Netflix sexualising children.

alchemist33 · 21-08-2020 09:57AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Not in this there shouldnt, I genuinely did not think for one second id come in to this thread to find pages of people defending the film or its presentation, I thought we would all be in resounding agreement that it was inappropriate and exploiting children

I don't agree with the poster, but once again people shouldn't be judging the film until they've seen it. Many reports say its about a girl from a strict Muslim background breaking out from the norms of her society. Isn't this a good thing? And isn't decrying a film you haven't seen the epitome of the "cancel culture" so many on here rail against?

Psychiatric Patrick · 21-08-2020 09:57AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This. If Imake a film condemning child sex abuse im not going to make a child porn fil, upload it to netflix and say ‘everyone watch it, it should make you uncomfortable , watch a child porn and thinkabout how awful it is’

Yes the topics in this movie are important but there is effective ways to tell the story in a drama that does involve child actors and actresses doing and saying things a child shouldn't say - and to anybody who is thinking "kids see this on the internet", etc. that is a sick minded way to lose at it because they shouldn't and most don't.

One reviewer compared this movie to the pagent plot and the dance in Little Miss Sunshine and how they are about similar things told in a very different and very effective way that does not even remotely sexualise any of the pagent girls or Abigail Breslin and her characters while still getting that message across.

Fr Tod Umptious · 21-08-2020 09:59AM

CrankyHaus wrote: »

If you see anything sexual in this film then you're the one with the problem.

Look at the name of the poster you quoted !

Eric Cartman · 21-08-2020 09:59AM

alchemist33 wrote: »

I don't agree with the poster, but once again people shouldn't be judging the film until they've seen it. Many reports say its about a girl from a strict Muslim background breaking out from the norms of her society. Isn't this a good thing? And isn't decrying a film you haven't seen the epitome of the "cancel culture" so many on here rail against?

They say you cant judge a book by its cover, but if the cover has 11 year old girls in tiny outfits doing stripper poses, I dont want to see the contents.

Psychiatric Patrick · 21-08-2020 10:06AM

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Its been clear for a number of years there has been a campaign to normalise pedophilia from certain parts of society.

Even the OP here suffered lashback for noting the poster was disgusting (which it is)

It seems if you highlight something you are the one with the problem

'how could you look at it that way'
'maybe its people like you we should be worried about'

So many horrible people out there but hey im sure im the one with the problems because i have the issue

It reminds me of the reaction from many about James Gunn getting fired from Marvel/Disney.

Disregarding the "comedians" who talk that way all the time, a whole lot of "ordinary people" defended the comments Gunn had made in various ways even though the man himself made clear that the comments he had made were very wrong and that he had long ago become ashamed of them.

And there is the likes of Seth McFarlane who thinks child abuse in comedy - no he is not making a social commentary. And Rick and Morty is also about making it comedy.

Psychiatric Patrick · 21-08-2020 10:08AM

Jeffrey Epstein wrote: »

It's just a movie about girls wearing cute outfits and dancing and having fun with their friends.

Guys, chill out. Seriously.

I was about to seriously tear into you about the comment. It took a while for the name to register.

You have summed it all up in the most perfect way with that.

Sweet.Science · 21-08-2020 10:12AM

seamus wrote: »

The image in the OP is a fake created to make it appear like this is a pageant-style movie about dancing 11 year olds being sexy. It's not an image that Netflix has produced.

The "specialising in twerking routines" is also made up nonsense that has little to do with the film.

Look at the trailer and you'll see very little connection with the fake posters the OP has posted.

This an award-winning French film about a preteens immigrants difficulty aligning her home culture and home life with that around her. Examinig the early sexualisation of children is a theme in this movie.

Of course, American Nazi and religious types are losing their mind about it, while ignoring the fact that they are the biggest creators and consumers of actual child porn in the world.

The amount of people who agreed with this without even trying to see if it was true

hots · 21-08-2020 10:13AM

alchemist33 wrote: »

I don't agree with the poster, but once again people shouldn't be judging the film until they've seen it. Many reports say its about a girl from a strict Muslim background breaking out from the norms of her society. Isn't this a good thing? And isn't decrying a film you haven't seen the epitome of the "cancel culture" so many on here rail against?

Exactly. The poster looks to me like someone in netflix has tried to get a bit clever and grab some shock factor views (the girls sad faces in it deliberate and 'arty'), with a bit of luck they'll be looking for a new job soon.

The content of the film is discussing issues though, and clearly the director's intent is not to sexualise kids, it's to look at kids growing up in different scenarios have to deal with it.

If people have an issue with this they should be knocking at disney and nickelodeon's doors first, they are far greater offenders in sexualising minors.

