Netflix's 'Cuties' condemns kiddie porn ... by showing it and making money off it

Is there anything more revolting than a Victorian-grade corporate hypocrite, an organization that condemns some sort of sin out there, and then profits from it on the side?

That's what we have from the piously self-important Netflix, the ugly marriage between the Harvey Weinstein Hollywood set and the tech barons of the Silicon Valley, whose third leg on the stool is the cash cow it amounts to for Democrats awaiting for their next power gig while serving the company as political muscle.  Just ask Barack Obama, Susan Rice, or Meghan and Harry Windsor, all of whom have either production deals, big stock holdings, or board seats.  They're Netflixed-up and making big money.

And now the show is on, this time in a controversial film called Cuties which they call "a powerful story" and "an award-winning film."  Here's the product they're selling:

This is pretty close to what the porno industry used to call a "loop."  And it's technically child porn, with the focus on close-up crotch and butt shots of underage girls with inappropriate touching.  It's the only part of the movie that's going to be watched by the perverts out there.  Who needs kiddie porn to hide from cops when there's Netflix instead?

Yet they've got an army of press critics in their tree, explaining that, no, really, this is an anti–kiddie porn movie, and only bad right-wingers, those uncultured boobs, are against it.  They're sophisticated, see, and they claim that this is soulful, a coming of age story, not the sexploitation it appears to be.  As if the perverts watching this clip over and over, looking at those wiggling butts, spread crotches, rubbed crotches, animal-style rides, butt-slappings, and hair tossings, are going to be thinking about that.

The video, in fact, is a pervert's delight, one of several creepy such offering from Netflix such as Big Mouth and others. And the Cuties movie has more, with exposed breasts that aren't in the trailer, and other kink, all on underage (and previously unknown) girls playing 11-year-olds whose actual ages range from 12 (the North African girl with the baby-like oversize glasses — you know the perverts like that prop — who plays a character named Angelica) to 14 (the African girl who plays a Senegalese migrant named Amy and the white girl who plays a character called Jess) to 21 (a black girl who plays a character named Coumba).  There's also an overweight girl (a North African who plays a character named Yasmine) who was originally with the troupe but somehow didn't make it to the final titillating dance sequence being spread around as advertising.

Wonder why.

To claim that this movie is some soulful big-message movie is like the old claim that one read Playboy magazine only for its articles, given the "product" sold.

But critics, who are blasting conservatives for wanting this movie gone (they've gained 806,000 signatures on a Change.org petition), claim it's because they never saw the movie, that it's all "needless controversy."  The L.A. Times, the New Yorker, and Variety are particularly obnoxious on this front.  The Hollywood Reporter unintentionally admits that the film is sexploitation first, noting how many times the plotline was left unaddressed and how many times the visuals took precedence, calling it "captivating but structurally shaky."  No kidding.

The plotline is an unassimilated immigrant family from Senegal living in the banlieus of Paris, whose mother figure is brokenhearted because dad's back in Senegal picking up a new bride to bring back.  The daughter, one of three children in the cramped apartment, acts out by joining a group of bratty girls who specialize in "twerking," which is a filthy sort of porno dancing popularized by Cardi B and much of the big-money Hollywood establishment (Kim Kardashian's name is brought up in the film).  Together they achieve self-realization by twerking on the stage, as one can see from the video above.  No, no, it's against kiddie porno exploitation, the critics say.  This is rather like conducting an actual rape to demonstrate on some film that one is against rape.  It doesn't work that way.

The Netflix trailer, despite its disclaimers, in any case depicts the girls achieving self-realization through twerking — all you have to do is watch this trailer, far less filthy than the original movie poster that Netflix pulled back in August, or the video sequence above, noting the soundtrack at the 1:03 point, which rises in anticipation with its beem-beem electronic riff, clearly depicting uplift and hope as the twerking comes along following a sequence of fighting and crying and screaming among the migrants.

And despite the claims to this whole thing being about art and self-realization, note that the exploited child actresses' Instagram accounts are either protected or else generic with non-sexualized official movie stills from that and only that Cuties movie, which is, for all of them, their only movie.  Why would they do that?  As a means of fighting off the abundant perverts who may well now be obsessing about them in the wake of that flick.  It wasn't just a depiction of exploitation; it was exploitation, and that's proof.

Yet the critics would have you think the conservatives are the problem rather than the Netflix crowd that slips that little pervy porn out there, calling it a coming of age story.  Here's the abhorrent New Yorker review, saying the problem is French society:

As such, it's a story of French society at large — its exclusions and the exertions demanded to overcome them. Though many of Amy's actions are dubious, her spirit of revolt is nonetheless sublime and heroic. "Cuties" dramatizes what people of color and immigrants endure as a result of isolation and ghettoization, of not being represented culturally and politically — and of not being represented in French national mythology. Its underlying subject is the connection of personal identity to public identity—and the urgency of transforming the very notion of French identity, of changing the idea of who's considered the representative face of France. That idea is brought to the fore in an extraordinary, brief, symbolic ending; it's enough to give a right-winger a conniption.

