So Netflix's Cuties is a Thing That Exists...

Post Reply
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

So Netflix's Cuties is a Thing That Exists...

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

I feel like I'm late to the party hearing about this. Only did thanks to The Quartering doing a video about how apparently Netflix has lost $9 billion because of people unsubscribing over this show. So I looked it up on Wikipedia and what's funny is that the critical reviews are really good. Normally I wouldn't have any interest in this, but the conflict between the glowing critical reviews and the immense backlash it's getting from audiences and politicians is a fascinating dichotomy. Anyone had the courage enough to actually watch it? I think deep down I suspect that this another example of audiences just having no clue how to interpret art, mistaking "depiction" for "endorsement," and going ballistic because anything involving sex and kids seems to turn people batshit insane.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
Raxivace
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:35 am

Re: So Netflix's Cuties is a Thing That Exists...

Post by Raxivace »

I've heard about the controversy, but haven't seen it yet myself (Is it a series? I thought it was a movie). I do have similar suspicions about the outrage over it though.
"[Cinema] is a labyrinth with a treacherous resemblance to reality." - Andrew Sarris
User avatar
Gendo
Site Admin
Posts: 2882
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:38 pm

Re: So Netflix's Cuties is a Thing That Exists...

Post by Gendo »

I was wondering if we'd get a thread on this here.

I've gotten into a couple debates about this on Facebook. There seem to be two separate issues at play:

1) Netflix's marketing and poster for the movie. They released a poster which makes it seem as though the intent of the movie is actually the opposite of the movie's real intent. Netflix apologized for this mistake.

2) Good intentions or not; the question of whether the filmmakers went about executing those intentions in a good way. This is where the real debate seems to lie now that people have begun to learn that the initial marketing wasn't accurate.

Here's the thing... (having not watched the film myself), yes, it seems that the film portrays sexualization of children as a bad thing; much as 12 Years a Slave portrays slavery as a bad thing. The intent of the film is to condemn the thing that are happening, and it gets that message across.

HOWEVER... when it comes to the specific content shown, the things happening on the film aren't being "acted" or "faked". In order to make the film, they literally did dress 11-year-old girls up in these particular outfits and have them do various physical acts that are clearly overtly sexual in nature. The fact that the girls are actresses being hired to make this film only changes the intention of the filmmakers; it doesn't change the actual physical things that are being filmed.

This is in contrast to things like 12 Years a Slave, where the filmmakers used acting and camera tricks to make it look like someone was getting whipped and brutalized. The filmmakers didn't actually do the action of whipping or brutalizing the actors; it's all fake. Nudity and sexuality is fundamentally different than violence and death in this way. When nudity is shown on film, it's not "fake"; someone is actually naked and having their picture taken. Same principle applies to Cuties. The 11-year-old actresses aren't just pretending to dress that way and do those things; they literally are doing them and having it filmed.

I do think intentions matter, which is one of the reasons that I reject the "Cuties is child porn!" as hyperbole. But good intentions aren't enough to make something ok. Whether it was for a good reason or not, the filmmakers still did something that I consider to be inherently wrong; they did the same actual action as the people that they are condemning; they just did it with different intentions.
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: So Netflix's Cuties is a Thing That Exists...

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

Raxivace wrote:I've heard about the controversy, but haven't seen it yet myself (Is it a series? I thought it was a movie). I do have similar suspicions about the outrage over it though.
It is a movie.
Gendo wrote:I've gotten into a couple debates about this on Facebook. There seem to be two separate issues at play:

...
Hadn't heard about the marketing/poster. *checks* First thought that comes to mind is that those look like cheerleading uniforms... Although all of this makes for interesting points to discuss in general, it all seems a bit moot without actually having watched the film. Seems like you'd really have to know what's portrayed and how considering there are plenty of techniques you can use to suggest much more than what's actually shown. You're generally right about not being able to fake nudity (though there certainly exists merkins and fake penises), you can definitely do a lot to suggest sexuality in how you shoot/edit something. Even assuming they just straight-up show kids doing sexual dances or whatever, isn't part of the issue that this is already common online anyway with kids twerking and whatnot? If so, to have a film depicting/criticizing it should be far less of an issue than the real-life cases of it happening.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
Derived Absurdity
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2799
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:07 am

Re: So Netflix's Cuties is a Thing That Exists...

