here's for you an 11-year-old isabelle fuhrman trying to fuck her stepdad in the movie 'the orphan' (2009):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_oo4CqetFI
only 5% dislikes on this clip - how is this possible?
Much of the motivation from the right is the fact that Netflix is airing it; they see Netflix as a "woke liberal bastion" endorsing "lefty Hollywood pedophiles", and also hate Netflix for giving the Obamas a show.
Other reasons are as follows:
The fact that we live in dark fascist times, where even many members of the "left" are addictied to social media outrage and are infected by the same puritanical reactionism as the right.
The film holds up a mirror to Western cultures and their treatment of young girls - triggering many.
The film was directed by a Black woman.
The fact that we live in dark fascist times, where even many members of the "left" are addictied to social media outrage and are infected by the same puritanical reactionism as the right.
Sorry but you and your Republican brethern are the biggest crybabies of the modern era, and the most censorious.
Has anyone insulted your fragile Orange idol yet? Better get moving...
HA HA HA HA! Words fail me at the sight of your deluded post.
shareDo you live in some kind of UNO-reverse-world!?
How can you be this disconnected from reality?
That's actually scary...
there you go: How ‘Cuties’ Is Fueling the Far Right’s Obsession With Pedophilia
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-commentary/cuties-netflix-far-right-controversy-pedophilia-1057736/
really? yeah, some jackoff writer for an entertainment magazine is a legit source, ok. that changes my mind.
btw Orphan was a horror movie. When you have a high IQ like mine (apparently), you are capable of appreciating the subtleties of this thing called "context," and the ability to "infer from one's memory." That little girl was the villain of this story, like the also-seductive little girls in "Troll" and "Alice Sweet Alice." Even in that scene in the link alone, it carefully builds an impression in the viewer that what is happening is sick and wrong, and that she is a sick human being.
That's why it didn't make a blip. It was clearly framed as sick and deviant behavior from a disturbed person. And it also wasn't terribly sexualized. You had a little girl in a black negligee. Not a girl fuckin' twerking on a stage with the camera zoomed in on her ass. That's called "context" and you really have no wiggle room to debate that.
seriously, how does you or anyone not just instantly and intuitively understand that? You don't sound retarded, do you have some overwhelming emotional reason for your cognitive schism here?
Oh but do, allow your ego to blind you to the impregnable logic I just spelled out for you. Twist my words around and give me points of view about this movie that proceed from a mind-boggling lack of understanding of context and cinematic storytelling. I don't care. No matter what you or anyone says, this movie and the people who made it are sick fucks for promoting pedophilia.
you know, the weird defenses of this movie I see from you and others makes me think. you really don't care whether what you say makes sense, do you? All you care about is defending logically indefensible cancer, and you will sink to any depths of mendacity to at least confound people with a moral compass. Why? What do you get out of it? You must be a very sick person.
the context would make it even worse, since 'orphan' doesn't have an anti sexualization message like 'cuties' has, and is just a horror movie (= for entertainment purposes). the child actress here had to make sexual advances to a man in front of the camera merely to play a villain in a fictional story and to entertain horror fans. if people say the actresses in 'cuties' have been exploited by playing such roles, then this would be even more exploitative.
shareHey pretenious jerk off, sorry Tulpa...the clear intention of the film was to expose and condemn the accepted sexualization of children in Western culture. That's the CONTEXT - not promotion.
Now how is a filmmaker supposed to expose and condemn the inappropriate dancing of minors without being able to show one second of it? 🤔
What makes us think is how something disturbing and disgusting is automatically judged as titillation by those condemning the film, and how those condemning the film have absolutely no regard for the REAL sexualization of children that this film brings to light, and are simply content to shoot the messanger.
Going by the twisted logic of the screaming opposition: Jodie Foster's entire role as a child prostitute in the classic Taxi Driver was intended to titillate; or every single film with a minor doing something inappropriate is intended to titillate and encourage that behaviour.
And you fancy yourself an expert on context and nuance.
Ophan didn't make a blimp because there were fewer far right conspiracy nuts back then, and they didn't have an agenda against Netflix for being some "liberal leftie platform for Hollywood pedophiles and the Obamas"...
And Film Junkie is correct: if you're outraged over Cuties then you should be more outraged over Orphan - where a minor is acting out something more inappropriate for the express purpose of horror and disgust rather than any larger social commentary. Ditto the Exorcist.
Hollywood has been criticized for being pedophiles and sexualizing children for decades.
shareHey pretenious jerk off, sorry Tulpa...the clear intention of the film was to expose and condemn the accepted sexualization of children in Western culture. That's the CONTEXT - not promotion.
Now how is a filmmaker supposed to expose and condemn the inappropriate dancing of minors without being able to show one second of it? 🤔
What makes us think is how something disturbing and disgusting is automatically judged as titillation by those condemning the film, and how those condemning the film have absolutely no regard for the REAL sexualization of children that this film brings to light, and are simply content to shoot the messanger.
Going by the twisted logic of the screaming opposition: Jodie Foster's entire role as a child prostitute in the classic Taxi Driver was intended to titillate; or every single film with a minor doing something inappropriate is intended to titillate and encourage that behaviour.
