Are people being double-standard-ish on the movie Cuties?

Post Reply New Topic

I'll say it how I see it.
Netflix promoted this thing incredibly badly and people RIGHTLY didn't like what it was advertising.
The joke is that the movie condemns the very behaviours and attitudes and moral sickness that its haters are going on about.

*Sigh*

Tbh it doesn't look any fun to me and I don't want to see kids dancing.
The only kid movie I watch is generally Mac Culkin shooting Marv in the face with his air rifle / BB gun / I dunno what the f**k that gun is.

Well, the director being a woman does give some credit to it in authenticity of representation of a female experience. That statement does not mean that a man could not happen to make the same thing and should be treated as valuable, but as a sign. The argument that the Left would attack it if it was happened to have been made by a white man is kind of hyperbolic, since I doubt that you have evidence that it would be.

Sure there are some people on the Left that place too much value in identity politics in the value of media simply of what the creator is, but I question whether that is something representative of the Left over the Right also being as guilty, since for example there is one side of the political aisle that is much more likely to think only one gender should be allowed to become president.

I myself recently read a work that is largely about the female experience of a girl with social anxiety likely closeted bisexual and other homosexual girls, and as far as I know it is created by a man. It does not mean that I will automatically throw the story as being necessarily inauthentic because of their gender and their undetermined sexuality experience. An opinion of representation is good does not mean that a single instance of a lack of it or a mismatch will mean that it is bad.

Oh okay, and yes a male director would definitely have to do research on the subject for sure. Those are good points.

So why is it that the U.S. government is going after Netflix only, rather than the actual filmmaker in terms of indictments? Does it just cost less to prosecute Netflix only?

Because it is virtue signaling BS that they can go after an American company via a nebulous concept of indecency rather than question some French woman on artistic merits around her own experiences. If they did it would just become super obvious what they are doing, upset over topics of females questioning their agency in their own sexuality. That they are completely fine when their president admitted on tape to taking part sexual assault by going into changing rooms of beauty pageants run on his property and "grabbing them by the p****". But lose their mind at the concept that a young girl might have experience in wanting control in her life by acting in ways that are inappropriate for her age.

Because female sexuality is fine when it is in service to men, how they are comfortable with it, but wrong when not. This is why things like female orgasm is thought of as like as something that does not exist by a lot of people, that period is treated like a dirty word and people love the idea of a father meeting his daughter's boyfriend with a shotgun. This is not an argument that young girls being sexualised is fine if it is done by a woman, and them twerking is great, but maybe it is a good idea to listen to some in their experiences, and maybe how women are held to a different standard to men, like the very concept of slut shaming.

Yes there are cases of exploitation but legally the child is unlikely to win a court case where the parent is their legal guardian and secondly the activity they are asking their child to participate in is legal.

In Australia there was a famous cases of artists being attacked by people as high profile as prime ministers where children have been depicted semi-nude. I think it boils down to the intention. If the child is in artwork or even advertising children's underwear (this still goes on?) where the consensus is the intention is not to exploit the child then those criticising (even if they have power) don't really have legal recourse.

I have already stated this is not a political issue or racial issue. Those on the right are more likely to carry conservative values and might be more likely to triggered by modern/progressive art (We know the Nazis despised modern art) however many art connoisseurs who love this stuff are "petit bourgeois" who are likely from the wealthy elite.

Oh okay, but I didn't know people on the right didn't like new modern art. Why is this, or where is this coming from, as long as they find the movie entertaining?

That's my understanding- that Netflix decided to promote it in English-speaking countries with an out-of-context image of young girls in sexy outfits and poses (plus a seriously misleading blurb) which is not at all how it was originally promoted to French audiences. Part of the reason the far right has taken up this cause is the whole QAnon conspiracy theory, which claims that the Secret Rulers of the World (those billionaire Jewish Marxist liberal Reptoid agents) are kidnapping and abusing children on an industrial scale in order to harvest their hormones for immortality treatments. QAnon lean heavily on this angle when luring in converts, because who doesn't hate paedophiles? And when snooty liberal Europeans speak out in favour of this film, "they must be in on the evil plot."

Don't think I'd fancy seeing the movie myself - the subject is skin-crawly even to read about. And I'm on the edge about how ethical it was to use actual child actors for it.

The far-right manifesto puports the old "white slave trade" where human trafficking of young "aryan children" is in the hands of the jews. This myth is older and far more pervasive than the QAnon conspiracy theory.

I think the whole response is complex and deserves an entire book. What constitutes modern art and what is acceptable varies quite a lot. The upper class in the US and UK tend to favor the old European renaissance style of painting their own mugshots (rather vain practice of portraits), fox hunting and water colours of landscapes but there's no set type.

Well it seems to me that I am a little more on the right than left, but perhaps close to the middle. I like lots of new movies, and never had a problem, so I guess I don't see why other people on the right would not like new movies as well.

Not every matter is a left/right issue.

But it was said before that the people on the right do not like this movie and have a problem with new or modern art. So if that's the reason why they don't like it, then isn't it a right issue therefore?

Does that seem like an appropriate basis for deciding how you feel about the issue?

Well, another post brought it up, I was just asking more about what someone else brought up.

It's a Daisy Red Rider, my family has one.