6 ms·

The director said she did want to denounce over-sexualisation of young girls with this movie. I (and 2 of my friends, feminist women) think she managed to do it

The director said she did want to denounce over-sexualisation of young girls with this movie. I (and 2 of my friends, feminist women) think she managed to do it, with a relatively good and a relatively subtle movie. Talking about over-sexualisation of young girls require to show stuff linked to... over-sexualisation of young girls, to show some aspect of reality... But if you find this movie erotic, well the problem is you, not the movie !!!

identity0 6y ago
No, wanting to denounce sexualization does not require showing over-sexualisation. It especially doesn't require the film maker doing it herself to these poor actresses. It doesn't matter how "subtle" it is, the movie is part of the problem. It's like making a movie denouncing puppy murders and then the entire movie is just the director shooting puppies. "But don't you get it? How can our movie be bad if it's denouncing bad things?" you may say, oblivious to the fact that this director just created a great movie for puppy-murder enthusiasts.
- hhas01 6y ago
  Donnie Darko did it years earlier, flaying the same culture for the same reasons. And guess whose culture it was that got flayed? Yup.
  - identity0 6y ago
    I've never seen that movie so I can't guess. Would you tell me?
    - hhas01 6y ago
      Oh tsk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=accEKtBebaU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=accEKtBebaU Good movie. A bit nuts. Product of a much more innocent time; set in an even more innocent time than that. Also no-one’s innocent. Free to watch with ads on Amazon Prime, or you can rent or pick it up on DVD for a few bucks. https://www.amazon.com/Donnie-Darko-Jake-Gyllenhaal/dp/B002MGGM9I https://www.amazon.com/Donnie-Darko-Jake-Gyllenhaal/dp/B002M...
- skitout 6y ago
  Requiring or not requiring showing stuff does not make things bad or wrong... What you show or not show, the way you show it just make a different movie. If you make a good movie denouncing dog mistreatment, that is good. The fact it may sexually excite some people mistreating dogs is not really relevant... Those fetishist should see a doctor for being excite by this, and can find plenty of other exciting material on internet. If the movie was targeting those sick people, or was using this displaced erotic tension in mistreating puppies, of course that would be wrong, because it fuels and use this "sickness"... Here this definitely not the case And I hope we won't ban gymnastic competitions, or forbid skin-tight pre-teen jeans cause it may excite pedophiles...
  - mainstreem 6y ago
    >If you make a good movie denouncing dog mistreatment, that is good. The fact it may sexually excite some people mistreating dogs is not really relevant... You've missed the point. If you kill puppies to make a movie denouncing dog mistreatment, the puppies are dead. If you exploit children to make a movie denouncing exploiting children, the children are still exploited. It has nothing to do with the subjective reception of the film at all. Specifically to this point, the actresses that played the young girls in the film all auditioned in front of the director, doing the sexually explicit dances behind closed doors, along with many others that didn't get the part. The creator of the film was a victim of sexual exploitation like this at a younger age. Additionally, it is very common for victims of various traumas to inflict those traumas on others, and it's also common for them to be in denial about their motives for victimizing new victims in the same way they were victimized themselves.
    - skitout 6y ago
      Doing twerk in a movie when you are 11 years old and have support and context is not child exploitation. Especially given that twerk is a very small part of the actor work and of the film. And there is nothing supporting the idea that the female director took advantage of those girls in any form. Beside that, we read the film differently. To me this film is not really about pedophilia or child exploitation...
    - 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
EricE 6y ago
If you turn off the sound (mute the movie) does that message come across? Because there are people who will watch oversexualized stuff like this with the sound off for their own purposes. You don't have to do the thing you are being critical of in order to be critical of it. There is nothing sophisticated in "pushing boundaries" to make a point - it's sophistry to justify child pron, plain and simple.
- skitout 6y ago
  If you turn off the sound, most film suck and don't have their message passed across. Of course you don't have to show what you show, but then you make an entire different movie. The fact you could make a different movie, does not make a thing "morally" bad or wrong. The public swimming-pool of you city is probably much more exciting for pedophile than this movie. Do you suggest swimming-pool are child porn ? Should we close it ?
- smabie 6y ago
  Why do you care what other people watch it "for"?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

