Franco too was a socialist cuck. After WW1 they waited until all leaders were of the cabal to start the slaughter of the greatest generation.
Also compare Franco's surname to that of the authors of the most popular holo-memoirs, Anne Frank and Viktor Frankl.
But the way Netflix marketed the movie is clearly pro-pedo. The way the movie was shot could have been done so much more tastefully. I absolutely do not defend either of those things.
I didn't watch the movie, only skimmed it to see if it matched up with what I read about it before release.
The overall message of the movie is, in very short terms: girl is raised by very conservative family, rebels against them and hangs out with crowd of impressionable stupid girls that love pop music. The internet actively sexualizes them and teaches them how to twerk. At the end, the girl has a breakdown and returns to her family, disgusted by what she had done. I saw one scene where her family is going through her social media and pointing out that all of her attention is coming from creepy sex perverts.
I think the underlying message of this movie is actually something we support. Because children are being sexualized by pop culture. Children are being sexually exploited by the internet.
I also think that this is a topic that should be discussed. But there is a paradox here: how do you make a movie about this topic that doesn't show the viewer just how depraved and sexualized children are getting, without showing it, and being accused of producing child porn?
Maybe if I actually watched the movie it comes across way worse. It probably does. But the way fucking Netflix straight up used the shot of them in their whore outfits squatting and thrusting was goddamn appalling.
The overall message is against sexualization of children through pop culture. That is what happens to the girl in the movie, and she eventually rejects it and goes home to her conservative family, who spent the whole movie trying to tell her how damaging what she was getting into was.
The movie was filmed and edited in such a way that it absolutely contains 90 minutes of wank fuel for perverts and it's fucking disgusting how much their 'against sexual exploitation' film sexually exploits the girls.
Arguing that the movie is an action against pedophelia is like arguing that John Wick is a movie against gun violence just because the ending didn't actively glorify all his actions.
If you want to get all film critic about it, and try to justify one aspect against another, here's your answer: This topic should not be "entertaining". It is perfectly possible to showcase the horrors of Hollyweird and child exploitation without going too far. It just isn't possible to do so in a titillating and entertaining way, while also being respectful. Frankly, this topic and "titillating" shouldn't even be in the same paragraph, but some Sundance pedo insisted they should. Schindler's List showcases you can show the hardships experienced on both sides of the concentration camp, the trials of the nazis and inmates alike. It is not "fun". It is not "entertaining". It is not "titillating". It's horrific, and depressing. If they wanted to make it Springtime For Hitler cheery and show how AWESOME nazis were until the last ten minutes then do a reverse throwaway, it would have been rightfully panned as disrespectful and glorifying nazis.
If the movie was horrific and depressing, this would be resolved. It isn't hard to show creeps being creeps. Do you need dynamic camera angle close-ups? No. Show a long range, then close up on the disturbing crowd's reaction instead. Fighting movies do that all the time, give the impression of the action from far away with minimal detail, then use a character's reaction to it, in order to showcase the severity of it, instead of a close-up.
That wouldn't resolve the fact that these child actors are still involved in this extremely sketchy production made SPECIFICALLY TO PLEASE A PEDOPHILE (one of the head judges at the film festival it was competing in was arrested on pedo charges, they were likely catering to him to win an award), but it could at least solve the presentation problem to the public.
I don't disagree with you. I wrote in another comment that it was like trying to depict ISIS as horrible and cruel and you film 10 minutes of someone living peacefully in Syria and 10 minutes of them escaping ISIS, and then 90 minutes of badass martyrdom action scenes with sicknasty nasheeds.
I actually don't think the director made this 'intended' to be a creep film, I think she has her head too far up her own ass of "artistry", and would probably say 'NO SEE I INTENTIONALY MADE IT CREEPY TO UNDERSCORE THE CREEPINESS!'
But that's... really... not a good idea. And I'm 100% certain that every executive who approved this without saying "yeah, you gotta change this" is a creepy sex pervert.
I do think you need to depict the subject matter in some fashion though. There are a lot of utterly brainless retard parents out there who are thoroughly out of touch and have no idea what the fuck their kids are exposed to.
Like you said, you can make a film out of this. You practically could do it just in editing.