Psychiatric Patrick · 21-08-2020 10:15AM

alchemist33 wrote: »

I don't agree with the poster, but once again people shouldn't be judging the film until they've seen it. Many reports say its about a girl from a strict Muslim background breaking out from the norms of her society. Isn't this a good thing? And isn't decrying a film you haven't seen the epitome of the "cancel culture" so many on here rail against?

No that is just one of the things it is about.

According to those who have seen it and the director it is about children being sexualised and exposed to the adult world when they should just be allowed to be children.

Those who have seen the film are saying that the Netflix marketing has seriously missed the point of the movie that is shouting out against the the type of thing that the Netflix poster has done.

However it is clear from the reviews that the filmmakers put the children into a movie that children should be protected from.

keano_afc · 21-08-2020 10:16AM

seamus wrote: »

The image in the OP is a fake created to make it appear like this is a pageant-style movie about dancing 11 year olds being sexy. It's not an image that Netflix has produced.

The "specialising in twerking routines" is also made up nonsense that has little to do with the film.

Look at the trailer and you'll see very little connection with the fake posters the OP has posted.

This an award-winning French film about a preteens immigrants difficulty aligning her home culture and home life with that around her. Examinig the early sexualisation of children is a theme in this movie.

Of course, American Nazi and religious types are losing their mind about it, while ignoring the fact that they are the biggest creators and consumers of actual child porn in the world.

Imagine saying this without even checking if any of it was true. Can only begrudgingly admire this kind of nonsense.

Psychiatric Patrick · 21-08-2020 10:18AM

storker wrote: »

"Sensible"

Never been called that before. :

Gatling · 21-08-2020 10:19AM

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

However it is clear from the reviews that the filmmakers put the children into a movie that children should be protected from.

Protected from what exactly ?

Psychiatric Patrick · 21-08-2020 10:19AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

With that username this is a hilarious post

It goes beyond even that. It is the best possible commentary on it.

Psychiatric Patrick · 21-08-2020 10:20AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

With that username this is a hilarious post

It goes beyond even that. It is the best possible commentary on the "if you see tis as wrong you must br the pervert" attitude.

GarIT · 21-08-2020 10:28AM

keano_afc wrote: »

Imagine saying this without even checking if any of it was true. Can only begrudgingly admire this kind of nonsense.

And imagine the same person blamed it on religious people and didn't get carded for it.

Sweet.Science · 21-08-2020 10:29AM

GarIT wrote: »

And imagine the same person blamed it on religious people and didn't get carded for it.

Scary people . I'd check the hard drive.

CrankyHaus · 21-08-2020 10:33AM

Would the posters who jumped on the OP for raising his concerns about this issue care to come back on the thread and give their opinions now that nearly a day has passed and the issue has been clarified somewhat?

He got some fairly nasty abuse that he didn't deserve; particularly the insinuation that he was a paedophile.

RandomName2 · 21-08-2020 10:40AM

keano_afc wrote: »

There's a strange phenomenon these days that some people are so full of hate for those on the opposite side of the political spectrum to them that they will literally defend ANYTHING that the other side oppose.

The only reason people defended a poster of 11 years old in sexually provocative positions was because people on the other side to them were offended by it. I mean, they didnt even check to see if the poster was genuine. The first reaction was that it was fake, because there was no way they could (anonymously) agree with "American Nazi" types.

Its absolutely hilarious.

And as much as I hate to be that guy, the flip side can apply.

Has anyone here actually seen it? If it was a poster of Neo-Nazis, replete with swastikas and skin heads, would people be saying that Netflix condones Neo-Nazis? It's possible that they might, or alternatively it might also be a documentary that takes an objective view on the matter. Certainly their choice of poster would be to illicit a response from people, regardless of the content.

So do I think it is likely to be disturbingly voyeuristic? Oh yeah, I wouldn't be surprised at that at all.

But critics who have seen this film generally have found no massive issues:

Andrea Thompson, The Spool wrote:

At least the film doesn't pretend that any of the various cultures Amy is struggling to navigate will ever do right by her, although it does offer another way between extremes, where perhaps true freedom can be found.

Alex Heeney, Seventh Row wrote:

Doucouré’s Cuties explores how young girls are sexualized, often by choice but without understanding the consequences of this sexualization.

In Cuties, Doucouré constantly highlights the disconnect between the girls’ awareness of their own sexuality and how they’re perceived.

David Rooney, Hollywood Reporter wrote:

The bigger issue is that once the film establishes its critical view of a culture that steers impressionable young girls toward the hypersexualization of their bodies, it sets up a clash against traditional values that should provide a sturdy third act — particularly given the rich contextual potential to explore African identity in a Western European country. The elements are put in place, from Amy's defiance, dishonesty and ruthless determination to participate in the contest at any price, to Aunty's glowering condemnation and Mariam's emotional crossroads as the wedding approaches. But Doucouré doesn't quite thread those strands into a satisfying conclusion.