Post by Derived Absurdity »

The problem people have with this movie is the cinematography. It shows extended close-ups of body parts of children in sexualized poses and whatnot. (I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen some clips.) The complaint is that the camera itself sexualizes children, not just that it depicts children doing sexual things. And seeing the clips, it's hard to disagree, even if they are decontextualized.
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: So Netflix's Cuties is a Thing That Exists...

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

Derived Absurdity wrote:The problem people have with this movie is the cinematography. It shows extended close-ups of body parts of children in sexualized poses and whatnot. (I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen some clips.) The complaint is that the camera itself sexualizes children, not just that it depicts children doing sexual things. And seeing the clips, it's hard to disagree, even if they are decontextualized.
That's what I figured was more the case, but if so it seems that there should be less of an issue because then you don't have kids doing overtly sexual things as much as you're using cinematography to make it seem sexual; and in a film about how kids are overly-sexualized because of social media (or whatever), I'm not sure how you could completely avoid it.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
Raxivace
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:35 am

Re: So Netflix's Cuties is a Thing That Exists...

Post by Raxivace »

Eva Yojimbo wrote:The Quartering
Reading your post again, this is the actual part that should be controversial and generate pages of response.

Dude why are you watching The Quartering? The guy behind that channel is a disingenuous idiot who whines about how feminists and "The SJW's" (Though really what he's mad about seems to be "women") are ruining video game criticism with bad reviews about games HE'S NEVER EVEN PLAYED and other such nonsense. Like I'd be shocked if he actually watched this Cuties movie before making several videos about it.
"[Cinema] is a labyrinth with a treacherous resemblance to reality." - Andrew Sarris
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: So Netflix's Cuties is a Thing That Exists...

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

Raxivace wrote:
Eva Yojimbo wrote:The Quartering
Reading your post again, this is the actual part that should be controversial and generate pages of response.

Dude why are you watching The Quartering? The guy behind that channel is a disingenuous idiot who whines about how feminists and "The SJW's" (Though really what he's mad about seems to be "women") are ruining video game criticism with bad reviews about games HE'S NEVER EVEN PLAYED and other such nonsense. Like I'd be shocked if he actually watched this Cuties movie before making several videos about it.
I usually don't, but MXR Plays, which is a channel I do watch because Henry and Jeannie's relationship is #lifegoals, got its second strike, and they credited TheQuartering for helping them to get it removed, so I checked out the video he did on their situation, and then I saw the "Netflix has lost $9 billion because of this" video and clicked out of curiosity. Thus goes the YT rabbit hole. I had no idea of his views on feminism and SJW or anything else.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
Raxivace
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:35 am

Re: So Netflix's Cuties is a Thing That Exists...

Post by Raxivace »

Oh good. I would become legit sad if you were falling into that crowd. Like, full on Obi-Wan yelling "You were the chosen one!" to Anakin is the energy I would get. [sad]



This is a video that goes into some of the issues with The Quartering, if you're interested. Some of the arguments that Bobvids makes about the example used of Days Gone I think are questionable based on the clips he showed (Haven't played that game myself though), but otherwise I think is pretty decent.
"[Cinema] is a labyrinth with a treacherous resemblance to reality." - Andrew Sarris
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: So Netflix's Cuties is a Thing That Exists...

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

That's a pretty damning video. Even the video I saw he did on MXR and Cuties seemed rather pointless to me. The former was just him randomly ranting about YT, and even though his complaints seemed legit (based on what I've heard from Henry and Jeannie about how YT handles strikes and appeals), I have no idea what was supposedly helpful about it other than the basic fact of him being supportive of them. I don't even really remember what his Cuties video was about other than how Netflix's stock has been plummeting since releasing it. So I had no desire to check out any more of his videos anyway and the above just made me extra sure about that.

Maybe I should be sad that you'd ever think I'd fall in with "that crowd" anyway. Don't you know me better than that? [none]
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
Raxivace
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:35 am

Re: So Netflix's Cuties is a Thing That Exists...

Post by Raxivace »

It seeming out of character for you is why I felt the need to say something in the first place!

But yeah its pretty crazy stuff.
"[Cinema] is a labyrinth with a treacherous resemblance to reality." - Andrew Sarris
Derived Absurdity
Ultimate Poster
Posts: 2799
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:07 am

Re: So Netflix's Cuties is a Thing That Exists...

Post by Derived Absurdity »

I haven't seen The Quartering's videos (never heard of him), but I have seen videos where people basically show decontextualized clips of the movie and point and stutter at them in performative shock and outrage.

