Who would let their child be in a movie like that for starters? The “dancing” in one of the clips was very suggestive and frankly, disgusting. Parents need to stop letting their kids become so sexualized by limiting their access to wherever they are watching the stuff they are learning it from. They are much to young to be exposed to that kind of stuff. Unfortunately, all some parents see is their child becoming a “star” and not caring how they get there.
It seems the movie is about a pack of 11 year old girls. Rod Dreher has a review here.
I havent watched, nor do I plan on watching it, but the premise of this film is sickening and disturbing to say the least. For IMDB to state that scenes can be lawfully defined as pedophilia is enough to give you an idea of the premise.
Why do parents who say they love their children allow them to be hypersexualized? This reminds me of an interview I saw a few months ago where Nick Cannon stated, and pardon the language, parents pimping their children for fame and fortune, when speaking of the whole R Kelly debacle.
Honestly, I think any parent who lets their child be famous (in any way) is abusing their child.
Someone under 18 cannot control how their image is used, they can’t predict how their life would change due to fame, etc.
Would Matthew 18: 6 fit here? To me it would.
I think it did perfectly here
Update 2 In this link really hits the nail on the head. In part, no smartphones for children. They are watching whatever they and their peers want, often oversexualized trash. No dance studios for children unless it is traditional dancing, like ballet or tap etc. What passes for dancing these days, even for children is too sexualized.
I suggest that Mark 9:47 fits even better.
After starting to watch that very short clip (1:40) in The American Conservative link above to have some idea what all the conversation is about, less than half way through I realized that I could not be able to justify my reason for watching any further. Having a granddaughter that age, who as far as I know has not succumbed to such behavior, it is my opinion that there is not so much sin on the part of young girls who fall into such a “culture” as there is on the part of adults who introduce, promote, often deliberately exploit and sometimes perversely dwell on it.
And in regards to the Fr Z’s article in the OP, in my opinion he continues to erroneously link pedophilia with homosexuality.
I completely agree with all the negative reaction to “Cuties,” but Fr. Z has it wrong here. Netflix in no way “created” the movie. A simple reading of the related Wiki article, could have cleared that up.
I have to agree with Fr. Z. I don’t think he’s saying all homosexuals want to have sex with children. He’s saying that those who push for the acceptance of homosexuality in the public eye are doing so to push the envelope to get to that next hurdle of making pedophilia another normalized sexual preference, and then on and on down the line of degeneracy.
And I don’t think the hurdle is really that high. We’ve already been conditioned with the wave of transgender kids, some extremely young, that kids should be trusted to make sexual decisions about their bodies, and this needs to be supported by parents. If kids can consent to that, why couldn’t they consent to sex? All that’s left is getting normal adults on board with accepting pedophilia as just another sexual preference that “doesn’t effect you and if you don’t like it, don’t look.”
With the defense of this film I’ve read on vice and the telegraph, it seems some people already accept it.
I’m not sure that anyone in this thread realises that the film is against the sexploitation of children. You can see that in the final dance scene (which is purposely taken to the extreme) when it dawns on members of the audience and some of the judges that this is not acceptable. They begin to realise where they have arrived.
You are meant to realise that it’s shocking and totaly unacceptable. You are meant to feel horror and even shame in watching them.
It’s not promoting soft porn with children. It’s an argument against it. It’s an argument for protecting a child’s innocence.
Yes. Smartphones for children essentially allow kids to raise themselves in accord with what social media teaches them, with parents not even being aware of what is happening. It’s like giving a child a glock with ammo just to keep him occupied and entertained.
I said this in the other ‘Cuties’ thread, but you can show something without graphically showing it. Up close crotch shots? Seeing the bottoms of their bare bunnies? Those are filmmakers’ decisions and the movie could’ve been just as shocking without exploiting eleven year olds. Generally, I’m fine watching most movies although I’m squeamish about gratuitous violence, so I just look away for those parts; I am okay with pushing the limits and choosing not to see certain films, but I think a hard line must be established when it comes to children being exploited.
That was the point of the scenes. To shock you. If you want to make an anti war film you film scenes like the opening sequences of Saving Private Ryan. If you want to make a film against the sexual exploitation of children and their loss of innocence then you need to show them being exploited. You need to show them losing their innocence.
Anything less reduces the impact. It has to shown in such a way to convince people who might not think there’s a problem that there most definitely is.
Anyone that read the articles knows that is what it is supposed to be saying. However, they did use young girls in the parts and showed them “dancing.” My point goes to the fact that young girls are seeing this somewhere, mostly on the internet. Perhaps the film should have been a documentary and shown what is being taught as dance these days, or internet examples of what the girls of today are imitating, instead of a made up story exploiting the very subject whose innocence they claim to be Interested in protecting.
And again, the point I was making is totally different than what you are saying. I spoke/asked about parent allowing their child to be in a movie where they dance that way.
I usually agree with most of your comments but we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I like @Irishmom2 's idea of a documentary. I get what you’re saying and I agree with your point generally (ie with Saving Private Ryan, just watched that again last weekend) but I cannot stomach little girls being paid to act out sexual activity through dance. My problem isn’t the message, it’s that in the process of making a film little girls were exploited. A documentary would be a passive bystander to activity already occurring, whereas a film creates the activity.
Also, Saving Private Ryan may have started gruesomely to how bad it was, but it also inspired people to join the military. A lot of people.
Horror movies with a lot of gore may be trying to make commentary about how bad gore is, but people still enjoy it for the gore.
A Serbian Film may be commentary on the socio economic state of Serbia, but it still pleased people, and many people enjoy the filth in that movie for the filth that it is.
Commentary need not be what the predators like. Especially pointless commentary. No sane person needed that movie to tell them it is wrong.
And again, let’s not forget, the person behind it, the lady who was responsible for the movie never said it was about exploitation. She said it was about empowering people.
The latest defence of this Netflix film is poor: “People need to see children being sexualized in order to make a point sexualizing children is bad”. Well, that’s like saying people need to see a terrorist behead hostages in order to make the point terrorists are bad people and/or beheadings are bad.
(The first defence was it “offended” the right people e.g. own the cons by writing good reviews of this film. This shift to the above defence occurred when it wasn’t just conservatives who were disturbed by the positive reviews.)
The act of getting children to perform this scenes is exploitation. Do you think there’s nothing wrong with say, showing a naked child in explicit scenes to shock the audience into being against child porn? Or would you say that a child shouldn’t be shown naked and/or in this light in the first place? The protection of children, and in this case, the girls acting, should always be more important than the message.
It’s not the same as people acting like they’re raped or abused or whatever to highlight how wrong it is. It’s the act of acting in itself that we have a problem with.