Review of Film/Cuties: Film.Cuties

The flag here for Cuties was sent with the rationale

This film sexualizes minors. I apologize that the image is crudely censored (it's not my image), but I don't want to dig any deeper into this. The IM Db Parents Guide gives further detail (though is currently in an edit war with people trying to downplay it): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg

I think we discussed Cuties before, and I think back then we agreed that the film didn't actually want to portray the sexualization as a good thing. But maybe opinions have changed since then.

I watched the whole movie a couple years back (Because I wanted to form my own opinions on it instead of being led like a dog), and while you can probably argue over whether or not it gets too close to becoming what it criticizes at certain parts, the intention was clear to me that it's meant to be criticizing the oversexualization of young girls rather than celebrating it, and it's certainly not the live action version of certain animes that we can't have articles on this site for anymore.

The director's own words on the film and her intentions (Washington Post and behind an incognito-bypassable paywall)

The fact it's on Netflix is a point in its favor, but I do know Netflix got into legal trouble with certain conservative regions over it.

I haven't seen it yet and I know opinions are very mixed but I'm okay with it if the sexualization is intended to be seen in a negative light and the more questionable shots are at a minimum (I hear it's mostly the final dance scene that gets called creepy). The Parents' Guide suggests there's a lot of those suggestive shots but it seems that they're meant to be unsettling.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jul 28th 2022 at 10:29:54 AM

EDIT: I'm reiterating downthread with a deeper explanation.

Edited by Ramidel on Aug 21st 2022 at 8:55:10 AM

I agree that it should be cut. The movie is softcore child porn no matter how much it wants to say that they had actual 11 year olds twerk in wear provocative clothes with gratuitous close up shots in order to say that sexualizing kids is bad.

The thing is that they sexualized actual 11 year olds to make the movie and it should be cut on those grounds alone.

Edited by TheLivingDrawing on Aug 2nd 2022 at 7:36:05 AM

A minor doing something inappropriate doesn't equate to the whole movie being softcore porn. Honestly, we have passed worse.

From the very little I've seen of the movie from clips and commentary, the sexualization of girls isn't shown in a positive light like rmctagg09. The execution might have been clumsy but the intent can still be seen.

Edited by MacronNotes on Aug 2nd 2022 at 8:25:00 AM

It doesn't matter that it's child porn "portrayed in a negative light". It's still child porn.

It's not child porn. That's hyperbole and I wasn't trying to excuse anything. I *said* that the intention of the film wasn't to titillate even some elements of it might have been handled clumsily.

Edited by MacronNotes on Aug 4th 2022 at 2:05:01 PM

One question that comes to me here is, did they end up accidentally sexualizing children/writing child erotica^note That's the egghead terminology for things that sexualize children but don't count as child pornography while intending to be condemning?

Isn't the film apparently pretty tame outside like the last dance from what I've heard?

Which I'm not sure is anything worse than what you'd find on say Toddlers & Tiaras?

Yeah, I think people are conflating it being tasteless and bad at its message with it breaking our rules, which I don't think it does

^^^ I don't think erotica is the right word either. The film just has provocative themes and content.

I didn't watch the whole film yet I just saw clips and commentary but it really didn't seem as bad as people were making it. Opinions are very mixed but the people who didn't come into the film with a negative bias either thought the film had a good message but the execution could've gotten more work or were empathetic to message because they could relate to it as the sexualization of minors on the media and internet is something that effects a lot of people negatively. If the film was marketed and directed better, the negative reactions to it might not have been so bad.

Yes, there were provocative dances and outfits among things but we have passed works that had more explicit sexual content involving minors. So, I don't get the porn accusations.

Edited by MacronNotes on Aug 4th 2022 at 11:34:06 AM

It's not any worse than half the shit you see on TikTok, at least.

PSA: Let's not throw around the term "child porn" lightly. None of the works we deal with are actually going to qualify for that, except Sad Satan and we know what's going on there, and using it as a rhetorical device is tasteless at best. (It's also browbeating the other tropers in the thread, IMO.)

Keep. Clearly meant to condemn.

Cuties is definitely weird and whether it succeeded or not, I'd say it at least tried to condemn exploitation of children.

Keep.

Keep. While it is icky, it doesn't go too far, it (at least tried) condemns sexualisation of minors, and it's definitely not porn. The film's rated 15 by the BBFC, and MA15+ by the ACB. Softcore porn generally require 18+ only ratings there, and child porn would be banned in those countries anyway.

Edited by callmeamuffin on Aug 4th 2022 at 7:05:16 PM

Cut, cut, CUT. I don’t care what a filmmaker’s intentions were, what matters is the execution. And the execution is so bad that even Max Karson, one of the most ardent defenders of the film, agreed that it was explorative and should have been a documentary. When a film gets general audiences and politicians on both sides calling for legal action against it, and a slew of cancellations for the streaming service, then that film is rancid and has no place on this family-friendly wiki.

Again, we have kept works that were far more explicit. The work being exploitive doesn't factor in whether the content of the film violates our guidelines.

Edited by MacronNotes on Aug 20th 2022 at 5:18:51 AM

Where did this family-friendly stuff come from?

We haven't done that in year's.

Unintentional pedo-bait is still pedo bait, and the “more explicit” works we cut either featured older actors or drawings. Not that I’m defending either of those- the rulings were fair- but it just seems like a weird Double Standard to cut a million of those things and yet argue this should stay because “it’s not that explicit”.

"Unintentional pedo bait is still pedo bait" based on my experiences with the internet, if we cut things just for attracting pedos we would be cutting all children's media and everything with a child character

Edited by Libraryseraph on Aug 20th 2022 at 5:21:57 AM

Technically Family Friendly is a hard-coded page, but yeah, it's also extremely outdated and is a questionable way to describe the wiki's content. That's why the modern policy is No Lewdness, No Prudishness.

Isn't the work pretty tame though?