MovieChat Forums > Mignonnes (2020) Discussion > Things I learned from this board

Things I learned from this board


had a very educational experience so far, here's some of the stuff that i've learned:

- criticising something equals promoting it.
- people who defend a film that criticises the sexualization of children are perverts.
- deliberately misinterpreting a film's intentions is acceptable, especially if you can use it to pursue a hidden political agenda.
- twerking can get you pregnant, as there's no difference between sexually connoted dance moves and the subject of the connotation.
- letting child actors twerk in front of the camera is abusive by all means, the consent of the actors and their parents as well as working with a child psychologist don't matter.
- exploiting those twerk scenes in an online hate campaign against the film is acceptable though and won't potentially have any harmful psychological effects on the child actors at all.
- by posting dirty fantasies about how "perverts" might react to certain images from this film, you're not sexualizing children all the more (as well as projecting your own practices to other people).
- there's no difference between children twerking of their own free will and animals being tortured (against their will, obviously).
- oh wait, there is a difference: twerking children in a french arthouse film are reason for a massive online shitstorm, while it's acceptable to praise hollywood blockbusters where dozens of animals have been abused or even killed during the production, just for your popcorn entertainment.
- laws are based on your personal morals, codes of law don't exist.
- if you're convinced that a film's content is illegal, you're not going to report it to the authorities, because an online outrage is more appropriate than legal action.
- you can make "thoughtful" reviews just based on a trailer, watching the whole film is not necessary at all.
- context is irrelevant.
- people who've seen the whole film and make thoughtful reviews are pedos if their opinion is not in accordance with those who've only seen the trailer.
- france is a bunch of weirdos.
- all lefties are pedos.
- even lefties condemn this film (although they are all pedos).
- film auditions are carried out for the voyeuristic pleasure of the casting crew and film makers.
- for the audition of cuties, candidates had to twerk in front of old men, even though all three casting crew members as well as the director are female.
- sexualization of children is typically encouraged by women/feminists.
- every professional film critic of the world is part of a pedo conspiracy.
- hollywood has been accused of sexualizing children for years, but it takes a small french indie film to cause an actual shitstorm over alleged sexualizing content.
- everybody is already aware enough of social issues, critical media to hold a mirror up to society is not needed.
- making an uncomfortable social commentary in a film is only justified if this film proves to change the world and fully eliminate the social issues.
- depicting uncomfortable social issues is only acceptable in entertainment/genre movies - in an authentic drama it's exploitation.
- erotic scenes with child actors are morally acceptable though, as long as you claim the fictional character was actually legal age and just happens to look like a child due to growth hormone deficiency.
- child beauty pageants are morally acceptable and not pedophile at all, as long as they take place in a conservative american environment, instead of a french drama film.
- praising nazi propaganda movies is acceptable, as long as they are well crafted.
- it's convincing to claim you have a high iq and therefore your arguments must be superior.
- it's acceptable to make polemic exaggerations based on the deliberate misinterpetation of a film's content, applicable laws as well as the denial of the concept of personal consent.
- if you run out of arguments, you can still repeat your previously refuted argument over and over again.
- if you have no counter argument, it's acceptable to reply with personal attacks, swearwords and unrelated insinuations.
- if you don't know what to say, just throw in a random jeffrey epstein or harvey weinstein remark (or any other *stein of your choice).
- everyone with a different opinion is a troll.
- cuties is evil. period.

reply

"people who defend a film that criticises the sexualization of children are perverts."

I see. Forcing children doing cp scenes is indeed criticizing cp! Now I understand your point :) . Thats something we should learn for all the other crime documentations. So your suggestion for the next documentation about rape is then what style of movie scenes?

reply

thank you, forgot this one, now added:

- it's acceptable to make polemic exaggerations based on the deliberate misinterpetation of a film's content, applicable laws as well as the denial of the concept of personal consent.

reply

added another one, thanks @ultravioletx:

- there's no difference between children twerking of their own free will and animals being tortured (against their will, obviously).
- oh wait, there is a difference: twerking children in a french arthouse film are reason for a massive online shitstorm, while it's acceptable to praise hollywood blockbusters where dozens of animals have been abused or even killed during the production, just for your popcorn entertainment.

reply

TLDR
This is really not an issue of much interest to me.
However on your fourth point, about working with a child psychologist. I have had enough experience dealing with child psychologists to know that is pretty meaningless. I have seen child psychologists with personal agendas do a lot of harm to children.

reply

it's a long list, isn't it? and probably just the tip of the iceberg of interesting "facts" people have been delivering here...

as to child psychologists, don't know? maybe causing additional harm to the children was the reason they hired them?

reply

I’ve been trying to avoid it. I enjoy friendly conversations, and people get to worked up about it.
As to psychologists, no that’s not why. Parents hired them because the kids had small problems. The kids ended up very messed up with drug & crime problems. Maybe it would have happened anyway, but it’s certainly not what the parents hired them for.

reply

I just have one question for you: are you a parent?

reply

after we've watched cuties together, my kids promised me they'll never want to twerk! (obviously they got the message of the film, which makes them smarter than most of the people here on this board, i suppose...)

reply

How do I know you're telling the truth about having kids? You could have just made that all up. Besides, no sane parent would let anyone younger than 30 watch that garbage, if at all. I'd blame it on all the genitalia being shown on there.

reply

how you know? you don't. just like i don't know if you're actually a "girl", as your user name suggests. for all i know, you could be bearded 60 year-old man masturbating to hardcore child porn right now while you enjoy hiding your identity behind an online outrage against a french drama on netflix.

reply

For one thing, you didn't back up your claim of being a dad; two, you claim that you did what no real parent with an ounce of sense would do and let kids watch this trash; three, and you used deflection to show what kinda guy you are, minus the outrage over what you like to jack off to. Although, you're missing the part about how you haven't seen Little Johnny in 20 years because of that big gut you've been hauling for about as long, and the immaturity of your bad grammar and writing. It seems to confirm your word salad in the first entry you made goes along with you defending this disgusting movie.

