Cuties - Netflix film causes uproar and causes people to cancel accounts

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

15 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

Or 3. People who don’t believe there’s any sexual exploitation going on here, which people would understand if they’ve seen the movie.

I guess we'd have to believe that the sexual performance by minors we see in the film is not sexual exploitation.  If not exploitation, what is it?  Entertainment?  EDUCATION?

Edited September 20, 2020 by CautiouslyOptimistic

[Mrin]

2 hours ago, CautiouslyOptimistic said:

It does matter.  How are you OK with child exploitation?  These are not adults. This is not "Showgirls."  These are children.

I am against it.

I haven't seen the movie so I am not about to hazard an opinion as to whether it is child exploitation or simply a movie with child actors. Which is my point. How do you not grasp this?

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

31 minutes ago, Mrin said:

I am against it.

I haven't seen the movie so I am not about to hazard an opinion as to whether it is child exploitation or simply a movie with child actors. Which is my point. How do you not grasp this?

Even if we don’t take the entire movie neither of us have seen into account, I’m not ok with the child human beings I saw being sexualized in the trailer. Are you? They are actual humans. 

[Mrin]

26 minutes ago, CautiouslyOptimistic said:

Even if we don’t take the entire movie neither of us have seen into account, I’m not ok with the child human beings I saw being sexualized in the trailer. Are you? They are actual humans. 

Honestly I haven't even seen the trailer. I'll check it out though and let you know. Also will probably watch the movie this week so I can hazard my opinion and will come back to this thread. 

Aside: I'm sort of a stickler for being informed/experiencing the issue before chiming in. It really feels like a civic duty. In the past I've forced myself to watch several things that I didn't want to but felt that I needed to... As a citizen maybe? I might be an odd duck in that way. 

[Libby1]

Child actors generally are in a profession where I'd have concerns about their welfare.  Often they're required to participate in very adult storylines, portray trauma etc.  My guess would be that the children who acted in this film were probably better debriefed after difficult scenes, and better protected from industry predators than a lot of child actors in the cutesy, family friendly movies Hollywood churns out (or, indeed, the non family friendly horror films or gory violent films in which child actors might still be involved - even though the film itself is not recommended viewing for children).

I've now watched a few reviews on youtube, and most of the commentators are doing the same "well other people might want to defend this paedophile fodder, but I'm here to tell you that cuties is even worse than you think it is..." line.   Ben Shapiro of all people - Ben Shapiro!!! - is one of the youtube commentators reviewing it who ends up giving one of the more balanced reviews (though he can't resist the opportunity to take a pop at Muslims).  He asks the question of when a film crosses the line from depiction to exploitation.  A question that has been asked of many films.  He expresses disgust about the camera angles, as I think pretty much anybody would, but acknowledges that the point is to make the viewer uncomfortable about a certain reality.  That this is what the pop culture in which kids are submerged is training them to do.  He comes down on the side of "I don't think the film needed to go as far as it did to make the point".  If it hadn't gone that far, it would just be another small independent French film that nobody was talking about...but I still agree with him that the film could have been a bit more restrained and still made the impact it was looking for.

He seems to be one of the few partisan commentators who's prepared to take a balanced view of this as opposed to just grabbing the opportunity to virtue signal about how disgusted he is.  I mean, he does express disgust about the costumes and dance scenes - as you'd expect somebody on the religious right to do.  In this case, you wouldn't need to be on the religious right to be appalled.  However at least he recognises that the film was exploring complex issues and conflicts, which seems to be more than some other internet and youtube commentators seem capable of managing.  Retaining a partisan-at-all-costs position can make fools of anybody, whether they lean right or left. 

In this particular case, the right are the ones making fools of themselves by maintaining this determination to portray the director of cuties as some sort of paedophilia when even Ben bloody Shapiro is capable of recognising that the film is in fact a critique of the role social media plays in encouraging girls to sexualise themselves.  The horribly advised Netflix promo poser incited a kneejerk reaction - probably in most people who saw it.  When I saw that poster, my first thought was "what fresh hell is this?"  I think a lot of people would, if they sat down to watch the film in its entirety, realise that the poster is highly misleading.  They might still regard the dance scenes as having gone too far in trying to make a point, but I think all but those who are completely determined to portray the female director as some sort of paedophile would, on actually watching the film, likely review the first impression they had which was based on that awful Netflix poster. 

