected representatives should +++++ right off. I think ted Cruz knows that, which is why he had to make up an exposed 11 year old naughty bit in his letter to the justice dept.

Congress is also not the justice department, so even if they did break a law that would mean +++++ all. Hey $200 billion dollar American company, give us some good answers why you’re putting out a product that openly and intentionally sexualizes children. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Congress is also not the justice department, so even if they did break a law that would mean +++++ all. Hey $200 billion dollar American company, give us some good answers why you’re putting out a product that openly and intentionally sexualizes children. 

Well since in this case a member of Congress wrote a letter to the justice dept, it doesn't mean +++++ all. Because congress has literally no business deciding what speech is or isnt appropriate outside of clearly defined exceptions. It's written down somewhere, I believe. Which is why Ted Cruz has to allege illegality.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Well since in this case a member of Congress wrote a letter to the justice dept, it doesn't mean +++++ all. Because congress has literally no business deciding what speech is or isnt appropriate outside of clearly defined exceptions. It's written down somewhere, I believe. Which is why Ted Cruz has to allege illegality.

Ted Cruz can write what he wants just like anyone else. The DOJ makes the decision what to prosecute under the law. The issue here isn’t Ted Cruz or the DOJ. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Ted Cruz can write what he wants just like anyone else. The DOJ makes the decision what to prosecute under the law. The issue here isn’t Ted Cruz or the DOJ. 

There are a number of issues here. I agree the DOJ is not one, because there is nothing illegal in the movie. Ted Cruz on the other hand is definitely very much at the heart of one of the issues here. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

There are a number of issues here. I agree the DOJ is not one, because there is nothing illegal in the movie. Ted Cruz on the other hand is definitely very much at the heart of one of the issues here. 

Ted Cruz doesn’t have anything to do with Cuties, Netflix, intentional sexualized depictions of children, or the defense against criticisms of those things that tries to portray the critics as internet conspiracy theorists. Ted Cruz comes pretty far down the list here and it’s completely missing the ball to pretend otherwise, which I guess is partly why Ted Cruz is even an issue.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Ted Cruz doesn’t have anything to do with Cuties, Netflix, intentional sexualized depictions of children, or the defense against criticisms of those things that tries to portray the critics as internet conspiracy theorists. Ted Cruz comes pretty far down the list here and it’s completely missing the ball to pretend otherwise, which I guess is partly why Ted Cruz is even an issue.

Sorry but it is completely missing the ball to pretend this isn't an issue of censorship and bending those who control the means of social production to the will of the nannies... and social conservatives in congress loom very large. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, smltwnrckr said:

Sorry but it is completely missing the ball to pretend this isn't an issue of censorship and bending those who control the means of social production to the will of the nannies... and social conservatives in congress loom very large. 

The disgust with Cuties is not the doing of social conservatives. It’s pretty roundly thought to be gross. It’s not been censored, there’s no bill to censor it, just condemnation and weak defenses that don’t address the condemnation head on.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

The disgust with Cuties is not the doing of social conservatives. It’s pretty roundly thought to be gross. It’s not been censored, there’s no bill to censor it, just condemnation and weak defenses that don’t address the condemnation head on.

The "disgust" for a movie held by people who would have otherwise not known about (but still wont see) it, based on what others show or tell them, is absolutely the doing of social conservatives. That's how this sort of thing works, dude.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

The "disgust" for a movie held by people who would have otherwise not known about (but still wont see) it, based on what others show or tell them, is absolutely the doing of social conservatives. That's how this sort of thing works, dude.

My disgust came from the opinions on my socials of young female millennials.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

My disgust came from the opinions on my socials of young female millennials.  

Fair enough. My points about much of the broad disgust being symptomatic of a sexist double standard comes from my text and personal conversations with female gen x-ers. Maybe it's a generational thing. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

My disgust came from the opinions on my socials of young female millennials.  

And I would venture to guess many of them didnt see it and thus heard abt it from people talking about it... thus, soc cons

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, just watched it.  There are 3 scenes that stand out as being beyond the pale gross.  One at the 43 minute mark, one around the hour mark and then the last dance scene.  The first of the three made me want to turn of the movie in disgust and question why I was watching it.  The other two were increasingly worse.  The focus point of the first "bad" scene was some sort of dry humping, camera close in on kid butt thing that lasted the duration of song.  Why?  Just why?  The second dance scene was even worse, with the focus seeming to be on the crotch and waist area, and ending with the main character spreading her legs apart as the camera stops.  What in the actual +++++?  Then the last dance scene, was so beyond the pail of what should be considered normal.

What really sucks about the movie, is that if you take out those 9 minutes, it is powerful.  It really is.  It is touching and moving.  However those 9 minutes across 3 distinct scenes are abhorrent.  What were they thinking?   In what world is that OK?  Those scenes were just so not necessary to the point the movie was trying to make.  Not at all.  They felt forced, even.  The powerful, emotional scenes were friend to friend and mother to matriarch.  The lewd scenes did nothing other than exist for their own sake.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Ok, just watched it.  There are 3 scenes that stand out as being beyond the pale gross.  One at the 43 minute mark, one around the hour mark and then the last dance scene.  The first of the three made me want to turn of the movie in disgust and question why I was watching it.  The other two were increasingly worse.  The focus point of the first "bad" scene was some sort of dry humping, camera close in on kid butt thing that lasted the duration of song.  Why?  Just why?  The second dance scene was even worse, with the focus seeming to be on the crotch and waist area, and ending with the main character spreading her legs apart as the camera stops.  What in the actual +++++?  Then the last dance scene, was so beyond the pail of what should be considered normal.

