Mignonnes [Cuties] (Maïmouna Doucouré, 2020)

[Swift]

Has anyone watched Cuties yet? I have to admit it likely wouldn't have been on my radar but the seemingly hysterical overreaction has piqued my curiosity. On another board I frequent, the generally reasonable conservative posters (and some centrist types) are losing their shit with one claiming he cancelled his Netflix account and others stating that not only should the film be pulled, it needs to be destroyed completely. Now I haven't even seen a clip from it whereas these guys have watched the trailer and supposedly a few minutes of the film before turning it off in disgust. Are their reactions warranted?

Reading a couple articles, Netflix can definitely take some blame for sexualising the poster (although aren't those kinds of images all over American TV in those awful child pageant shows?) How is the film itself?

EDIT: Thanks to the mod who moved this post. I blanked on putting it here, which is obviously the better place.

[Nasir007]

The condemnation is perhaps bipartisan. Tulsi who is about as left wing as you can get also condemned the movie.

[soundchaser]

At the risk of turning this into the politics thread: Gabbard is an authoritarian in sheep’s clothing. I wouldn’t take anything she does as representative of the left at large. (I haven’t seen the film, admittedly, but color me skeptical that the outrage is earned. Although what was the last really controversial Hollywood production we had? The Last Temptation of Christ?)

[domino harvey]

It should be noted though that it’s not a Hollywood production. I was supposed to see Mignonnes at this year’s R-V w/French Cinema at Lincoln Center, but haven’t watched it on Netflix yet and it’s not high on my list

[soundchaser]

Oh, right, forgot it was French. Well, replace “Hollywood” with “high-profile.”

[Never Cursed]

National Review wrote one of the most ridiculous articles I've ever seen published in a mainstream magazine about the film - at one point the author comments "it’s not in the least bit surprising that this is a French film," as though the film's country of origin was sufficient to advance charges of pedophilia. I haven't seen this, but I am quite disturbed by the way a lot of people have been talking about the film - no matter which side is in the right here, the side in the wrong is being either willfully ignorant or incredibly dense about the film's content.

[Aunt Peg]

Here is what I basically wrote on another site (I've just removed one word):

I would not have even aware of the existence of the film until a local media outlet reported on the controversy on Friday. Given the film won the Best Director award in the World Cinema - Dramatic competition at Sundance I thought I'd give a look.

I found it a totally innocuous run of the mill coming-of-age drama. As I had not seen Netflix's advertisements for the film I simply cannot comment on that aspect. And whilst I did find the sexual movements of girls so young a little disturbing it is no worse than those child beauty pageants which are also run with the blessing of parents.

The young protagonist's family of Cuties is basically oblivious to her new found interest.

Director/writer Maïmouna Doucouré clearly did not set out to make a film to titillate viewers though unintentionally she may have done just that to some degree.

Advertising aside because as I've already said I haven't actually seen any for the film but when are people going to wake up and realise that when it comes to the arts if they find something objectionable that the best form of censorship is to ignore it - it will probably just go away.

[flyonthewall2983]

I hope she sues Netflix

[furbicide]

The reaction to this feels like a real throwback to US moral panics over The Tin Drum and Adrian Lyne's Lolita, which I honestly thought would be a thing of the past by now (not that representation of children on film is any less of a fraught ethical topic nowadays, but that this very specific right-wing hysteria over it being pushed by politicians and high-profile religious figures seems so quintessentially '90s). I haven't seen it, and have no idea when/if it might surface in Australia, but from what I can tell the intentions of the director seem serious and not in any sense an exercise in salaciousness. Also, isn't this the same demographic that elected a president who literally ran beauty pageants for underage teens!?

Anyway, I'm glad we have a thread on this, because I'm interested in hearing about the merits (or lack thereof) of the film itself, as opposed to just the unbearably stupid culture war happening around it.

[JamesF]

The far-right have been increasingly weaponising hysteria around paedophilia and the sexualisation of children in general over the last few years as another means of undermining the left’s moral authority - in this particular case, it’s “Why aren’t the left outraged about this child porn being freely available on Netflix??” Any attempts to argue in good faith about context and the filmmaker’s intent, or point that the film is literally not child pornography are just waved away as examples of the left being morally negligent at best, disgustingly accommodating at worst - they allow men in women’s bathrooms, now they’re condoning child sex abuse in film! This isn’t necessarily new but it seems more cynically motivated in this era of ridiculous shit like QAnon gaining traction.

