1 edit
@philokalia saidWell, I disagree with your subjective judgment. The girls are far younger (8 and 9 rather than 12 to 14), their outfits are more revealing and they are copying a Beyonce routine which is rather explicitly sexual in nature. Also the audience is enthusiastically cheering rather than expressing disapproval as in the Cuties' clip. This actually makes it seem supportive of the sexualization of young children rather than the opposite message the routine in the film conveys.
... and it did create a national outrage, and pehaps even led to reforms in the dance scene. I am not sure.
Also, I would say that this is not nearly as extreme as the clip that I had posted from Cuties. There are no close-ups and the dancing is not anywhere near as sexual in nature.
The two are not comparable.
@wolfgang59 said
Err.... you just compared them.
adj.
1. Admitting of comparison with another or others: "The satellite revolution is comparable to Gutenberg's invention of movable type" (Irvin Molotsky).
2. Similar or equivalent: pianists of comparable ability.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/comparable
@no1marauder saidYou know what would have made this more objectionable..?
Well, I disagree with your subjective judgment. The girls are far younger (8 and 9 rather than 12 to 14), their outfits are more revealing and they are copying a Beyonce routine which is rather explicitly sexual in nature.
Close-ups; laying on the ground and thrusting the pelvis while banging the hand against the ground as if being stimulated in an urgent way; even more inappropriate close-ups.
But, fortunately, there was none of that.
@no1marauder saidSurely the answer to my A and your A is the same??? of course subject to morality. you answer my A.
Finish the sentence then.
All those factors are clearly relevant as to the "morality" of the movie in question and Philo said he wanted to discuss "morality" (except he obviously doesn't).
If you want to dispute any of the facts I have given, do so.
@philokalia saidLMAO!
You know what would have made this more objectionable..?
Close-ups; laying on the ground and thrusting the pelvis while banging the hand against the ground as if being stimulated in an urgent way; even more inappropriate close-ups.
But, fortunately, there was none of that.
Really? That is the extent of your "moral" objection?
The scene was meant to be a bit over the top for plot purposes as already explained.
Oddly, you seem OK with the sexualization of considerably younger girls IF done with different camera angles in front of cheering adults.
I find that rather strange to say the least.
@jimmac saidNo, I'm getting rather tired of posters ignoring my points and questions while insisting I answer every one of theirs.
Surely the answer to my A and your A is the same??? of course subject to morality. you answer my A.
Finish the sentence and I'll explain why the factors I mentioned are relevant to the "morality" of the movie if it is unclear to you (it seems rather obvious why they would be to me).
@no1marauder saidI do object to it and would not have my own HYPOTHETICAL daughter or granddaughter in such a position, but Cuties is far graver.
LMAO!
Really? That is the extent of your "moral" objection?
The scene was meant to be a bit over the top for plot purposes as already explained.
Oddly, you seem OK with the sexualization of considerably younger girls IF done with different camera angles in front of cheering adults.
I find that rather strange to say the least.
You have basically admitted that the scene is bad and raunchy. So why do you think it is acceptable to have preteen and young teen girls perform this?
@philokalia saidFinish the sentence and we'll talk.
I do object to it and would not have my own HYPOTHETICAL daughter or granddaughter in such a position, but Cuties is far graver.
You have basically admitted that the scene is bad and raunchy. So why do you think it is acceptable to have preteen and young teen girls perform this?
You wanted to discuss the "morality" but now refuse to answer exactly why the filmmaker committed a grievous moral error under the circumstances.
I didn't admit the scene was "bad"; in fact, it seems completely necessary given the narrative of the film and the points it is trying to make. I don't feel like quibbling over camera angles and specific moves; that seems like an artistic decision that no one was harmed by.
@earl-of-trumps saidIt’s not about values, I think we all feel the same about child sexual abuse.
Interesting posts but it is obvious that this debate cannot be resolved simply because
different people have different ideas on what is obscene behavior that the girls
have been taught.
different values, different views. No resolution.
It’s simply that those claiming that this film in particular is a stand out example of it when it is clearly trying to highlight the issue by scenes and narratives that are already out there and have been for a long time. The proof of its success is here and in countless other forums, digital and non digital.