My outrage is very real, and I listened to what people who actually watched the film had to say, and none of it was good. There could have been many ways the film-maker could have made a film about how wrong this was, but all this movie seems to do is glorify the sexualization, rather than show what's wrong with it.

And for the record, if you have any doubts about my gender, I'll have you know that I carry my balls on my chest, and they are a helluva lot larger than yours, pal. And I didn't need artificial hormones or surgery to get them either! Now run back to that perverted sandbox, kiddo, we're done here.

reply

For one thing, you didn't back up your claim of being a dad;

why would i want to give a perfect stranger personal information on me and my family? dream on.

you did what no real parent with an ounce of sense would do and let kids watch this trash;

yeah? 650 parents not only let their kids "watch this trash", they even let their kids apply for playing the roles in this "trash". (not my kids though)

...and the immaturity of your bad grammar and writing.

well, excuse my bad grammar and writing, not everyone is as smart as you and able to write in a foreign language perfectly. or did you think only americans are writing on this board?

reply

(obviously they got the message of the film, which makes them smarter than most of the people here on this board, i suppose...)


The message was never the problem (although you know this). The problem for most of us is the actual sexual exploitation of underage girls in order say that it happens and that it's bad. There are ways they could have gotten their message out without actually exploiting these children.

I wonder how many prepubescent girls twerked for the producers or studio execs in order to get those parts...



reply

maybe my english is not good enough, but the most negative definition of "to exploit" according to the cambridge dictionary is this one: "to use someone or something unfairly for your own advantage".
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/exploit)

were the child actors used "unfairly" in the film? no, they applied for their roles of their own will and with the consent of their parents, in compliance with applicable laws. plus, they got paid for their roles. that's not what i understand under "unfairly".

and why ask "how many prepubescent girls twerked (...) in order to get those parts..."?
who even cares? the three (female) casting agents + the (female) director are professionals, they had to watch the ca. 650 audition videos (according to wikipedia), because guess what? - it's their job.

btw, here's one of the audition videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72NS6vj5KTs
if you can't look at a child like that without having dirty thoughts, then i seriously hope that you got no children yourself...


reply

Thanks for your word salad and totally missing my point about how the message could be gotten out without actually sexually exploiting children, but you know as well as I we are talking about exploitation in two different contexts. I don't care one whit about whether the girls were well paid, whether their trailers had A/C, or if they were kept in a good supply of PEZ and coloring books. The exploitation I'm talking about is about adults dressing up children inappropriately and displaying them dancing sexually - which is what this film is about.

and why ask "how many prepubescent girls twerked (...) in order to get those parts..."who even cares?


Thanks for your honesty. As long as we're on the subject, did you divert your eyes away from your TV when the underage girls were twerking, or did you watch them?

.

if you can't look at a child like that without having dirty thoughts...


Well gee, that's what this film is about - stopping the exploitation of children used as sexual objects by dirty old men who may have dirty thoughts about them..

.. then i seriously hope that you got no children yourself...


Nice deflection, but the record clearly shows that you are the one who both watched then defended the filming of prepubescent girls twerking and continued showing of same, not me.

reply

[deleted]

thanks, i got your point, but i also got the impression neither you have seen the film nor the audition video i've posted above (the girl in it isn't even twerking, and even if she were, she's a child and therefore no sex object, no matter how loud you scream "exploitation!"). i'd like to discuss films with people who have seen them, and who have differentiated opinions on things, anything else is just a waste of time for me. so let's just leave it at that.

reply

I'm gonna make a movie about how it's bad to kill dogs, by killing a bunch of dogs.

STOP

DEFENDING

PEDOS

reply

Haha that’s the literally the first time ever someone makes that comparison haha.

reply

here we go again! :)

if you run out of arguments, you can still repeat your previously refuted argument over and over again

reply

thanks, but this one was already in the list:

- there's no difference between children twerking of their own free will and animals being tortured (against their will, obviously).
- oh wait, there is a difference: twerking children in a french arthouse film are reason for a massive online shitstorm, while it's acceptable to praise hollywood blockbusters where dozens of animals have been abused or even killed during the production, just for your popcorn entertainment.

reply

Ok, groomer.

reply

You're wasting your breath. Pedos actually see nothing wrong with their perversion and will argue vociferously that there's nothing wrong either with them or the perverted acts they enjoy. They are stunned that you can't understand.

reply

I am extremely happy to know that I'll never understand people that want to touch little kids in their naughty bits.

You are correct, Sir.

reply