identity0 6y ago

No, wanting to denounce sexualization does not require showing over-sexualisation. It especially doesn't require the film maker doing it herself to these poor actresses. It doesn't matter how "subtle" it is, the movie is part of the problem. It's like making a movie denouncing puppy murders and then the entire movie is just the director shooting puppies. "But don't you get it? How can our movie be bad if it's denouncing bad things?" you may say, oblivious to the fact that this director just created a great movie for puppy-murder enthusiasts.

hhas01 6y ago
Donnie Darko did it years earlier, flaying the same culture for the same reasons. And guess whose culture it was that got flayed? Yup.
- identity0 6y ago
  I've never seen that movie so I can't guess. Would you tell me?
  - hhas01 6y ago
    Oh tsk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=accEKtBebaU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=accEKtBebaU Good movie. A bit nuts. Product of a much more innocent time; set in an even more innocent time than that. Also no-one’s innocent. Free to watch with ads on Amazon Prime, or you can rent or pick it up on DVD for a few bucks. https://www.amazon.com/Donnie-Darko-Jake-Gyllenhaal/dp/B002MGGM9I https://www.amazon.com/Donnie-Darko-Jake-Gyllenhaal/dp/B002M...
skitout 6y ago
Requiring or not requiring showing stuff does not make things bad or wrong... What you show or not show, the way you show it just make a different movie. If you make a good movie denouncing dog mistreatment, that is good. The fact it may sexually excite some people mistreating dogs is not really relevant... Those fetishist should see a doctor for being excite by this, and can find plenty of other exciting material on internet. If the movie was targeting those sick people, or was using this displaced erotic tension in mistreating puppies, of course that would be wrong, because it fuels and use this "sickness"... Here this definitely not the case And I hope we won't ban gymnastic competitions, or forbid skin-tight pre-teen jeans cause it may excite pedophiles...
- mainstreem 6y ago
  >If you make a good movie denouncing dog mistreatment, that is good. The fact it may sexually excite some people mistreating dogs is not really relevant... You've missed the point. If you kill puppies to make a movie denouncing dog mistreatment, the puppies are dead. If you exploit children to make a movie denouncing exploiting children, the children are still exploited. It has nothing to do with the subjective reception of the film at all. Specifically to this point, the actresses that played the young girls in the film all auditioned in front of the director, doing the sexually explicit dances behind closed doors, along with many others that didn't get the part. The creator of the film was a victim of sexual exploitation like this at a younger age. Additionally, it is very common for victims of various traumas to inflict those traumas on others, and it's also common for them to be in denial about their motives for victimizing new victims in the same way they were victimized themselves.
  - skitout 6y ago
    Doing twerk in a movie when you are 11 years old and have support and context is not child exploitation. Especially given that twerk is a very small part of the actor work and of the film. And there is nothing supporting the idea that the female director took advantage of those girls in any form. Beside that, we read the film differently. To me this film is not really about pedophilia or child exploitation...
  - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

EricE 6y ago

If you turn off the sound (mute the movie) does that message come across? Because there are people who will watch oversexualized stuff like this with the sound off for their own purposes. You don't have to do the thing you are being critical of in order to be critical of it. There is nothing sophisticated in "pushing boundaries" to make a point - it's sophistry to justify child pron, plain and simple.

skitout 6y ago
If you turn off the sound, most film suck and don't have their message passed across. Of course you don't have to show what you show, but then you make an entire different movie. The fact you could make a different movie, does not make a thing "morally" bad or wrong. The public swimming-pool of you city is probably much more exciting for pedophile than this movie. Do you suggest swimming-pool are child porn ? Should we close it ?
smabie 6y ago
Why do you care what other people watch it "for"?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]