By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies Discussion - Netflix Loses Millions of Subscriptions Over Controversial Film, "Cuties" For Sexploiting Children

thismeintiel said:
OhNoYouDont said:
Netflix didn't make this movie...it's simply a movie available on their platform. It's like going to the supermarket and getting pissed at the store for having dildos available.

I wouldn't put dildos in my grocery store but some people like dildos.

You act as if Netflix, or a grocery store, have no control of what they put on their platform/shelves. They decide what they sell. And this would be more like a grocery store selling smaller dildos aimed and marketed at preteens. That wouldn't go over well in any area.

Mnementh said:

Didn't they already cover this like in the first season? The episode there the enraged parents fling themself against the TV station to protest against Terrence&Philipp. These days the TV-station get's replaced with Netflix and flinging people with a social media shit storm, but the basic premise stays the same, don't you think?

I have a feeling South Park would mock the movie and its makers, not the outrage surrounding it. They seem very opposed to the sexualization of kids. Mocking it with Raisins, a store like Hooters, but with young girls. Also, an episode mocking beauty pageants, with a judge jerking off to the young girls.

Of course they have control over what products are available on their platform. But just because you don't like the product doesn't mean they won't make it available for others who do.

I reject your false analogy. It would be like making thongs for preteens and having them available. Oh wait, they do have that...

I will add that simply because you find something to be sexual doesn't mean that it is sexual intrinsically.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Barozi said:

Again I haven't seen the movie but since someone here claimed that there isn't even any nudity in the movie, I did some research and according to Forbes, the breast in that internet video does not belong to a minor.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/09/12/ted-cruz-falsely-claims-netflixs-cuties-shows-child-nudity-in-call-for-doj-probe/#5de3c744c162

The rest seems to be exactly what the director was aiming for.

Here's an interview with the producer:

What was the inspiration for this project?
It came from Maïmouna’s personal experience. She grew up in a large family living in one room in the 19th district of Paris, in a social housing project. She regularly goes back to the neighborhood to see her family and in one of the local festivities she saw a group of young 11-year-old girls dancing very provocatively to an audience with many mothers wearing traditional head scarves. She found it fascinating and disturbing and it raised the question of what role models young women can follow. It’s a very visceral movie. It really got under her skin and we feel it.

https://variety.com/2020/film/global/zangro-sundance-cuties-1203467120/

So basically she wanted to film what she has seen in real life. Wouldn't work nearly as well if she casted 16-year-olds and pretended they were 14 in the movie.

Also seriously? 11-year-olds watching porn on smartphones? You have to be pretty naive to assume that this is uncommon.

Well from her interview she is acknowleding that she was doing very provocative poses and taping. So yes it was sexual exploitation.

I don't think you realize what the movie is about...



Barozi said:
DonFerrari said:

Well from her interview she is acknowleding that she was doing very provocative poses and taping. So yes it was sexual exploitation.

I don't think you realize what the movie is about...

Pretends to be about a criticism over the sexualization of underage (which could still be made with 18 year old girls that look teenagers and would still have the same basic meaning), but it achieves that by doing children and teens do sexually provocative dance and get close ups, so again she admitted to tape what she seemed in real life, and that in real life it was to be sexually provocative.

And no one can say someone is assexual and at the same time do sexual activities with intention.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

I wonder, would everyone be fine with the movie if it was all CGI?



DonFerrari said:
Barozi said:

I don't think you realize what the movie is about...

Pretends to be about a criticism over the sexualization of underage (which could still be made with 18 year old girls that look teenagers and would still have the same basic meaning), but it achieves that by doing children and teens do sexually provocative dance and get close ups, so again she admitted to tape what she seemed in real life, and that in real life it was to be sexually provocative.

And no one can say someone is assexual and at the same time do sexual activities with intention.

ah so you did get it. But what's your problem with it?

It's based on real life events that are 100% legal. Assuming someone in the audience filmed the dance choreography, would it suddenly turn into something illegal?

Also what's the difference between girls voluntarily doing a sexually provocative dance in real life and girls voluntarily trying to enact it in a movie?

In the end it's just girls trying out stuff that they are seeing everyday in social media and music videos.