But it's all in the cinematography and how you present it, and that is where this film fails so fucking catastrophically that it deserves the criticism... I just think people should be depicting the criticism fairly and properly.
It must have been my internal bias that has kept me from seeing the true message of this stunning and brave piece of cinematic art. I will cut my penis off in solidarity.
Reminds me of the old National Police Gazette, which used the cover of being a crime reporting magazine to get around decency laws and talk in graphic detail about illegal boxing, brothels, and violence. Ostensibly, this was to report on the filth plaguing society. In reality, it was an excuse to publish a porn magazine.
If you ever do feel like arguing with them, any time someone brings up the "Social Construct" argument for anything, remember, a social construct requires a social contract. If it isn't objective, it requires me to agree with you in order for your definition to make sense. So if I don't agree, you by extension have no position, therefore I'm right, as the only position left in the argument is one that does not require agreement with onlookers, it is objective, not subjective.
And then just hammer on the fact that you can't use subjectivity on an objective measure unless all sides agree with the subjective measure, which you don't. They can't find flaw with the objective measure, because for most intents and purposes, it is objectively true.
This movie is way worse than I even expected
I knew it was some pedo shit when we first saw the trailer, but HOLY CRAP, the movie is absolutely nuts. They zoom in on the girls butts constantly the entire movie, and its nonstop filled with sexualization. They dance the same way Cardi B does in the WAP video. Its crazy bad.
Like it is almost front to back glorifying of sluttiness. The girl watches videos of borderline porn of girls twerking and is impressed. The girls lie about their age to impress some older boys, Its bad. Young girls think this stuff is "cool" , that's very bad for them.
And before you call me a perv the only reason I watched this movie is because I'm studying French and I watch/consume a lot of French media to get better at it
The girl watches videos of borderline porn of girls twerking and is impressed. The girls lie about their age to impress some older boys, Its bad. Young girls think this stuff is "cool" , that's very bad for them.
The thing is, the topic of the movie is actually fucking real. Because in reality, little girls are watching ultra-whores like Cardi B. and are trying to imitate her. Which is what this movie actively portrays: the main character rebels against her very conservative family and falls in with the pop-culture whore crowd.
But from what I saw the movie was very tastelessly shot (like you said, the constant "glamor" shots of the girls). They didn't handle the subject matter in any way that could be portrayed except its own glorification of the subject, even as it ironically makes an indictment of it.
And the way Netflix marketed it was inexcusable. Even the fucking name 'Cuties', christ dude, really? The movie could've handled the issue if it actively portrayed it as a dark, unpleasant thing, but I saw shots of them all laughing and cheering and dancing constantly with bright happy colors everywhere.
That kind of cinematography is used to portray positive things. Not bad things.
This movie is actually kind of a paradox. The sexualization of children in our culture is fucking disgusting and deplorable. The movie's actual story really is ABOUT A GIRL WHO FALLS INTO THAT TRAP, BUT REJECTS IT.
But how do you make a movie about this without everyone calling it pedobait? Because at some point you will have to show the viewer - who may actually be out of touch with what girls are exposed to on the internet - what girls are exposed to on the internet.
So ultimately I have mixed feelings on this. I didn't actually watch it, only skimmed, but I saw both sides of this. I definitely think the movie was excessive in 'show not tell', but people saying that the movie is anti-sexualization of children are not wrong.
and aCkShUaLLy iF yOu wAtCh iT, iT's AnTi-pEdO
To anyone lurking, this guy isn’t memeing. People are actually saying this
Literally exploiting them in pedo porn while claiming to be defending them. The left are absolute scum.
"BuT iT wOn A gOlDeN gLoBe AwArD iN eUrOpE!"
The person in charge of giving out the Sundance award to this film was sent to jail for sexually abusing a minor
fool's gold
*...the same europe raped into oblivion by islam.
..."in Europe"....
Democracy is all about fooling 51% of the people
aNd aNtiFa ArE anTi FasCiSt. iT's iN tHe NaMe!
Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. DARVO.
It is a very standard tactic in ideological corruption.
"In order to stop the sexualization of children, we have to sexualize them. If you don't understand that, you're obviously pedophobic."
Yes, I am pedophobic:
I am afraid that not all pedos are dead. We should remedy that.