[tenia]

The reaction to this feels like a real throwback to US moral panics over The Tin Drum and Adrian Lyne's Lolita, which I honestly thought would be a thing of the past by now.

It's actually most certainly worse now than before since there is the Internet and Twitter for people who don't know crap and have nothing of value to say about a topic to say it anyway and in an overly-simplistic way on top of that.

And of course, it serves as a relay for politics : how many of these senators writing letters to Hastings actually have seen the movie ?
Some of them clearly describe the movie in ways showing they don't even know it's not a US Netflix production but a French acquisition.

[Aunt Peg]

The reaction to this feels like a real throwback to US moral panics over The Tin Drum and Adrian Lyne's Lolita, which I honestly thought would be a thing of the past by now (not that representation of children on film is any less of a fraught ethical topic nowadays, but that this very specific right-wing hysteria over it being pushed by politicians and high-profile religious figures seems so quintessentially '90s). I haven't seen it, and have no idea when/if it might surface in Australia, but from what I can tell the intentions of the director seem serious and not in any sense an exercise in salaciousness. Also, isn't this the same demographic that elected a president who literally ran beauty pageants for underage teens!?

Anyway, I'm glad we have a thread on this, because I'm interested in hearing about the merits (or lack thereof) of the film itself, as opposed to just the unbearably stupid culture war happening around it.

Cuties is playing on Netflix in Australia. Self rated MA (I'd give it a PG or M myself). Films on Netflix are not required to be viewed by The Australian Classification Board.

Also reminds of the outrage at Pretty Baby back in 1978. I remember when Pretty Baby was released in Australia there was a furore. It has been given an 'M' rating by the censors which was an advisory rating only meaning children could go see the film without being accompanied by an adult. The conservative Government of Queensland banned the film which was not uncommon at the time. Needless to say the film was very successful with all the free publicity and ran for months in Australia.

The last ruckus about a film in Australia if I recall correctly was Mysterious Skin. The South Australian Attorney General wanted to have the film banned without viewing it himself of course. He actually got the Police Commissioner of South Australia to watch the film. After the viewing the film, which had already been classified R the Police Commissioner thought it was a suitable film for teenagers to view. Anyway, the unwarranted controversy around Mysterious Skin didn't help it one bit at the box office and it tanked. I doubt a rating to allow under 18s to view the film would have made any difference to the films box office.

[JamesF]

Not that anyone here needs convincing that the film isn't child porn, but it's worth noting that the BBFC have given it a 15 certificate for "sex references, language, bullying" given they do not mess around when it comes to censoring or banning inappropriate images of children.

Here's the 'insight' with further info:

SpoilerShow

Note: The following text may contain spoilers

CUTIES is a French drama in which an 11-year-old girl joins a dance group at her school and finds herself torn between her new friends and her family's traditional values.

Sex

Occasional sex references include a girl inflating a condom she has found, mistaking it for a balloon. Her friends mock her error, and worry she might have caught an illness from touching it. In another scene, it is implied some girls are looking at pornography on a phone, but there are no images shown. A girl takes a photograph of her genitals below screen, and it is implied she posts it online, although there is no sight of nudity. She is immediately criticised by her peers, teachers and family for her irresponsible actions.

Language

There is use of strong language ('f**k'), as well as milder terms including 'bitch', 'whore', 'slut', 'skank', 'ho', 'shit', 'ass', 'putain', 'crap' and 'bugger', as well as use of the 'middle finger' gesture.

Theme

The film is a coming of age drama, reflecting on sexualisation in popular culture and how it can mislead young people. A group of adolescent girls performs a routine in a dance competition in which they naively attempt to replicate moves they have seen in music videos performed by their heroes. However, it is met with boos and condemnation from the crowd, who view their routine as inappropriate.

Additional information

There are scenes of bullying, moderate violence, and emotional upset. There is also brief natural nudity as an adult dancer in a video accidentally exposes her breast while dancing.

Regarding that very last point, I have seen posts inaccurately saying that it is a child being exposed, which are being spread like wildfire by people not checking properly. Some of the misinformation is apparently being posted on IMDB and taken as gospel by others.

[TheKieslowskiHaze]

Here's the 'insight' with further info:

SpoilerShow

Note: The following text may contain spoilers

CUTIES is a French drama in which an 11-year-old girl joins a dance group at her school and finds herself torn between her new friends and her family's traditional values.