A lot of young girls like dancing.   It's part of group bonding, and it's also a lot of fun.  This film shows kids in a poor community teaching themselves to dance by mimicking what they're seeing on the internet.  I don't know if anybody's ever seen an Antonio Banderas film called Take the Lead, but it's based on a true story about a dance instructor teaching Latin American dancing to kids in a poor area...with the net effect that it raises their self esteem and helps the boys and girls relate to eachother in a more respectful way.  Dance can be a really important part of our culture,.  Provision of dance learning opportunities in poor areas is a positive thing that can help to pull kids away from this "let's learn sleazy dances from the internet" culture and into a more positive environment where they're going to get taught properly under adult supervision (and where filming is not allowed!).  Where they'll learn to have respect for dance as an artform rather than reducing it to the level of something done for titillation in the social media equivalent of a strip club.

Edited September 20, 2020 by Libby1

[Libby1]

6 hours ago, CautiouslyOptimistic said:

If thinking critically and broadly means being OK with child porn and children being exploited, I'm SO VERY OK with being accused of not having the ability to think that way! I don't want to be like you!

Critical thinking does not equate with being okay with child porn and child exploitation.  I think there's a problem here in that a lot of male commenters are completely preoccupied with the sleazy dance scenes featuring these children - but lack sufficient curiosity about the main character's life, emotions, perceptions etc to look at the context in which those scenes were shown (ie by sitting down and actually watching the film instead of looking at clips of the most shocking scenes).  Ben Shapiro, for all he's hated by Democrats (some of whom I acknowledge feel the same way about Cuties as you do), is about the most rational right wing commentator I've seen commenting on this film.  Here's some of his commentary, and how he describes the theme of the film:

Several things can be true at once.  One:  I don't think that the director meant to hyper-sexualise the girls for the pleasure of paedophiles.  Two: Netflix, with its original poster, definitely hyper-sexualised the girls for the purpose of paedophiles...Three: The theme of the movie is that hyper-sexualisation of children is not only bad, but that it springs from an adult culture that suggests that consent is the only value - and that bleeds down to people for whom consent is not possible in ways that they don't themselves understand.  That the hyper-sexualisation of society does bleed down to kids - that is a theme of the film.  

On this issue, I think he is summing up a great insight very concisely.  For a long time, I've had concerns about the mainstreaming of pornography and the impact this has on very young girls.  I remember this being an issue as far back as the 1990s when Playboy was releasing playboy bunny branded merchandise geared towards little girls.  From where we are now, that Playboy merchandise which caused a fuss at the time seems remarkably tame in comparison.

I gave up, some time ago, arguing with right wing libertarians (mainly male) who would argue passionately about the importance of free speech when defending the right of pornographers to sell depictions of women being gang raped and beaten up for no reason other than to provide "jack off material" to people who like that sort of thing.  "These actresses are not minors, and they consented to what was done to them in the porn movie" they'd tell me.  Free speech and consent being the only values they regarded as important.

 It's been clear for a very long time that this sort of material is very easily accessible by curious children - most of whom now have smartphones (whether because they were given them by parents, or because they've stolen them - or been given a phone by somebody else) which they can use to access pretty much anything they like.  I don't recall any of those right wing libertarians demonstrating a shred of concern about that.  

But a black female director produces a French film demonstrating the impact of this mainstreaming of pornography on young girls in deprived areas...and suddenly the world is collapsing.  The important context in which these upsetting dance scenes were filmed is completely overlooked for the sake of dismissing this film as "pornography".  If only actual pornography, the extent to which it has been mainstreamed and the ease with which children can access it on the internet, were criticised with so much vigour.

