LogFAQs > #944587811

I decided to wait for a source I trusted to cover this, and he made some decent points on the movie.

According to his assessment, while the basic story of the movie is "young girl is peer-pressured into sexualising herself, and she reaches a breaking point where she realises that this isn't for her and she's been exploited", there are scenes of these actual underage girls where the camera is focusing on their ass and crotch for seemingly no reason. It's just scenes of these girls practicing their routines or whatever and being filmed in a sexual way, for extended periods of time. That sounds pretty weird.

There's also apparently a scene where the main character has her pants pulled down in public, and there's no discretion shot or anything - you're just looking at this 13 year old actress, playing an 11 year old girl, with her panties exposed. And apparently it comes out of nowhere, or is at least seriously unexpected.

The point I ultimately took from my source is that while on the surface it can claim to be making a greater point about the sexualisation of children becoming more normalised, there are scenes which do ultimately sexualise these children in really blatant and unsettling ways. This director had these 13 year old actresses twerking and spreading their legs and shit, and she filmed these dances in a way that paid particular attention to their ass and crotch. It doesn't matter if it's meant to convey a greater point - you can make that greater point without having to constantly direct actual children to take part in activities which sexualise them. What the director did to the actresses in this movie is child exploitation.

These child actresses were paid to take part in sexualised activities, which they legally can't consent to, and these activities were recorded. To make this movie, these child actresses were exploited and sexualised, and the imagery of these children being sexualised - crotch and ass zoom-ins of 13 year old girls - is presented to the audience. Scenes depicting this aren't always tied to the plot, and are presented as-is.

One of the takeaway points made is that ultimately, at the end of the day, the only people who are going to give this movie any particular attention after the controversy dies down is MAPs. The story is apparently nothing special. It's full of sexualised imagery of children. No-one is going to revisit this movie as a strong, brave stance against child exploitation, because it is chock-full of child exploitation and it required the sexual exploitation of children to make this movie. At the end of the day, this movie seeks to profit off of the sexualisation of children.

I don't doubt that the director experienced sexual exploitation herself, but to make her movie, she had to put four or five actual children into sexualised situations, and she filmed them in ways to paint them in a sexual light. Regardless of her intended point, that's pretty abhorrent.

I think to make a piece of media that speaks out about the sexualisation of children, you don't necessarily have to depict children themselves being sexualised. South Park had an episode where all of the 4th grader girls touch up their pictures with Photoshop to sexualise themselves, and Wendy holds out until the end until she bows to peer pressure. I thought that was a great episode of South Park. It made a powerful point against the beauty standards being pushed onto children. You can have situations in media where younger characters are treated inappropriately by older people, or you could depict them in a situation where people are trying to sexualise them or where they can't escape a situation that makes them uncomfortable. You don't have to sexualise the character themselves to make a point about how younger people are often sexualised in society, or that they're exposed to things that try to prey on their insecurities and display them in a sexual light at younger ages. You don't have to sexualise actual children to make that point.

Even Little Miss Sunshine, which did depict child characters in an inappropriate light, filmed it in an ethical way - they filmed an actual child beauty pageant that was going on - and appropriately communicated how abnormal and uncomfortable it was. From how Cuties has been described to me, showing multiple 2-3 minute scenes of these 13 year old actresses twerking in spandex - occasionally removed from plot-related context - doesn't appropriately communicate how gross it is. And I don't think that the way they filmed those scenes were ethical at all.

And you can go "well the imagery is meant to be disgusting! If you take issue with this imagery and constantly talk about how sexualised it is, you're probably just a closeted pedophile for viewing it in such a heavily sexual light!" - but the fact remains that actual children were instructed to engage in sexually suggestive activities, dressed in clothing that aimed to sexualise their bodies and were filmed in a way to focus on parts of the human body that are traditionally sexualised. This movie contains actual child exploitation, with the intent of depicting underage girls through a sexualised lens, and apparently there are parts of the movie where this imagery is displayed for the sake of showing it off. The fact that they put real children through that process is questionable at best, and I would argue that it's reprehensible.

If your method of painting the sexual exploitation of minors in a negative light is to depict actual sexual exploitation of minors and let the audience decide how they want to feel, then you are creating content that appeals to people who respond to that imagery by getting horny.

And the fact that this side of the argument has become so entrenched and intertwined in a far-right conspiracy theory that Donald Trump is the only man in America who can bring pedophiles to justice is absolutely maddening, because this topic shouldn't be politicised. The right wing shouldn't be using child exploitation, sex trafficking and pedophilia as a way of promoting their political candidate, implying that the only thing standing in the way of mass child rape is Donald Trump. How the fuck did we get to a point where mass criticism of pedophilia is tied to far right conspiracy theories?

At the end of the day, I haven't seen Cuties. I saw a video from a source that I trust. He made some good points, and I'm choosing to hitch myself to that wagon. This is my understanding of the situation, and this is my take on it.

---

There are no pan-asian supermarkets down in hell, so you can't buy Golden Boy peanuts.
Now Playing: Skyrim, Hand of Fate 2