Around the Network
ArchangelMadzz said:
vivster said:

I don't mind it at all if the children aren't hurt by it. So unless they were forced or coerced to do the movie I'm fine with it. That's also what separates a horror movie from real snuff. It's also what separates pedophilia from actual crimes. As long as the children are fine everything is fine.

I would like to think of this movie like one of those athletics competitions with really young children. Dancing and spreading in skin tight outfits in front of cameras. Whatever makes them happy.

https://twitter.com/Nezbabi/status/1304148167865389056?s=20


Are you going to tell me with a straight face you don't see the difference between this and the way girls olympics/gymnastics is shot and covered?

Thats effing disgusting and I hope Netflix and whoever made this get punished for this. 3 seconds of that material is more than enough to understand this is wrong in so many levels. I just can't understand how there are people defending this with a straight face. I was born in the Netherlands and people mention here that in Europe we are more okay for nudity but that is not really true. Some movies have received rightfully backlash. We are then not talking about a kid in bath of which you can see a face. And then this Cuties movie....That's not okay here. By far.



Stories unfolded with my home made rap songs. Feel free to listen here with lyrics: https://youtu.be/vyT9PbK5_T0

Cuties is meant to be a commentary on how the world is influencing children to act more sexual, and why this is very clearly a bad thing. A lot of people are comparing it to how war pieces are also meant to showcase how war is bad.

The difference being, in war pieces, no actual wars are being shown. All of the characters are actors, nobody actually dies, all the blood and gore is fake. With Cuties, there is an actual shot of an 11 year old topless. That is an actual case of child pornography. Imagine if a war movie actually murdered someone on screen and showcased them actually fighting for their life as they died. That would be the equivalent here, and people would be just as disgusted.



SvennoJ said:
I wonder, would everyone be fine with the movie if it was all CGI?

I wouldn`t watch but would be ok with it being on the platform (sure under the law of the country you are then the rating should be made accordingly).

Barozi said:
DonFerrari said:

Pretends to be about a criticism over the sexualization of underage (which could still be made with 18 year old girls that look teenagers and would still have the same basic meaning), but it achieves that by doing children and teens do sexually provocative dance and get close ups, so again she admitted to tape what she seemed in real life, and that in real life it was to be sexually provocative.

And no one can say someone is assexual and at the same time do sexual activities with intention.

ah so you did get it. But what's your problem with it?

It's based on real life events that are 100% legal. Assuming someone in the audience filmed the dance choreography, would it suddenly turn into something illegal?

Also what's the difference between girls voluntarily doing a sexually provocative dance in real life and girls voluntarily trying to enact it in a movie?

In the end it's just girls trying out stuff that they are seeing everyday in social media and music videos.

It is legal for two teenager to have sex, but it isn`t legal to tape it much less to distribute.

As someone else said if they were doing a documentary type and there were no close ups and such it would be much less problematic.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Yerm said:
Cuties is meant to be a commentary on how the world is influencing children to act more sexual, and why this is very clearly a bad thing. A lot of people are comparing it to how war pieces are also meant to showcase how war is bad.

The difference being, in war pieces, no actual wars are being shown. All of the characters are actors, nobody actually dies, all the blood and gore is fake. With Cuties, there is an actual shot of an 11 year old topless. That is an actual case of child pornography. Imagine if a war movie actually murdered someone on screen and showcased them actually fighting for their life as they died. That would be the equivalent here, and people would be just as disgusted.

And the funny part is that well a century or so ago 11-13 year old would be marrying and having actual sexual life. So I would say the world today is less sexuallized to children, it is just that there is more material available if you reach out.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Yerm said:
Cuties is meant to be a commentary on how the world is influencing children to act more sexual, and why this is very clearly a bad thing. A lot of people are comparing it to how war pieces are also meant to showcase how war is bad.

The difference being, in war pieces, no actual wars are being shown. All of the characters are actors, nobody actually dies, all the blood and gore is fake. With Cuties, there is an actual shot of an 11 year old topless. That is an actual case of child pornography. Imagine if a war movie actually murdered someone on screen and showcased them actually fighting for their life as they died. That would be the equivalent here, and people would be just as disgusted.

As others have pointed out earlier in this thread, the girl who exposes her breast is over 18.