I have seen it said.
It's disgusting.
All pedos should get comfy in a nice electric chair.
Pinochet did nothing wrong, and neither did McCarthy. Pinochet is a hero.
¡Mi General, Augusto Pinochet!
You forgot someone.
Franco too was a socialist cuck. After WW1 they waited until all leaders were of the cabal to start the slaughter of the greatest generation. Also compare Franco's surname to that of the authors of the most popular holo-memoirs, Anne Frank and Viktor Frankl.
But the way Netflix marketed the movie is clearly pro-pedo. The way the movie was shot could have been done so much more tastefully. I absolutely do not defend either of those things.
I didn't watch the movie, only skimmed it to see if it matched up with what I read about it before release.
The overall message of the movie is, in very short terms: girl is raised by very conservative family, rebels against them and hangs out with crowd of impressionable stupid girls that love pop music. The internet actively sexualizes them and teaches them how to twerk. At the end, the girl has a breakdown and returns to her family, disgusted by what she had done. I saw one scene where her family is going through her social media and pointing out that all of her attention is coming from creepy sex perverts.
I think the underlying message of this movie is actually something we support. Because children are being sexualized by pop culture. Children are being sexually exploited by the internet.
I also think that this is a topic that should be discussed. But there is a paradox here: how do you make a movie about this topic that doesn't show the viewer just how depraved and sexualized children are getting, without showing it, and being accused of producing child porn?
Maybe if I actually watched the movie it comes across way worse. It probably does. But the way fucking Netflix straight up used the shot of them in their whore outfits squatting and thrusting was goddamn appalling.
When I called to cancel it, the guy on the phone tried to tell me the show was about anti pedophilia.
Two things are true:
The overall message is against sexualization of children through pop culture. That is what happens to the girl in the movie, and she eventually rejects it and goes home to her conservative family, who spent the whole movie trying to tell her how damaging what she was getting into was.
The movie was filmed and edited in such a way that it absolutely contains 90 minutes of wank fuel for perverts and it's fucking disgusting how much their 'against sexual exploitation' film sexually exploits the girls.
Arguing that the movie is an action against pedophelia is like arguing that John Wick is a movie against gun violence just because the ending didn't actively glorify all his actions.
If you want to get all film critic about it, and try to justify one aspect against another, here's your answer: This topic should not be "entertaining". It is perfectly possible to showcase the horrors of Hollyweird and child exploitation without going too far. It just isn't possible to do so in a titillating and entertaining way, while also being respectful. Frankly, this topic and "titillating" shouldn't even be in the same paragraph, but some Sundance pedo insisted they should. Schindler's List showcases you can show the hardships experienced on both sides of the concentration camp, the trials of the nazis and inmates alike. It is not "fun". It is not "entertaining". It is not "titillating". It's horrific, and depressing. If they wanted to make it Springtime For Hitler cheery and show how AWESOME nazis were until the last ten minutes then do a reverse throwaway, it would have been rightfully panned as disrespectful and glorifying nazis.
If the movie was horrific and depressing, this would be resolved. It isn't hard to show creeps being creeps. Do you need dynamic camera angle close-ups? No. Show a long range, then close up on the disturbing crowd's reaction instead. Fighting movies do that all the time, give the impression of the action from far away with minimal detail, then use a character's reaction to it, in order to showcase the severity of it, instead of a close-up.
That wouldn't resolve the fact that these child actors are still involved in this extremely sketchy production made SPECIFICALLY TO PLEASE A PEDOPHILE (one of the head judges at the film festival it was competing in was arrested on pedo charges, they were likely catering to him to win an award), but it could at least solve the presentation problem to the public.
I don't disagree with you. I wrote in another comment that it was like trying to depict ISIS as horrible and cruel and you film 10 minutes of someone living peacefully in Syria and 10 minutes of them escaping ISIS, and then 90 minutes of badass martyrdom action scenes with sicknasty nasheeds.
I actually don't think the director made this 'intended' to be a creep film, I think she has her head too far up her own ass of "artistry", and would probably say 'NO SEE I INTENTIONALY MADE IT CREEPY TO UNDERSCORE THE CREEPINESS!'