I know that the way things are today that we feel that if we pause to think that we lose the momentum to affect change, but if bandwagoning becomes a default approach (which in this case means writing a letter of complaint about a film one hasn't seen) then we will just debase the level of conversation.

Just because people who identify as liberals tend to be reactionary, and seek to silence debate, does not mean that 'the other side' should mirror this behavior. When deplatforming is met with cancel culture, we are all, arguably, worse off.

Errashareesh · 21-08-2020 10:42AM

I don't think it's helpful to keep saying they must be paedos. An actual paedo would be unlikely to draw attention to themselves. No I think it's just a case of what's become the standard now - someone has a view that's kinda conservative? Fight to the death to dismiss it.

Beats me how the view in question could be deemed conservative too. I'd be liberal in the sense of "Don't ban anything for an adult audience but keep sexiness away from pre teens". This is how liberals saw videos from Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera, being featured on Saturday morning TV, about 20 years ago. But they disagreed with calls for banning The Prodigy's Smack My Bitch Up video - because that's for adults only.

And yeah I have seen clips of The Mini Pops - creepy as hell. Lots of stuff up to the 80s was creepy as hell - wouldn't it have been terrible if that kind of culture fostered a world where predatory TV presenters could take advantage...

It feels like a step backwards.

i_surge · 21-08-2020 10:44AM

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Would the posters who jumped on the OP for raising his concerns about this issue care to come back on the thread and give their opinions now that nearly a day has passed and the issue has been clarified somewhat?

He got some fairly nasty abuse that he didn't deserve; particularly the insinuation that he was a paedophile.

The painfully woke sanctimonious types share a characteristic with their arch enemy Mr. Trump

Never admit error, never engage and always deflect

At either extreme the behaviours are the same, the mistakes are the same.

Psychiatric Patrick · 21-08-2020 10:50AM

Podge_irl wrote: »

I think a documentary would have its own issues re: exploitation of the children. Besides, the person is not a documentary maker - you may as well suggest they should have done an investigative journalism report in a paper. This is their medium and their way of tackling the subject.

The filmmakers area of expertise has nothing to do with it.

And is a documentary about environmental pollution exploding the environment? Is a documentary are crime glorifying the criminals?

Podge_irl wrote: »

Child actors are fully aware they are acting and they frequently are involved in things that are unsuitable for children. You have to give them some credit for being able to distinguish reality from fiction however.

I'm not sure what your point is here. And I don't think you understand how some movies are made. Just because a child is portrayed in a frightening situation in a movie does not mean that that scene was filmed that way. The kid in The Shining (picking this as it is something I watched recently) never even knew he was in a scarey movie because Kubrick never let him see that aspect of the product or to be present for shooting scenes he was too young to see. Do you think the kid in Sixth Sense was in the tent with the puking ghost?

Podge_irl wrote: »

Much of what the children do in the movie may not be "appropriate for children" but you are deluding yourselves if you think a) it is not happening on a large scale anyway and b) that adults at large are not hugely responsible for it.

Can you please point out the post where I said any child actor is "responsible" for any of this?

And also, the fact that such things "happen anyway" is the exact messed up way of thinking that many of us here are commenting on.

Podge_irl wrote: »

The entire point being made is that the kids are not even supposed to realise what they are doing is "sexual" as the concept doesn't necessarily even make sense to them. They are trying to fit in - and the question is supposed to be why has this become something they view as a way of fitting in. Saying this is appalling and inappropriate for children and we shouldn't see it is spectacularly missing the point.

Seemingly the marketing guys at netflix also spectacularly missed the point.

I got the point of the movie because I actually put in the effort to look into what it was about and I've said all that more than once.'

One of the questions I was asking was regardless of the movies message (which is important) was should this movie have have been made because it exposes the kids to the very thing the movie says is not suitable for childern. If this happens in real life then a documentary is the way to go.

I think you've "spectacularly missed the point" of what I've been saying.

And I don't believe I said at any point that the film should not be seen or suggested that other should not. I personally don't want to watch it because of the scenes described by those who have actually seen it but I don't think I said that before either.

Gentleman Off The Pitch · 21-08-2020 10:52AM

Sweet.Science wrote: »

The amount of people who agreed with this without even trying to see if it was true

GarIT wrote: »

And imagine the same person blamed it on religious people and didn't get carded for it.