Edited September 20, 2020 by Libby1

[Libby1]

Finally (last post for now, I promise) here is an interview with the Director.  If people don't want to watch the film based on the dance clips they've seen, that's fair enough...but if you're going to label the director as some sort of child pornographer, at least give her some right of reply by hearing her side of it.

That said, looking at the comments under her video it's clear that a lot of people would much rather just carry on shooting the messenger.  It's incredible to me how tunnel visioned people are being about this film.

Edited September 20, 2020 by Libby1

[Ruby Slippers]

I was in plays and musicals as a kid. I can't imagine the director directing 11-year-old me to twerk or do any of the other sexual things these girls were directed to do for this movie. Even if my parents consented to it - which they NEVER would, because they got that right as parents.

At 11, I'd be nowhere near able to make the proper call on whether this is something I wanted to do. I'd be likely to go along with it if everybody was supporting it and I thought I might be more "popular" by doing something "daring" and "advanced" for an 11-year-old. That still doesn't give the adults any right to steer me into this.

[lana-banana]

Child actors are regularly in movies and television shows with topics including murder, abuse, and rape. They're a mainstay in all kinds of gory horror movies, for crying out loud; I am sure they can handle a movie about growing up too fast and struggling with their religious identity. All evidence indicates their direction here was handled with great sensitivity and care. Folks need to calm down.

[basil67]

And lets not forget how many movies have been made about child prostitution...

[LivingWaterPlease]

2 hours ago, lana-banana said:

Child actors are regularly in movies and television shows with topics including murder, abuse, and rape. They're a mainstay in all kinds of gory horror movies, for crying out loud; I am sure they can handle a movie about growing up too fast and struggling with their religious identity. All evidence indicates their direction here was handled with great sensitivity and care. Folks need to calm down.

Yes, they are. And that is also a travesty. 

If you read about lives of people who were child actors later on in their lives many of them admit to having psychological difficulties for being put in these types of situations and even for acting in shows and movies where no violence or sex was depicted, but rather from just being around some of the people in the industry they had to work or associate with who mistreated them in ways small and/or large. Sexual abuse in these situations is not uncommon. 

Add to that the fact that these little girls (in the Cuties movie) were dressed seductively and instructed to "act" that way for the movie, this is not something many if not most parents would consider to be healthy for their children.

Unfortunately, the lure of fame and money lures some people in to allow their children to be used in harmful ways.This is not a healthy or safe environment for a child.

I'm editing this to add that even adults who act in movies and play characters that are evil sometimes have difficulties once they get in their normal lives after having been affected by taking on the persona of a wicked character. It is naive to think that kids are acting in these types of movies and coming out unscathed.

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by LivingWaterPlease

[LivingWaterPlease]

3 hours ago, basil67 said:

And lets not forget how many movies have been made about child prostitution...

This fact does nothing to uphold the stance of thinking it's ok for these little girls to be portrayed sexually in the Cuties movie. It is very harmful for kids to participate in such movies. Even some adults who participate as evil characters or persons who may not be evil but end up doing shady things in movies many times have psychological problems from it later. If you read about the lives of those who are in this type of work you'll find that to be true. Some of them would never admit it, but some do.

I just read yesterday or this morning about a celebrity who acted out other characters and revealed that when they became successful they thought of suicide every single day. This type of taking on bad characters and acting as one of them is very bad for anyone. Some adults it seems to affect more than others. And some are affected, become very evil people, and even never realize it. Whereas some become overtaken by anxiety and depression to the point of suicide. The movie industry itself isn't safe for kids. Add to that, acting as a sex object, it becomes a very harmful thing to allow a child to participate in.

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by LivingWaterPlease

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

17 minutes ago, LivingWaterPlease said:

Add to that the fact that these little girls (in the Cuties movie) were dressed seductively and instructed to "act" that way for the movie, this is not something many if not most parents would consider to be healthy for their children.

Unfortunately, the lure of fame and money lures some people in to allow their children to be used in harmful ways.This is not a healthy or safe environment for a child.

