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.

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.