And you fancy yourself an expert on context and nuance.
Ophan didn't make a blimp because there were fewer far right conspiracy nuts back then, and they didn't have an agenda against Netflix for being some "liberal leftie platform for Hollywood pedophiles and the Obamas"...
And Film Junkie is correct: if you're outraged over Cuties then you should be more outraged over Orphan - where a minor is acting out something more inappropriate for the express purpose of horror and disgust rather than any larger social commentary. Ditto the Exorcist.
"By the way it was presented it was clearly intended to be titillation"?
I'm doubting you even seriously watched the entire film otherwise you would be well aware of the intention and context of the final dance number: to shock and draw attention to the accepted sexualization of young girls.
There were about two close ups in order to convey their inappropriate dance moves, but here you are still screaming that it's intended child porn and intended to titillate, while exaggerating what's emphasized; the length and number of close ups and acting like the ENTIRE movie consists of close ups of underage twerking...
It just sounds like you were turned on by it you sick fuck, and even if the "bare minimum" was shown you would still be fucked up about it.
A balanced person who watched the film would be disturbed by the inappropriate dancing - exactly as it was intended - not arguing that the filmmakers are trying to arouse them.
Nope, you don't know fuck all about context and nuance.
Jodie Foster's character in Taxi Driver wasn't intended to titillate; just like the dancers in Cuties - but still if we apply your lack of logic: the underage Isis wearing revealing clothing and attempting to seduce is all intended to titillate.
Every single scene of a minor doing something inappropriate in a film was intended to titillate regardless of context according to YOUR argument - since you're ignoring the entire intention and context of Cuties, which as plain as day.
You haven't got a leg to stand on with you faux outrage while ranting about "faggot lefties"; that feminism crushes males and racism isn't real.
You're a sick RWNJ without any credibility, and part of the cultural dysfunction that Cuties shines a light on.
You probably stroke it over Trump - the misogynistic Orange sex pest who defended pedophile Roy Moore and who once told a 10 year old girl he was going to marry her.
And you think you're an authority on what's inappropriate and abuse? 🤣
yeah, i just read this in a review:
"There has been an ugly and abusive social media storm, dominated by vicious trolls who haven’t seen the film and by mischief-makers jumping at the chance to embarrass those with Netflix connections such as the Obamas."
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/sep/14/cuties-review-netflixs-controversial-child-exploitation-film-is-bold-flawed-and-misunderstood
Exactly.
shareI think it's to punish Netflix for making a multi-million dollar deal with the Obamas similar to how Amazon has been attacked.
"...U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, and others online calling for subscribers to #CancelNetflix."
"Cruz in his letter to Attorney General William Barr asked that they, “determine whether Netflix, its executives, or the individuals involved in the filming and production of ‘Cuties’ violated any federal laws against the production and distribution of child pornography.”
Ruin the company financially and possibly arrest the executives.
https://apnews.com/8fe2ce34c1618a352d3d8e1e4884fd21
That's exactly their agenda.
So if this film gets categorized as child pornography where does that leave films like Taxi Driver, Lolita, Pretty Baby or any film where a minor acts inappropriately for the purposes of story and context?
And the hypocrisy of these degenerate Republicans who line up to kiss the arse of their Orange sex pest President; who also defended pedophile Roy Moore and told a 10 year old girl that he would marry her one day.
The same conservatives who sexualize their children with beauty pagents and the like and give permission for their teenage daughters to marry.
The hypocrisy is sickening.
I'm sickened reading the garbage from conservatives about this movie and the faux outrage from these lunatics about a movie that portrays media hypersexualisation of girls and also an often untouched subject in the movie, conservative views from the girls family that are just as toxic.
I believe there is another agenda here, to demonise Netflix for its deal with the Obamas.
Typical shallow despicable people.
Hollywood/society has been criticized for being pedophiles and sexualizing children for decades.
shareSo you keep claiming.
So where's all the outrage and death threats other every other film that's ever depicted minors doing something inappropriate?
Did Mean Girls face charges of child pornography for showing a pre-teen dancing inappropriately in order to convey that she is taking after her bigger sisters?
Did Milk Money for showing adolescent boys taking an interest in sex?
Hell, what about ALL the films depicting pre-teen boys and young teenagers engaging in sexual conversations or films and television programs depicting them masturbating?
Seems to be a good old fashioned double-standard there when it comes to boys.
The outrage is selective projection, and in large part aimed at getting back at Netflix for promoting diversity and the Obamas. No bland sound-bites to the contary disputes that fact.
Harvey Weinstein be like "where's the Me Too on other producers"
shareThat was a 33-year-old woman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_(2009_film)#Plot
oh smartass, it's about the child actresses' age, not a fictional character. otherwise pedophiles could release child porn and just claim those children were playing grown ups.
shareThe character, as opposed to the characters in this.
sharewhat's your point?
share11-year-old girls vs a 33-year-old woman.
shareyou're not the brightest, are you? people are accusing 'cuties' to exploit their child actresses for having to twerk in front of the camera, while nobody seems to care about other movies where child actresses perform "sexy" things. the alleged age of the fictional character is completely irrelevant. and btw, thanks for spoiling the big twist from that movie to the people who haven't seen it.
sharePeople are accusing Cuties of sexualizing 11-year-old girls.