The reason this thread has got bogged down is that the films detractors have got lost in a swamp of their own hypocrisy.
@no1marauder said(1) Finish what sentence?
Finish the sentence and we'll talk.
You wanted to discuss the "morality" but now refuse to answer exactly why the filmmaker committed a grievous moral error under the circumstances.
I didn't admit the scene was "bad"; in fact, it seems completely necessary given the narrative of the film and the points it is trying to make. I don't feel like quibbling over camera angles and specific moves; that seems like an artistic decision that no one was harmed by.
(2)
I didn't admit the scene was "bad"; in fact, it seems completely necessary given the narrative of the film and the points it is trying to make. I don't feel like quibbling over camera angles and specific moves; that seems like an artistic decision that no one was harmed by.
So the film requires close-ups of scantily clad pre-teen girls dancing in that way, the plot can't move on without it..
IDK, man.
I've seen a lot of films deal with rough topics without depicting anything as offensive as this, and they are classics. Vivre Sa Vie, another French film, did this very well.
It used to be commonplace to avoid these things.
I think it was literally included because of the desire to raise this hubbub and create divsion, and that the French production team rightfully gambled on the fact that the cultural revolution in the West (ongoing since the sixties) is too far gone for there to be any meaningful reaction.
@earl-of-trumps saidI didn't think the discussion was about obscenity.
Interesting posts but it is obvious that this debate cannot be resolved simply because
different people have different ideas on what is obscene behavior that the girls
have been taught.
different values, different views. No resolution.
What's obscene?
@philokalia saidJesus, first post page 25.
(1) Finish what sentence?
(2)I didn't admit the scene was "bad"; in fact, it seems completely necessary given the narrative of the film and the points it is trying to make. I don't feel like quibbling over camera angles and specific moves; that seems like an artistic decision that no one was harmed by.
So the film requires close-ups of scantily c ...[text shortened]... ion in the West (ongoing since the sixties) is too far gone for there to be any meaningful reaction.
I disagree the girls are "scantily clad".
I disagree that there are any improper "close ups"; the camera occasionally focuses on one girl or another, but it doesn't zoom in on particular body parts for titillation purposes.
I think your hypothesis is ridiculous. It's a small scale production that probably would have never even made it to Netflix but for winning the Best Director at Sundance (an important international film festival that you absurdly compared to adult film awards). The filmmaker gave her reasons for making the movie, all of which are quite plausible, and none include "creating division" or "raising a hubbub". Right wingers often see base motives and improbable conspiracies where none exist and your guesswork is just another lurid example of the same.
@no1marauder saidI'm sorry, but we have some inaccuracies here:
Jesus, first post page 25.
I disagree the girls are "scantily clad".
I disagree that there are any improper "close ups"; the camera occasionally focuses on one girl or another, but it doesn't zoom in on particular body parts for titillation purposes.
I think your hypothesis is ridiculous. It's a small scale production that probably would have never even made it t ...[text shortened]... probable conspiracies where none exist and your guesswork is just another lurid example of the same.
(1) The close-ups do have a nature to provoke and that cross the sense of decency. Perhaps some people have lower thresholds for this because they are used to looking at smut or are deep into booty dance culture or some such.
(2) I did not compare the two in the sense of suggesting that they are similar, but rather, I noted that even adult films have award ceremonies.
. Right wingers often see base motives and improbable conspiracies where none exist and your guesswork is just another lurid example of the same.
(3) What guesswork?
@philokalia saidYour continued refusal to even say why the film commits any type of moral error makes further discussion pointless regarding "morality"; which you insisted on discussing. I'm not impressed by continued conclusionary statements regarding a subjective "sense of decency" that you think you possess and others do not.
I'm sorry, but we have some inaccuracies here:
(1) The close-ups do have a nature to provoke and that cross the sense of decency. Perhaps some people have lower thresholds for this because they are used to looking at smut or are deep into booty dance culture or some such.
(2) I did not compare the two in the sense of suggesting that they are similar, but rath ...[text shortened]... e exist and your guesswork is just another lurid example of the same.[/quote]
(3) What guesswork?
The "guesswork" is your statements regarding the motive of the filmmaker to "create division". There is nothing to indicate that is so.