 

Exactly.  These were actual human children doing this as far as I know.  Not CGI characters.

[basil67]

1 hour ago, LivingWaterPlease said:

This fact does nothing to uphold the stance of thinking it's ok for these little girls to be portrayed sexually in the Cuties movie. It is very harmful for kids to participate in such movies. Even some adults who participate as evil characters or persons who may not be evil but end up doing shady things in movies many times have psychological problems from it later. If you read about the lives of those who are in this type of work you'll find that to be true. Some of them would never admit it, but some do.

I just read yesterday or this morning about a celebrity who acted out other characters and revealed that when they became successful they thought of suicide every single day. This type of taking on bad characters and acting as one of them is very bad for anyone. Some adults it seems to affect more than others. And some are affected, become very evil people, and even never realize it. Whereas some become overtaken by anxiety and depression to the point of suicide. The movie industry itself isn't safe for kids. Add to that, acting as a sex object, it becomes a very harmful thing to allow a child to participate in.

 

Yes, you’re talking about method acting.  It was rumoured to be behind Heath Ledgers death too.   However, not all actors use method acting.  I’d be highly surprised if young minds were taught how to method act when it’s not even a regular technique for seasoned adult actors.

Also, none of these children were playing the role of a psychopath, so they wouldn’t have had to get into the mindset of an evil character.

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by basil67

[Weezy1973]

18 minutes ago, basil67 said:

 

Also, none of these children were playing the role of a psychopath, so they wouldn’t have had to get into the mindset of an evil character.

 

They were doing something that many young girls likely do all the time. Emulate the videos of their favorite pop stars. It’s not asking them to do some crazy out of reality thing. 

[lana-banana]

If the stance here is "all child acting is bad", and that children shouldn't ever be involved in media because it can be damaging, that is a relatively extreme stance. Some child actors are traumatized by their experiences on G-rated Nickelodeon shows and some children are traumatized by kindergarten teachers. Where is the line? Nobody is going to defend the acting industry as a wonderful working environment, but an independent director making an independent movie based on the experience of French-African girls is not remotely the same as the ruthless Disney starlet machine. I can't tell what's accounting for the lack of nuance here but it's striking.

Edited September 22, 2020 by lana-banana

[LivingWaterPlease]

41 minutes ago, basil67 said:

Yes, you’re talking about method acting.  It was rumoured to be behind Heath Ledgers death too.   However, not all actors use method acting.  I’d be highly surprised if young minds were taught how to method act when it’s not even a regular technique for seasoned adult actors.

Also, none of these children were playing the role of a psychopath, so they wouldn’t have had to get into the mindset of an evil character.

 

Whether it's by method or not isn't the issue. Familiarizing oneself and breaking down barriers of healthy behavior is. Twerking and sexualized behavior in children enforces seductive behavior in those who practice it and puts a child at risk by adults who are observing and also familiarizing the behavior to a child. That is not to say every adult who observes will act out on it, but some will.

Have you ever studied or even looked into how habits are formed? It's simply by performing an action over and over, sometimes subconsciously. For children to act this behavior out, they are becoming familiar with it, thus breaking down a boundary. Plus, adults who observe are also breaking down boundaries in their own minds by becoming familiar with it. Very sadly this is an area that you will be able to watch develop in society as it progresses. 

To me and to many others, twerking is morally reprehensible for children to engage in, whether or entertainment or not. Little children are sometimes led into evil actions, such as shoplifting, by adults and even parents. It isn't pure and wholesome behavior for a child steal but some are taught to do it and learn the ways of crime. And it isn't pure or wholesome behavior for a child to twerk or to behave in a sexualized manner. 

Children who do things such as this are being harmed by adults that lead them into it. 

I know I need to edit this as some is a bit repetitive. So sorry! I need to get going.