Sex

Occasional sex references include a girl inflating a condom she has found, mistaking it for a balloon. Her friends mock her error, and worry she might have caught an illness from touching it. In another scene, it is implied some girls are looking at pornography on a phone, but there are no images shown. A girl takes a photograph of her genitals below screen, and it is implied she posts it online, although there is no sight of nudity. She is immediately criticised by her peers, teachers and family for her irresponsible actions.

Language

There is use of strong language ('f**k'), as well as milder terms including 'bitch', 'whore', 'slut', 'skank', 'ho', 'shit', 'ass', 'putain', 'crap' and 'bugger', as well as use of the 'middle finger' gesture.

Theme

The film is a coming of age drama, reflecting on sexualisation in popular culture and how it can mislead young people. A group of adolescent girls performs a routine in a dance competition in which they naively attempt to replicate moves they have seen in music videos performed by their heroes. However, it is met with boos and condemnation from the crowd, who view their routine as inappropriate.

Additional information

There are scenes of bullying, moderate violence, and emotional upset. There is also brief natural nudity as an adult dancer in a video accidentally exposes her breast while dancing.

Regarding that very last point, I have seen posts inaccurately saying that it is a child being exposed, which are being spread like wildfire by people not checking properly. Some of the misinformation is apparently being posted on IMDB and taken as gospel by others.

Wow. That is way, way tamer than twitter mobs would have one believe. Of course, I'd have to see the movie before I pass judgment.

[furbicide]

It’s interesting how (some might say inherently conservative) classification boards are often far less restrictive in what they consider permissible than the general public, once tabloid-style manufactured outrage campaigns are in full force (I don’t pretend to know what the prevailing public opinion on this is, but the response on social media has been overwhelmingly hostile, and not just from the right-wing ideologues pushing this). I remember well some of the classification controversies you describe from that early 2000s era in Australia, Aunt Peg, and have noticed a number of times that the board ended up mostly on the side of artistic freedom (even if it took them forever to unban Salo).

The far-right have been increasingly weaponising hysteria around paedophilia and the sexualisation of children in general over the last few years as another means of undermining the left’s moral authority - in this particular case, it’s “Why aren’t the left outraged about this child porn being freely available on Netflix??” Any attempts to argue in good faith about context and the filmmaker’s intent, or point that the film is literally not child pornography are just waved away as examples of the left being morally negligent at best, disgustingly accommodating at worst - they allow men in women’s bathrooms, now they’re condoning child sex abuse in film! This isn’t necessarily new but it seems more cynically motivated in this era of ridiculous shit like QAnon gaining traction.

I think that’s a good summation. Someone suggested that it’s all mostly a reprisal for the decision to remove Gone with the Wind, shows with blackface, etc. from streaming services a few months ago. In neither case is it about a real desire from the right to consider the merits or political implications of the films or TV shows that they are defending or condemning; rather, it’s pure tit-for-tat culture war, and this is being framed as a gotcha moment – i.e. "so you’re against political incorrectness but fine with literal child porn". All pretty nasty and disingenuous stuff.

[tenia]

What fascinates me is that some US politics have sent official letters to Hastings with clearly about no idea of the exact content of the movie (let alone having viewed it), and even no idea it's not even a US Netflix prod but a French movie bought for US distribution.

On the other hand/end, there currently is a silence in France about this unfair and absolutely crazy backlash going on right now, wity the director said to have received support "in private" but absolutely none publicly. The Minister of Culture has of course said nothing, but even within the industry, the Franch Society of Directors, the French distributor, the producers, other people connected to it or the movie industry, nobody is publicly supporting the movie by reminding this craziness is based on thin air and coming from people who have no idea what they're talking about.

The only people I'm seeing supporting the movie are movie critics who actually HAVE SEEN the movie, and they're of course getting flak like never (or rather : like always in such cases). One I know personally tends to joke about this stuff but I wonder if he was serious when he said he get dozens of death threats in a few hourd after defending the movie.

What's very saddening is that we have been getting through the Charlie Hebdo terror attack trial these past 2 weeks and yesterday, some satirical drawings from a Charlie journalist who was killed during the attack were shown at the trial, and got people to laugh... including the defendants who seemingly saw the journalist's work for the first time ever.

I'm of course not comparing those events and behaviors, but I feel like humans have obtains communication tools that allow the worst of them to express : our capacity of whining by default, for the sake of it, even for something that we don't know crap about it. There's a kind of "who knows ? What the hell, let's rant anyway." Any caution has been thrown away. React first, ask yourself if it's justified after.

