Do all the 1/10 votes come from...
... pedophiles who are dissapointed that the movie is just an authentic coming-of-age drama and not the kiddie porn they were hoping for? apparently!
shareThe 1/10 votes are likely from people who haven’t watched it.
shareI saw the trailer. I don't need to see the rest because the girls have already been exploited by the fact they were made to twerk and dance like sluts. So what fucking difference does it make what message it's about? Next thing you're suggesting kids be made to imitate sexual acts in front of the camera to get the message across?
shareit would be exploitation if
a) the girls had to play those roles against their own will
b) the "sexy" scenes had been in the film with the purpose to satisfy the viewer's voyeurism (instead for authenticity)
both is not the case with this film.
yes, the trailer focusses on the dance scenes and makes it look like some voyeuristic exploitation, apparently they were trying to get maximum attention. but that's what trailers do. it seems some people are less media-savvy as one might expect...
> 11 year old girls shaking their butts, spreading their legs and sucking on their fingers
> "Authenticity"
Get help.
it's a fact that there are girls of that age who do stuff like that. maybe you should go out of your basement more often and see the world?
shareOf course that is the case.
doesn't excuse the actual exploitation of underage children, having them perform these acts and film them like they're sex-cattle.
But I guess sick people like you do not understand that.
Of course that is the case.
so you admit it is authentic and your earlier comment ("authenticity -- get help") was just an attempt to distract from facts - thanks for confirming this.
i am against the actual exploitation of underage children, but this film doesn't meet the two criteria for exploitation, as stated above. share
So, according to your logic, we need to really decapitate actors now in horror movies because "authenticity" and blow up actual buildings in action movies because "authenticity".
You are too stupid to insult.
Filming a half naked child's crotch is filming a child's crotch.
Just because you slap a fancy "art" label on it doesn't make it magically okay.
So, according to your logic, we need to really decapitate actors now in horror movies because "authenticity"
no, because unlike twerking girls in a coming-of-age drama, decapitating actors in a horror movie would actually meet the two exploitation criteria i've mentioned above. so you basically proved my point, thank you.
... blow up actual buildings in action movies because "authenticity".
yes, i do prefer practical pyro effects and real stunts over poor cgi anytime. ("authenticity" is usually not the goal of action movies though)
Filming a half naked child's crotch is filming a child's crotch.
Just because you slap a fancy "art" label on it doesn't make it magically okay..
i've said this a thousand times: context matters. and the context is given here.
this is a film forum, i'm here to discuss art and not your personal morals, i don't care what you think is "okay" and what not. if you don't appreciate "fancy art", go somewhere else or start your own moralchat.org board where you can discuss that sort of stuff. share
Wow I love how you just twist everything that's coming your way to keep that bubble of yours intact.
shareyou've replied to a specific comment with an implied false statement instead of a counter argument, only to admit shortly afterwards that you had been deliberately lying in order to steer the discussion to a general moral debate (again, as if we didn't have enough of it on this board already). i'm not interested in playing that game, so stay on-topic and stop wasting other people's time.
shareI think the fundamental disagreement here is not over whether pedophilia is bad. We all agree, in a general way, that it's bad.
I think the disagreement is twofold. First, it's over whether the end justifies the means. Those who feel that it does, find it acceptable that little girls were taught to twerk for the camera and that their crotches (albeit clothed) were shown in closeups to the general viewing public, because they feel that it supports a worthy goal. Those who don't support the movie think it's unacceptable to show little girls in a sexualised way no matter how worthy the goal because to them, the very showing of little girls in this way is the thing that is wrong. I think this philosophical difference, about whether the end justifies the means, is reflected in many modern political and cultural controversies.
The second difference, is over the meaning of consent. Those in favor of the movie seem to feel that the children and their parents consented for the girls to be taught these moves and filmed in this way, therefore the shots shown are morally acceptable. Those who disagree, seem to feel that the action of filming the girls in this way is intrinsically wrong and that it cannot be made right by consent. The problem with the position of those who are ok with the movie is that the concept of consent is culturally constructed. Its meaning can change over time and is vulnerable to being eroded as people give in on exactly such concerns as this. So these people may be against pedophilia but, by condoning movies such as this, they are unwittingly allowing the main cultural barrier against it to be eroded.
I know that you know this, I just thought it would be valuable to articulate precisely where the problems lie. I think the people in favor of the movie are wrong, but they are seeking to hide their flawed reasoning by creating a straw man whereby opponents of the movie are simply too stupid to realise that the movie is against pedophilia.