[LivingWaterPlease]

3 minutes ago, lana-banana said:

If the stance here is "all child acting is bad", and that children shouldn't ever be involved in media because it can be damaging, that is a relatively extreme stance. Some child actors are traumatized by their experiences on G-rated Nickelodeon shows and some children are traumatized by kindergarten teachers. Where is the line? Nobody is going to defend the acting industry as a wonderful working environment, but an independent director making an independent movie based on the experience of French-African girls is not remotely the same as the ruthless Disney starlet machine. I can't tell what's accounting for the lack of nuance here but it's striking.

Well, I agree with you that not all child acting is bad, lana! But that is another avenue to go down that is both arguable and debatable that would be time consuming to include in this thread it seems to me. This is an industry that a person doesn't fully understand unless they study it and the people who have been involved in it, or are involved in it themselves as actors and possibly those on set to some degree. The industry is complex and can be very damaging under the best of circumstances. But, again, that is not the topic here so I don't want to digress

 It is a judgment call for parents to make, it seems to me. The problem is that some parents put their children in danger because of greed for money and fame. This is one side of the problem of sexualized or violent acting by children. The other side is the adults who are sexually stimulated by watching children entertain in this manner. Most often before a person commits a sexual crime such as sexual abuse (which is happened at unprecedented levels in our society at this time) there is a pattern of first becoming familiar with perversion, then acting out on it, often little-by-little. It surely varies among individuals as to how many steps it takes to get to that point. 

 

[basil67]

1 hour ago, LivingWaterPlease said:

Twerking and sexualized behavior in children enforces seductive behavior in those who practice it and puts a child at risk by adults who are observing and also familiarizing the behavior to a child. That is not to say every adult who observes will act out on it, but some will.

 

In the case of this movie, the girls were acting as girls who were troubled.  And with that, would have come a whole lot of discussion around the bad choices the characters were making and the end goal of the movie being about moving on from doing this stuff and finding happiness in being a little girl.   You're writing as if the twerking was the only part of the movie that they acted and learned.

Thing is, there are plenty of stage parents and kids who want to act, and if no laws are broken, their parenting choices are none of my business.   

[NuevoYorko]

7 hours ago, lana-banana said:

Child actors are regularly in movies and television shows with topics including murder, abuse, and rape. They're a mainstay in all kinds of gory horror movies, for crying out loud; I am sure they can handle a movie about growing up too fast and struggling with their religious identity. All evidence indicates their direction here was handled with great sensitivity and care. Folks need to calm down.

This is 'muirca.  If a movie involves guns, blood, explosions, etc.  we are fine with children acting in or watching it.  Psycho killer chopping teenagers up with a chainsaw?  Cool.  Nobody's freaking out about how scarring that must be for the child actors or the exploitation they were submitted to. 

We're buying video games by the millions where kids get to win by blowing up as many people as possible in the shortest period of time.     

We glorify guns to the point of fetishizing them. 

We have a president who bragged about making unannounced visits backstage at teen beauty pageants.  That's fine.

Twerking though?  That's where we draw the line.

 

 

[Libby1]

2 hours ago, basil67 said:

In the case of this movie, the girls were acting as girls who were troubled.  And with that, would have come a whole lot of discussion around the bad choices the characters were making and the end goal of the movie being about moving on from doing this stuff and finding happiness in being a little girl.   You're writing as if the twerking was the only part of the movie that they acted and learned.

Thing is, there are plenty of stage parents and kids who want to act, and if no laws are broken, their parenting choices are none of my business.   

Right.  This was a young girl dealing with a lot of traumatising issues...but a lot of critics are just brushing over those and focusing purely on the twerking scenes - which probably didn't constitute more than a couple of minutes of the entire film.

 

12 hours ago, Ruby Slippers said:

I was in plays and musicals as a kid. I can't imagine the director directing 11-year-old me to twerk or do any of the other sexual things these girls were directed to do for this movie. Even if my parents consented to it - which they NEVER would, because they got that right as parents.

At 11, I'd be nowhere near able to make the proper call on whether this is something I wanted to do. I'd be likely to go along with it if everybody was supporting it and I thought I might be more "popular" by doing something "daring" and "advanced" for an 11-year-old. That still doesn't give the adults any right to steer me into this.

