|
I feel like this film is a lightning rod for this increasingly bizarre culture war that the world has found itself in. I think the subject that it makes me think about it the most is, as some others have said, the depiction of adolescent sexuality in art. Is it wrong for a female director to make a film like this? Is it wrong for a male author to write a book where an adolescent protagonist performs oral sex? Is it wrong for adults to wax nostalgic for teenage moments? Should adults be creating works that feature underage sexuality at all? Can we determine when it's okay/art versus when it's not/erotica? Are there problems with pornography? Should we be regulating things more? Is it a bad idea to give a child Internet access? It's a very complex issue and it feels like any argument I put forward in my head is a double-edged sword. The one argument that I don't think holds much weight, however, is the idea that the film must be censored because pedophiles will jerk off to it. Let's be serious for a moment. If you track down harmless videos of children on Youtube, I bet you'll find a few comments that make your skin crawl. Like those comments from Mara Wilson, it doesn't actually matter if the content is sexual - they'll use it as a sex thing anyway. More to the point, this leads to a broader argument as to what the responsibility is of an artist to the audience when creating a work. If the audience might take a Bad Message from a work, then should we control content more firmly? And if pedophilia is a problem from children being on screen, do we need to look at media violence and violent crime? And I'm not someone who thinks that depiction is harmless! But how many people are going to see a movie and have an anti-social reaction? One percent? Less? So, I don't know. I'm not sure I can watch the movie because I think some of the content would make me uncomfortable, and it's something I'm sensitive to as I work with children. But it isn't the fault of the film - I think society in general has a bit of a tension when it comes to children, the Internet, sex, and social media. I grew up in the age of dial-up and it's just impossible for me to comprehend what it must be like to grow up submerged in social media, and what that might make children do. But even back then, one of my first memories of the Internet being a gross place was when a friend of mine had started putting up photos of herself on a now-defunct photo album site, and they started picking up disgusting comments. But the difference between then and now is like night and day. These days, porn ads feature women doing anime-inspired 'ahegao' faces because, well, that's the kind of thing people respond to these days. Is this harmful? If it's harmful, how long does it take to show symptoms? When was the first influx of 'fingers in mouth' and when did it become such a huge thing a few years back? What do you do about any of this? But even as a kid, I was weirded out when peers would do sexy video clip dance routines before the whole school. Horizon Burning fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Sep 15, 2020 |
#
¿
Sep 15, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
What bothers me about the discourse is the arguments some people are making. Not here, but on Youtube or Discords or Twitter or wherever else. 'They should've used actors who look like kids without actually being children.' 'It would've been okay if it was a documentary.' 'I wouldn't have a problem with it if the girls were one or two years older.' Like, those are all really uncomfortable things for people to claim.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2020 06:11
|
|
|
PT6A understands why I find them weird arguments, thanks. Each argument struck me as an attempt to see the same images but in a 'guilt-free' sense. But would still, ultimately, not do anything about the issue they're claiming to rail against - images of 'exploited' children. And we have to ask why do these people want that? Like Fanana said, those points still perpetuate objectification. Anyway, I watched the film. I can see why people are upset but the film isn't what people think it is. I'm still not sure how I feel about the film but I think there's value in how it unflinchingly holds up a mirror to how our society treats women and girls. People seem to neglect the societal context, but also the wider context of the film. Time and time again, the girls demonstrate that they don't know what they're doing and how close they are to danger. Ami's attempts to sexualize herself don't work and they don't make her happy, leading to a breakdown on stage at the climax of the film. And this stuff is happening right from the start of the film, where she botches the attempt to straighten her hair with a clothes iron. There was so much of the film that rang true, such as the part where Ami lashes out and stabs the boy in the hand after he insults her. Watching the dances go from something fun the girls to do bond to something that's stressing them out and driving them apart was basically a metaphor for the process of maturity. I think had this film come out a few years ago - certainly, say, a decade ago - there'd be no controversy. Or much less controversy, at least. Should the film have been made? Who knows. To answer that, I think the world would need to interrogate a few more of those points I raised earlier. Like, should adults be creating works that feature adolescent sexuality? What can we do the dismantle the system that leads girls to doing this sort of thing?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:This isn't meant to negate your finding them weird arguments, because one could reasonably follow through and say that depictions, even if no harm was caused by their creation, can still create harm in their depiction. Or on the other side that enough precautions were taken that the actors weren't really exploited by the film so it's an arbitrary difference. The entire discussion is one that pits various values against each other and, combined with personal experiences, people are going to give different things different weight. That's what I mean. If the act of depiction is what causes harm (people masturbating to the images, for example) then what does it matter if the kids are technically not children, or if it's a documentary, or if they're a few years closer to the age of consent? The imagery would still exist. And if the imagery is the problem, then that's what should be interrogated. Not trying to find ways to allow you to watch those really uncomfortable scenes in a way that makes you feel, well, safe. 'Wow, I can get into this scene now that I know they only look underage.'
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
Yeah, I think most men would probably see their Magic Mike routine being a trending topic on Pornhub as a badge of honor.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2020 11:21
|
|
|
Jack Trades posted:Did that movie also have kids flashing their tits at the camera? "The guide has since been changed to accurately describe the movie, which only briefly shows the bare breast of a woman, who is not underage, dancing in a video, according to a Forbes viewing of the movie. (IMDB did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and a Netflix spokesperson confirmed the film does not contain any underage nudity)."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
The 'selfie' scene isn't random. Immediately prior to it, Amy is told that she needs to do something really crazy to get everyone talking about something other than that fight. So, she does something crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2020 01:02
|
|