That poster has a habit of delivering posts with big authoritative statements on every topic you can think of but they really need to be fact checked each time

AndrewJRenko · 21-08-2020 10:57AM

Can I just confirm that there's no dressing up of eight year old girls as child brides and parading them in front of old men in frocks or anything like that in this terrible movie? And no dressing up of twelve year old girls in bizarre wigs and pancake make-up to make them look like they're eighteen? I really wouldn't want to see any of that stuff coming to good old Catholic Ireland.

nthclare · 21-08-2020 10:59AM

i_surge wrote: »

The painfully woke sanctimonious types share a characteristic with their arch enemy Mr. Trump

Never admit error, never engage and always deflect

At either extreme the behaviours are the same, the mistakes are the same.

Yes the liberals are very similar to their arch enemy.

They're not well and never win any argument or cause.

Moderate is far better than far left or alt right.

Although both loons will say it's worse sitting on the fence, but sitting on the fence isn't practical because it's uncomfortable and bad for your fence,and your posterior.

So **** you liberals and alt right, only a fool sits on the fence.

Sitting on the wall is probably less harmful..

When the writings on the wall like it is now, there's SFA to be done about it.

Psychiatric Patrick · 21-08-2020 11:00AM

Gatling wrote: »

What dialogue have they being exposed to not suitable for 11 / 12 year old actors playing 11/12 year olds ,
Don't know why you would imply that these actors have been taken advantage of and not paid for their roles in a movie

Where did I say or imply "these actors have been taken advantage of and not paid for their roles in a movie"?

Show me the posts.

And "what dialogue"? If you bother to look it up it not hard to find.

The young girls themselves have dialogue about sex, blow jobs, etc. The dance scene is described in several ways as a very unpleasant experience and several reviewer even said that is its presence actually damages the message of the movie .

Psychiatric Patrick · 21-08-2020 11:03AM

GarIT wrote: »

The dialogue the film rating agencies have decided you need to be 18 to view.

Which makes the fact that child actors are allowed to seek the dialogue very bizarre,

And that is not a comment on this particular movie but every movie.

Does it make sense to not allow a 13 year old hear a 13 year say "**** it" ?

Psychiatric Patrick · 21-08-2020 11:05AM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Some people try so hard to be open minded that their brains actually fall out.

Don't be posting that nonsense that they have brains...:rolleyes:

GarIT · 21-08-2020 11:06AM

Gentleman Off The Pitch wrote: »

That poster has a habit of delivering posts with big authoritative statements on every topic you can think of but they really need to be fact checked each time

For clarification I was actually carded for trolling by saying the same thing but about a different group for a reaction. Rather than carded for the content of what I said, which was what I was hoping for, so at least the mods are consistent on that.

Podge_irl · 21-08-2020 11:10AM

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

The filmmakers area of expertise has nothing to do with it.

And is a documentary about environmental pollution exploding the environment? Is a documentary are crime glorifying the criminals?

She's not a documentary maker. Why would she make a documentary?

Narrative movies can obviously approach an issue in a different way, not least that it is controlled. Also, I imagine most groups of 11 year old girls wouldn't be mad on a film crew following them around all day. Again, there is no real difference between this and e.g. Beasts of No Nation.

I'm not sure what your point is here. And I don't think you understand how some movies are made. Just because a child is portrayed in a frightening situation in a movie does not mean that that scene was filmed that way. The kid in The Shining (picking this as it is something I watched recently) never even knew he was in a scarey movie because Kubrick never let him see that aspect of the product or to be present for shooting scenes he was too young to see. Do you think the kid in Sixth Sense was in the tent with the puking ghost?

I'm fully aware. While the kids may be saying things "no kids should say" or doing things kids shouldn't be doing, they are also aware that they are acting in a movie. No doubt the entire point of the movie has been explained to them. Kids are in plenty of violent movies, something that is harder to hide than psychological horror. They know its not real.

Can you please point out the post where I said any child actor is "responsible" for any of this?

And also, the fact that such things "happen anyway" is the exact messed up way of thinking that many of us here are commenting on.

Never claimed you did. I said the behaviour of adults/society in general is at fault for the very real fact that many kids may view this behaviour as a means of achieving acceptance. The movie is aimed at those adults to make them question themselves.

One of the questions I was asking was regardless of the movies message (which is important) was should this movie have have been made because it exposes the kids to the very thing the movie says is not suitable for childern. If this happens in real life then a documentary is the way to go.

They "expose" the kids to it in an extremely controlled and explained way. It is not glorifying it, nor condoning or encouraging it. It is actually possible to explain these things to a child if approached with enough care. Care that obviously can't or won't be afforded many of those who would watch it, hence blanket age restrictions.

Gruffalux · 21-08-2020 11:10AM

Sweet.Science wrote: »

The amount of people who agreed with this without even trying to see if it was true

But it sounded so right...eous.

Netflix sexualising children.

Comments