I was involved in dance and a local kids' acting group when I was a child too.  Everything was always very tame and appropriate, which is what you would expect a) in that era and b) in a situation where it's intended as a fun pastime rather than something you have professional aspirations in.  My understanding is that when directors are casting any actor, but particularly child actors, they're going to want to know that the actor has the temperament to withstand what might be a traumatising role to play.  Kids with the kind of pushy "steering" stage parents you mention were probably filtered out very early on in the process unless their kids actually have the talent and that unusual temperament that somehow manages to combine high sensitivity with strong emotional control and the maturity to understand the psyche and issues of the character they're playing.  

It astonishes me that this is causing such a furore in the US, when there continues to be a thriving industry in child pageants where extremely young children (several years younger than the actors in Cuties) are sometimes dressed up like strippers and even given botox injections.  Those child pageants were banned in France some years ago on the basis that they sometimes sexualise extremely young children - who are way too young to understand what's going on.  The really gross thing about Cuties was the Netflix promotional poster.  The way this film was marketed by Netflix is the abusive aspect.  The film itself seems, to me, to be the voice of the victim, other than those gross voyeuristic shots while the girls were dancing.  Even then, some of the voyeuristic shots in the film pretty clearly aim to show you what Amy the main character is seeing.

I don't think there's anything wrong with expressing concerns about the voyeuristic shots.  I think most people watching the film probably thought "woah...hang on?  Was this really necessary?"  But what I'm seeing is a lot of conclusions and not many questions.  For instance, people saying things like "oh my God, apparently they auditioned 600 kids for the film.  Can you imagine sleazy casting directors making 600 kids twerk for them?"  Instead of asking questions to get a bit more actual info.  Like "what was the auditioning process?  Was there a dancing element to the audition, and if so - what did it involve?"  Those are the sort of questions I think should be asked with regard to a controversial film like this.  Also, questions about what the psychological evaluation - if there is one - for young actors taking on controversial roles involves, and how reliable it is. 

I don't think it's right to simply rest on assumptions like "these children will have been scarred by their experience in this film" or "they're professionals, they'll be fine".   Though with regard to the latter point, I suspect the widespread, noisily revolted reaction to the marketing of the film might be more destructive to the young actors in this film.  I've seen a couple of "angry and revolted" youtuber reactions that I felt had some sinister undertones to them (ie that at a guess, some of the most noisily outraged men who "watched this film so that you don't have to" are engaging in a bit of reaction formation).  This controversy about Cuties could be an opportunity to open up more discussion about what protective measures are in place during both the auditioning process and the filming process for movies using child actors - and whether those protective measures are robust enough for the times we live in.

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Libby1

[Ruby Slippers]

I'm not OK with many of the other practices discussed here. Several of my sisters competed in beauty pageants, and one of them showed me a video of her very young daughter in a pageant she had put her in. The kid looked miserable, and my sister was obviously using her to validate her own ego, which is just another form of sad exploitation.

But child porn is on another level. I just found a short definition: Federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons less than 18 years old). Images of child pornography are also referred to as child sexual abuse images.

And sexually explicit: Sexually explicit means a pictorial depiction of actual or simulated sexual acts including sexual intercourse, oral sex, or masturbation. 

I don't believe it's ever OK to publish child porn at any level for any kind of "art." A creative filmmaker can convey the exact same messages without the kiddie smut. This is not something I'll change my mind on, and that's a very good thing.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Ruby Slippers

[Weezy1973]

This isn’t child pornography. There’s nothing sexually explicit. The dancing is sexually suggestive and is depicted as inappropriate in the movie. 
 

The actors who played the girls weren’t 11 either. They ranged from 12 to 14. That’s grade 7 to grade 9 in the US. Certainly ages where they would have seen these types of dance moves performed by their favorite pop stars. Having to do the dancing was hardly damaging, although the current backlash might be.