And that within all the social networks created on the internet, that the most simplistic one like Twitter got so popular probably means that's what we're actively pursuing : a way to overly simplify the world around us, to be able to yell and rang our way through it and to pit people against people in small boxes, me against... the pedo-satanists, the Pizzagate, the big pharma, the deep state, the foreigners, and so on and so forth.

In the end, I don't think many ranting about the movie are actively thinking "about the kids". No, they're the victims. Them. Not the kids.

[Nasir007]

Pelosi's daughter has also asked for the film to be canceled. As far as I know, she's the second democrat after Tulsi to condemn the film.

Besides these two, I don't think a lot of Ds have shared their viewpoint.

[DeprongMori]

It’s interesting how (some might say inherently conservative) classification boards are often far less restrictive in what they consider permissible than the general public, once tabloid-style manufactured outrage campaigns are in full force (I don’t pretend to know what the prevailing public opinion on this is, but the response on social media has been overwhelmingly hostile, and not just from the right-wing ideologues pushing this). I remember well some of the classification controversies you describe from that early 2000s era in Australia, Aunt Peg, and have noticed a number of times that the board ended up mostly on the side of artistic freedom (even if it took them forever to unban Salo).

The far-right have been increasingly weaponising hysteria around paedophilia and the sexualisation of children in general over the last few years as another means of undermining the left’s moral authority - in this particular case, it’s “Why aren’t the left outraged about this child porn being freely available on Netflix??” Any attempts to argue in good faith about context and the filmmaker’s intent, or point that the film is literally not child pornography are just waved away as examples of the left being morally negligent at best, disgustingly accommodating at worst - they allow men in women’s bathrooms, now they’re condoning child sex abuse in film! This isn’t necessarily new but it seems more cynically motivated in this era of ridiculous shit like QAnon gaining traction.

I think that’s a good summation. Someone suggested that it’s all mostly a reprisal for the decision to remove Gone with the Wind, shows with blackface, etc. from streaming services a few months ago. In neither case is it about a real desire from the right to consider the merits or political implications of the films or TV shows that they are defending or condemning; rather, it’s pure tit-for-tat culture war, and this is being framed as a gotcha moment – i.e. "so you’re against political incorrectness but fine with literal child porn". All pretty nasty and disingenuous stuff.

Just to be clear: TCM has *not* removed Gone with the Wind from their streaming service. The film was briefly and temporarily rotated out until additional contextual materials could be added to accompany it.

An actual rich conversation about the materials, the art, its history, and its context is what we presumably want, right?

[knives]

Yeah. The GwtW response is the most perfect we have available.

[bamwc2]

TCM has their own streaming service? Is it part of HBO Max, because the Gone with the Wind controversy was on HBO Max.

[Never Cursed]

TCM is owned by Warners and is a sublabel on HBO Max

[furbicide]

Oh, I'm fully aware of that – but the way it was reported in the press was that it was being removed, and that caused a fair bit of angst among the right specifically, with even Trump weighing in (I think we've been spared his searing insights on this film, so far). The part about it being quickly reinstated with contextual material is an inconvenient detail for them. Needless to say, in all this, perception is central, not reality.

[TheKieslowskiHaze]

Cuties' director wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post defending the film against backlash.

"We, as adults, have not given children the tools to grow up healthy in our society. I wanted to open people's eyes to what's truly happening in schools and on social media, forcing them to confront images of young girls made up, dressed up and dancing suggestively to imitate their favorite pop icon. I wanted adults to spend 96 minutes seeing the world through the eyes of an 11-year-old girl, as she lives 24 hours a day."

[MichaelB]

Not that anyone here needs convincing that the film isn't child porn, but it's worth noting that the BBFC have given it a 15 certificate for "sex references, language, bullying" given they do not mess around when it comes to censoring or banning inappropriate images of children.

...as they are legally required to do by the notoriously draconian 1978 Protection of Children Act, which, unlike most British obscenity legislation, does not admit context or artistic merit as a legal defence. Which means that it doesn't matter how justified a particular image is - if it's deemed to be illegal for reasons defined by the Act, out it comes.

In this case, since nothing has been removed and the film has only been given a 15 certificate (equivalent to a mild R, or a strong PG-13), it's apparent from that alone that this is a complete teacup-storm. There's a very clear legal definition of "child pornography", and this obviously doesn't come anywhere near it.