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.
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
He should have been hung. Jail for pedos? Ugh, they don't deserve to live after the first strike.
Oh yeah, huh. It was the Sundance. Oh well, Globe, Sundance, same difference. Both are rich movie snob circle jerks.
fool's gold
*...the same europe raped into oblivion by islam.
...the same europe that gave 0bama an award cuz he dindu nuffin.
..."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 am 5.56% fully semi-autopedophobic. Watch out, pedo scum!
Symbolically speaking, just like you said.
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.
Thank you for clearing this up. Its just sad parents let their children run their life. Why are adult letting children dictate things.
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.