Hollywood has been criticized for being pedophiles and sexualizing children for decades.
Don't bring up trying to fuck her(i.e. a 33-year-old woman) stepdad in the movie 'the orphan' (2009), if you don't want to reveal stuff in movies.
according to your logic, the film maker would just have to claim the characters were actually 16 or older who just happen to look like 11-year-olds, and suddenly everything would be fine with the film, no more outrage. lol
shareIf these people saw the 12 year old Brooke Shields stark naked in "Pretty Baby" (1978) they would forget all about this movie.
sharesoooo... we're going with any possible misdirection away from THIS movie's issue? Why?
shareOutrage culture wasn't a thing yet in 2009. It's the same reason why nobody complained about blackface in Tropic Thunder the year before.
shareYou also have the film "Kids" from 1995 where you see children having sex left and right, little 12 year old getting pleased by ladies and smoking....Yet it got none of the outrage Cutie has gotten. Did we had more of a critical mind in the 90's and understood better when something was acted to raise awareness on an issue? Like other mentioned, the things in this work of fiction are genuinely happening ALL the time in the real world and we enable them. I feel there is a certain hypocrisy to rant about that film while allowing the things it speak against to happen every single day in the U.S , I am loosing hope for our generation, they just do not have their priorities in the right place lol I can picture these so called outraged parents, right after protesting against "Cuties" sitting their child in front of The Kardashians, Dance mom etc.. , perhaps some of them will prepare their child for their next pageant by buying them a new swim suite to please the judges, some will go to the store next door to buy their little girl one of these "Bratz" dolls that looks like prostitutes haha But yeah keep ranting at Netflix...
shareSpot on Oliver 👍👍While I think Kids did attract controversy and threats from conservatives, I don't recall any widespread effort to ban it or charge anyone with child pornography. The outrage doesn't seem anywhere near this level.
So yes, critical thinking and education has degraded since the 1990's; the results are quite obvious - every standard has dropped to the floor.
And yes the social and political hypocrisy in all this is galling.
That doesn't make Cuties any better. You're just another letfwing retard who makes this into a leftwing rightwing issue. A 1.9 score on imdb which has always leaned left shows that any person with morals and aversion to paedophilia hates this movie. Go ahead and justify child grooming.
share"IMDB has always leaned left"...
"Leftwing retards"...
Fuck off back to 8chan you illiterate, basement dwelling, pin-head.
Thanks retromogul :) I am not even going to waste my time responding to whatever burger guy over there wrote as he clearly did not even try to understand what I was trying to explain...Once someone start insulting another, you know that a debate is not possible at all...
shareYou're welcome 👍Unfortunately, the likes of Burger guy represent about 80% of the users on this site, and as a result any serious discussion of film is difficult to come by.
I give up here. This site is overrun by dickless, basement trolls.
"imdb has always leaned left" - a frickin' nazi propaganda movie has a 5.2 rating:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032653/
apparently showing 11-year-old girls twerking is worse than manipulating people into becoming mass murderers.
this one even has a 7.3 rating:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0025913/
Did they have online social media?
shareyup, same with 'christiane f' (1981), the biographical drama about a 13-year-old girl in berlin who becomes a drug addict and prostitute (including hand-job and sex scenes).
that movie/book was even used for pedagogical purposes as a subject in german schools.
It really is interesting .... Personally I would rather have this film open a conversation about the real issues happening rather than people dwelling so much on the fictional ones. Not that I am defending that dance scene in Cuties but I just really am confused why no one is bothered by the hyper sexualisation of minors that goes on all the time in the media and in real life. If they win and get Cuties removed...So what? Will that stop the real problem? If I was a film director working today I would just avoid talking about delicate topic like this one because it no longer make any differences, people get mad but only at the film and not at the real life situations it speaks about. Crazy world!
shareAre you saying Conservatives are not/have not been bothered?
shareProbably cause the orphan was really a 35 year old according to the movie and not a real child.
shareNah, Isabelle Fuhrman was 12 years old at the time of filming.
share??? In the movie she's supposed to be 35. They even show her rotting teeth as proof of her age.. I don't remember how far that scene goes but I hope it wasnt that far if it was a child actor. Sopeaking of which didn't brooke shields first movie have full frontal nudity when she was like 13? How did that happen?
shareIn the last part of Orphan, they put makeup on Isabelle to make her look like a 35 year old midget, including fake teeth.
Brooke Shields was naked in the film "Pretty Baby" in 1978 when she was about 13. That was and still is extremely controversial, especially because it is based around child prostitution.
another retard like JohnnyDoe who thinks the character's alleged age was relevant. like i sad before, according to your logic it would be acceptable to shoot actual child porn, as long as you claim that the child actresses' characters were actually supposed to be legal age but they just happen to look like children due to hormone disorder. well, good luck with your child porn business then!
shareYour not qualified to make that claim about me as you don't even know what my stance is in terms of the movie cuties. Hint I don't support it. Troll some one else.
share