But that's... really... not a good idea. And I'm 100% certain that every executive who approved this without saying "yeah, you gotta change this" is a creepy sex pervert.
I do think you need to depict the subject matter in some fashion though. There are a lot of utterly brainless retard parents out there who are thoroughly out of touch and have no idea what the fuck their kids are exposed to.
Like you said, you can make a film out of this. You practically could do it just in editing.
But it's all in the cinematography and how you present it, and that is where this film fails so fucking catastrophically that it deserves the criticism... I just think people should be depicting the criticism fairly and properly.
I'm so sorry.
It must have been my internal bias that has kept me from seeing the true message of this stunning and brave piece of cinematic art. I will cut my penis off in solidarity.
Hey, now without your penis you can get pregnant!
Hashtag not all humxns who get pregnant are women.
Reminds me of the old National Police Gazette, which used the cover of being a crime reporting magazine to get around decency laws and talk in graphic detail about illegal boxing, brothels, and violence. Ostensibly, this was to report on the filth plaguing society. In reality, it was an excuse to publish a porn magazine.
And death is just an end!
And rope and millstones are just tools of justice!
Hashtag all pedos should commit toaster bath.
If you ever do feel like arguing with them, any time someone brings up the "Social Construct" argument for anything, remember, a social construct requires a social contract. If it isn't objective, it requires me to agree with you in order for your definition to make sense. So if I don't agree, you by extension have no position, therefore I'm right, as the only position left in the argument is one that does not require agreement with onlookers, it is objective, not subjective.
And then just hammer on the fact that you can't use subjectivity on an objective measure unless all sides agree with the subjective measure, which you don't. They can't find flaw with the objective measure, because for most intents and purposes, it is objectively true.
Love is love. It knows no age
Ugh I remember when Snapchat had that as a filter.
Lol it's gross.
This movie is way worse than I even expected
I knew it was some pedo shit when we first saw the trailer, but HOLY CRAP, the movie is absolutely nuts. They zoom in on the girls butts constantly the entire movie, and its nonstop filled with sexualization. They dance the same way Cardi B does in the WAP video. Its crazy bad.
Like it is almost front to back glorifying of sluttiness. The girl watches videos of borderline porn of girls twerking and is impressed. The girls lie about their age to impress some older boys, Its bad. Young girls think this stuff is "cool" , that's very bad for them.
And before you call me a perv the only reason I watched this movie is because I'm studying French and I watch/consume a lot of French media to get better at it
I read that the girls at one point are depicted as taking nude selfies... is that accurate?
Yes
Welp... I have to start collating a list.
Nah homey "her body, her choixe." Women wanted this and now THEY get to see what men see when they act and dress like whores themselves
And this is why, we parents should not let our children watch such smut nor think it's cool.
And perhaps start, ehem, voicing our concerns..."Cuties" dutifully reported.
The thing is, the topic of the movie is actually fucking real. Because in reality, little girls are watching ultra-whores like Cardi B. and are trying to imitate her. Which is what this movie actively portrays: the main character rebels against her very conservative family and falls in with the pop-culture whore crowd.
But from what I saw the movie was very tastelessly shot (like you said, the constant "glamor" shots of the girls). They didn't handle the subject matter in any way that could be portrayed except its own glorification of the subject, even as it ironically makes an indictment of it.
And the way Netflix marketed it was inexcusable. Even the fucking name 'Cuties', christ dude, really? The movie could've handled the issue if it actively portrayed it as a dark, unpleasant thing, but I saw shots of them all laughing and cheering and dancing constantly with bright happy colors everywhere.
That kind of cinematography is used to portray positive things. Not bad things.
This movie is actually kind of a paradox. The sexualization of children in our culture is fucking disgusting and deplorable. The movie's actual story really is ABOUT A GIRL WHO FALLS INTO THAT TRAP, BUT REJECTS IT.
But how do you make a movie about this without everyone calling it pedobait? Because at some point you will have to show the viewer - who may actually be out of touch with what girls are exposed to on the internet - what girls are exposed to on the internet.
So ultimately I have mixed feelings on this. I didn't actually watch it, only skimmed, but I saw both sides of this. I definitely think the movie was excessive in 'show not tell', but people saying that the movie is anti-sexualization of children are not wrong.