And they do indeed seem gross and vile, but context and intent really matters, I think. It is meaningful that the larger context makes it clear that we're supposed to find these scenes (and the way they're shot) disturbing. Intention is relevant in deciding whether something qualifies as "child porn"; that's why photo albums with naked babies and documentaries with nude toddlers in them are considered acceptable. You have to prove that the intention behind the video or image is sexual stimulation. It seems obvious that with Cuties, it's not. The camera frame, in all cases, was making a point. Maybe it went too far, I don't know. But that's an artistic complaint, not a moral one.
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: So Netflix's Cuties is a Thing That Exists...

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

^ Absolutely agree, though it's worth pointing out there have been trials over similar cases before. The one I know about was when an art gallery decided to show photos of naked children (and a lot of sexually explicit photographs of adults) by Robert Mapplethorpe. They made a (pretty bad) film about this years later that starred James Woods called Dirty Pictures. Another case I know about, though one that never went to court, was over Sally Mann's photo book that was pictures of her own children, some of which had them naked.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
User avatar
Eva Yojimbo
Ultra Poster
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:34 pm
Location: The Land of Cows and Twisters

Re: So Netflix's Cuties is a Thing That Exists...

Post by Eva Yojimbo »

One definite good thing that's come of this controversy is that I've never seen aesthetic theories become such a topic of mainstream debate. Like, I saw one video where they were literally discussing the importance of authorial intent in interpreting art and I swear one comment referenced The Intentional Fallacy by Wimstatt and Beardsley. I haven't heard that referenced since my days of studying/debating poetry! Of all the comments I've read on the film, though, I found this one quite interesting. It's clearly from a non-native English speaker and the single-paragraph/ellipses is rather hard on the eyes, but he makes some very interesting points. Not sure if any of them are actually correct, but it's good food for thought:
I'm making this comment here, for I hope here it has a chance to be heard (it could end up a long one).... americans still don't realize that you've been had, do you? the film is in the tradition of european (esp french) "provocateur filmmaking".... its aim is to show an underlying societal truth through the reactions it provokes... in the case of "cuties" that truth is our western, esp american, hypocricy.... first in the critical reception... on the american right, nowadays all about freedom of speech, artists right to "push the envelope" etc, they have been (and rightfully so) outraged when mainstream and left leaning media derided "Joker" without seeing it... now lots of them ride the cuties train for weeks (for clicks and money) proudly stating they have not seen it... on the left and the mainstream, usually so concerned about female sexualization, no one dares bat an eye here because of the directors race and sex... so they are all hypocrites only concerned with how the movie fits their agenda.... next the general public: of course they will share in the moral outrage, its expected of them.... then they will go home and watch it, making it one of netflixes biggest successes to date.... but most importantly and glaringly is the fact that no american has yet admitted that the oversexualization shown on screen is in itself american.... it was expected of you to just get on your moral high horse.... the dance scenes are supposed to be disgusting... they're even shown in the reality of the movie to be disgusting.... that is not the point... they are exact recreations, in the way they're choreographed, filmed and edited, of the way american corps (most of all disney) present their female artists (miley cyrus, britney spears, christina aguilera, selena gomez, ashley tisdale, vanessa hudgens, lindsay lohan, bella thorne and the list goes on) while they're underage.... their music videos and shows are pure pedobait and have always been.... thats why they always pay them of as soon as the girls turn 18 and give them "a more mature image".... i guess the director chose twerking because never have they done it more obvious and shameless than with miley cyrus... mere days after her 18th birthday they basically threw her on stage naked to rub her crotch on a serial sex offender... and everybody celebrated that it was finally legal to sexualize her.... the girls in the film are the exact age most miley fans in europe were at the time.... lots of them started making twerking vids after that cause they idolized her.... lastly the hypocricy of hollywood... american film has only to immigrant stories... immigrant from a repressive home goes into the western world and finds "freedom and happiness" or realizes capitalisms promises are empty and embrace their native culture... both are lies as expressed in cuties ending.... the young girl runs home after she realized what shes doing on that stage only to then start twerking in front of her family.... both the audience at the competition and her family are disgusted... it shows that state of limbo our culture leaves esp immigrant women in... whether they try to fully adapt or keep their native culture, they will be treated with disgust... not once have I heard an american bring up any of these points.... all americans wanna talk about in reference to cuties is sex with children... what we are to take from that I leave up to you....
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." -- Carl Jung
Post Reply