But actual child porn is a real problem. Sam Harris actually had a podcast recently where he interviews a member of law enforcement who investigates child porn and it’s really disturbing. If you’re going to direct outrage, actual child porn is good place to invest your energy.

[Libby1]

1 hour ago, Ruby Slippers said:

But child porn is on another level. I just found a short definition: Federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons less than 18 years old). Images of child pornography are also referred to as child sexual abuse images.

 

Historically, judicial decisions regarding pornography or obscenity have tended to vary from the useless "I know it when I see it" to the somewhat more instructive though subjective guidance of publications, films etc that contain no artistic merit nor useful social commentary.  This film has been fairly positively reviewed by a large number of professional film critics for its social comment on an important and concerning issue of the day.

Obviously when it comes to minors, the "it's art, not pornography" argument has to be balanced against the particular need to protect child actors from sexual exploitation.  Particularly given the film industry's history of protecting and continuing to champion abusive directors like Roman Polanski, who appears to regard himself as exempt from the usual rules on account of being an artist.  So even if a film has some artistic or social significance it might still meet the definition of child pornography as per your definition if it features sexually explicit conduct involving a minor.  However, key there is "sexually explicit conduct"

I don't think there's a court that would be prepared to categorise clothed children "twerking" as sexually explicit conduct.  It's highly suggestive, and sufficiently so to be extremely distasteful to most people.  You might disagree, and believe that the dance sequences in that film were sexually explicit - and it seems like a lot of people do.  But it doesn't seem to conform to the definition from what would seem to be the leading US case on this issue.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-694.ZO.html

 “Sexually explicit conduct” connotes actual depiction of the sex act rather than merely the suggestion that it is occurring. And “simulated” sexual intercourse is not sexual intercourse that is merely suggested, but rather sexual intercourse that is explicitly portrayed, even though (through camera tricks or otherwise) it may not actually have occurred.

I know it's tempting to categorise things as illegal when we don't like them or feel offended by them, but I can't imagine the argument that Cuties meets the test for child pornography would succeed in a Western court of law.  That's not to say there aren't highly distasteful scenes in it, nor that it might be exploitative on a level that could conceivably form the basis for a damages action. 

I can imagine a damages action being deemed meritorious, at least (even if it weren't ultimately successful) on the basis of the initial marketing poster Netflix used.  That poster failed to convey any sense that this was a film of artistic or social importance.  It looked, to me, like nothing more than a nod, a wink and a beckoning finger to paedophiles.  But I think to make an informed assessment about whether the film itself was exploitative, you'd need more info on the auditioning process, reference to the contracts, use of psychological evaluation, support of the child actors and examination of how much freedom and support they were given to say "no" to particular directions would be required. 

ETA on the subject of legal actions, I think the director of the film would potentially have the basis for an action against publications accusing her of peddling child pornography.

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Libby1

[NuevoYorko]

1 hour ago, Ruby Slippers said:

 

.And sexually explicit: Sexually explicit means a pictorial depiction of actual or simulated sexual acts including sexual intercourse, oral sex, or masturbation. 

That description does not fit any of the scenes in that movie.

Competitive dance is huge in the US.  I will venture to say that it's extra huge in trump country and it's considered a wholesome christian family activity.  Please take a few moments to google KR National Dance Competition.  I just looked for literally one minute at "hip hop" category and immediately this Dance Precisions "Run The World" (Molly Long choreography) popped up.  I'm not sharing a link.  These girls are 8 years old.  There are hundreds upon hundreds of videos similar to this, I don't know if this is "extreme" or not because I stopped here.

I think the costumes are ... and it makes me sad that these talented girls have to be presented in this way because it's supposedly "cute."  They're winning a lot of dance competitions.  

Why not spread your outrage out a bit.  You folks are up in arms about this film because you've been directed to be.  If you really care so much - go mainstream and picket or try to sue YouTube or whatever to do your part.

"Cuties" is trying to tackle a couple of serious and major problems and the "sexy dancing" is included for good reasons whether you like it or not, it's not for titillation or to sell movies.  

Edited September 22, 2020 by NuevoYorko