What really sucks about the movie, is that if you take out those 9 minutes, it is powerful.  It really is.  It is touching and moving.  However those 9 minutes across 3 distinct scenes are abhorrent.  What were they thinking?   In what world is that OK?  Those scenes were just so not necessary to the point the movie was trying to make.  Not at all.  They felt forced, even.  The powerful, emotional scenes were friend to friend and mother to matriarch.  The lewd scenes did nothing other than exist for their own sake.

 

 

So got off the phone with my sister.  Her view were the dances were definitely worse then what is seen at dance shows which was kind of the point.   According to her the girls wanted to be like the grown ups and in doing so used inappropriate stripper dances to model that.   

She felt it was a over the top but not something that would take it out of the realm of art.  That being said she also said if her daughters were dancing in such a manner she would stop it.   I asked about “crotch shots” and she said she didn’t notice anything other than girls grabbing their crotch stripper fashion.  Of course, she pointed out that normal dancing is full of crotch shots so she missed noticing them.  The breast was an older girl and not really in her opinion a big deal.   

In summary, she felt it was definately pretty cringe worthy and appropriately rated but the judges and adults in the show had appropriate reactions to the dances.  So she didn’t feel the movie was in any way celebrating such behavior by young girls.   She said the whole point was the girls were modeling strippers and their behavior to “appear adult”.  The dances were “by definition stripper dances”.  Not her favorite movie but one she felt modeled real challenges for girls coming of age and what coming of age means.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sactowndog said:

So got off the phone with my sister.  Her view were the dances were definitely worse then what is seen at dance shows which was kind of the point.   According to her the girls wanted to be like the grown ups and in doing so used inappropriate stripper dances to model that.   

She felt it was a over the top but not something that would take it out of the realm of art.  That being said she also said if her daughters were dancing in such a manner she would stop it.   I asked about “crotch shots” and she said she didn’t notice anything other than girls grabbing their crotch stripper fashion.  Of course, she pointed out that normal dancing is full of crotch shots so she missed noticing them.  The breast was an older girl and not really in her opinion a big deal.   

In summary, she felt it was definately pretty cringe worthy and appropriately rated but the judges and adults in the show had appropriate reactions to the dances.  So she didn’t feel the movie was in any way celebrating such behavior by young girls.   She said the whole point was the girls were modeling strippers and their behavior to “appear adult”.  The dances were “by definition stripper dances”.  Not her favorite movie but one she felt modeled real challenges for girls coming of age and what coming of age means.  

Btw.  Still don’t plan to watch it as like most of you the thought 11 year olds acting like strippers is not something I desire to see.   That being said plenty of films exist about the challenges boys face coming of age and maturing sexually so it’s hard to see why one of and for women and their different challenges of what being a women means doesn’t have a place in the cinematic arts. 

This feels a bit like the Supreme Court is going to be.   A bunch of men making judgements about women without their direct perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2020 at 12:24 AM, sactowndog said:

So got off the phone with my sister.  Her view were the dances were definitely worse then what is seen at dance shows which was kind of the point.   According to her the girls wanted to be like the grown ups and in doing so used inappropriate stripper dances to model that.   

She felt it was a over the top but not something that would take it out of the realm of art.  That being said she also said if her daughters were dancing in such a manner she would stop it.   I asked about “crotch shots” and she said she didn’t notice anything other than girls grabbing their crotch stripper fashion.  Of course, she pointed out that normal dancing is full of crotch shots so she missed noticing them.  The breast was an older girl and not really in her opinion a big deal.   

In summary, she felt it was definately pretty cringe worthy and appropriately rated but the judges and adults in the show had appropriate reactions to the dances.  So she didn’t feel the movie was in any way celebrating such behavior by young girls.   She said the whole point was the girls were modeling strippers and their behavior to “appear adult”.  The dances were “by definition stripper dances”.  Not her favorite movie but one she felt modeled real challenges for girls coming of age and what coming of age means.  

Late bump, but I promised I would watch and comment and have been busy since the weekend.

I pretty much felt like your sister, outside of the fact that I haven't seen many pre-teen dance recitals but have heard they are often really cringe-worthy and push it pretty far for little girls. The over-the-top scenes were not enjoyable, and I didn't see a ton of value in them being that edgy. But they were meant to be just that, and it's a legitimate debate as to whether they wallow in and ultimately become complicit the thing they are supposed to critique... which is a constant tension in all art that is meant as a critique.It's why Dave Chapelle quit his show. That being said, it's not child pornography, it's not pedophelia and it shouldn't be banned or a reason to cancel Netflix.

I honestly didn't think the movie was all that great since it largely lacked subtlety. Maybe I would have been more shocked by the scenes in question had there not been any controversy, but hearing the accusations made me expect worse that I saw. But I the more I think about it the more it's clear to me the people who isolated the clips of the dancing and posted them, even if to use it to call for cancelling the film, are actually more guilty than the filmmakers and Netflix of the accusations at hand. They literally posted children sexualizing themselves without the context... so a pervo could just look at those scenes, and not have to sit through the movie.

I do think the most interesting thing about the movie is the dual sexualization of little girls. There's kind of a mirror image of exploitation going on, where the more modern Western society sexualizes (and/or promotes sexualization of) little girls, represented by dance moves. But at the same time, the traditional Muslim society sexualizes and exploits girls and women in a different way through patriarchal domination that forces them into subservient roles and forces them to essentially function as sexual servants to their husbands (to whom they may be engaged before reaching puberty) without any real agency. I think the question of which one is worse is a real question that I'm not in a position to answer. But it spelled out the plight of little girls balancing those two worlds that are hostile them in a pretty profound way.

Ho Hum. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...