The problem with this analysis defending the film is that it presents a false premise and a false dichotomy.  It's saying the Senegalese protagonist can be a miserable oppressed unassimilated Muslim, or else she has to be a twerking stripper of the kind who makes big bucks in Hollywood.  There's no middle ground — such as having a family with conservative Judeo-Christian family values of the kind that vehemently oppose kiddie porn.  Those are the values of conservatives, which are not presented in the film.  The dilemma in fact is a blue-on-blue one, with libertine leftists and unassimilated migrants duking it out, and conservatives who oppose the whole thing non-persons.  Conservativism is never considered in the film, they have been completely written out of the picture, because leftists don't recognize conservatives, ever.  When conservatives object to the kiddie porn depicted in the name of art, they are dismissed as uncultured rubes. 

That's saying a lot about why the critics can't understand the criticism.  There's plenty to be critical about with this picture, and point number one is that there's no such thing as opposing kiddie porn by acting out kiddie porn.  The petitions against Netflix will go on then, the stock will continue to drop, and conservatives will be blamed, cast as anti-art, when in fact they oppose this perversion as the new normal. 

Image credit: Twitter screen shot.

Is there anything more revolting than a Victorian-grade corporate hypocrite, an organization that condemns some sort of sin out there, and then profits from it on the side?

That's what we have from the piously self-important Netflix, the ugly marriage between the Harvey Weinstein Hollywood set and the tech barons of the Silicon Valley, whose third leg on the stool is the cash cow it amounts to for Democrats awaiting for their next power gig while serving the company as political muscle.  Just ask Barack Obama, Susan Rice, or Meghan and Harry Windsor, all of whom have either production deals, big stock holdings, or board seats.  They're Netflixed-up and making big money.

And now the show is on, this time in a controversial film called Cuties which they call "a powerful story" and "an award-winning film."  Here's the product they're selling:

This is pretty close to what the porno industry used to call a "loop."  And it's technically child porn, with the focus on close-up crotch and butt shots of underage girls with inappropriate touching.  It's the only part of the movie that's going to be watched by the perverts out there.  Who needs kiddie porn to hide from cops when there's Netflix instead?

Yet they've got an army of press critics in their tree, explaining that, no, really, this is an anti–kiddie porn movie, and only bad right-wingers, those uncultured boobs, are against it.  They're sophisticated, see, and they claim that this is soulful, a coming of age story, not the sexploitation it appears to be.  As if the perverts watching this clip over and over, looking at those wiggling butts, spread crotches, rubbed crotches, animal-style rides, butt-slappings, and hair tossings, are going to be thinking about that.

The video, in fact, is a pervert's delight, one of several creepy such offering from Netflix such as Big Mouth and others. And the Cuties movie has more, with exposed breasts that aren't in the trailer, and other kink, all on underage (and previously unknown) girls playing 11-year-olds whose actual ages range from 12 (the North African girl with the baby-like oversize glasses — you know the perverts like that prop — who plays a character named Angelica) to 14 (the African girl who plays a Senegalese migrant named Amy and the white girl who plays a character called Jess) to 21 (a black girl who plays a character named Coumba).  There's also an overweight girl (a North African who plays a character named Yasmine) who was originally with the troupe but somehow didn't make it to the final titillating dance sequence being spread around as advertising.

Wonder why.

To claim that this movie is some soulful big-message movie is like the old claim that one read Playboy magazine only for its articles, given the "product" sold.

But critics, who are blasting conservatives for wanting this movie gone (they've gained 806,000 signatures on a Change.org petition), claim it's because they never saw the movie, that it's all "needless controversy."  The L.A. Times, the New Yorker, and Variety are particularly obnoxious on this front.  The Hollywood Reporter unintentionally admits that the film is sexploitation first, noting how many times the plotline was left unaddressed and how many times the visuals took precedence, calling it "captivating but structurally shaky."  No kidding.

The plotline is an unassimilated immigrant family from Senegal living in the banlieus of Paris, whose mother figure is brokenhearted because dad's back in Senegal picking up a new bride to bring back.  The daughter, one of three children in the cramped apartment, acts out by joining a group of bratty girls who specialize in "twerking," which is a filthy sort of porno dancing popularized by Cardi B and much of the big-money Hollywood establishment (Kim Kardashian's name is brought up in the film).  Together they achieve self-realization by twerking on the stage, as one can see from the video above.  No, no, it's against kiddie porno exploitation, the critics say.  This is rather like conducting an actual rape to demonstrate on some film that one is against rape.  It doesn't work that way.

The Netflix trailer, despite its disclaimers, in any case depicts the girls achieving self-realization through twerking — all you have to do is watch this trailer, far less filthy than the original movie poster that Netflix pulled back in August, or the video sequence above, noting the soundtrack at the 1:03 point, which rises in anticipation with its beem-beem electronic riff, clearly depicting uplift and hope as the twerking comes along following a sequence of fighting and crying and screaming among the migrants.

And despite the claims to this whole thing being about art and self-realization, note that the exploited child actresses' Instagram accounts are either protected or else generic with non-sexualized official movie stills from that and only that Cuties movie, which is, for all of them, their only movie.  Why would they do that?  As a means of fighting off the abundant perverts who may well now be obsessing about them in the wake of that flick.  It wasn't just a depiction of exploitation; it was exploitation, and that's proof.

Yet the critics would have you think the conservatives are the problem rather than the Netflix crowd that slips that little pervy porn out there, calling it a coming of age story.  Here's the abhorrent New Yorker review, saying the problem is French society:

As such, it's a story of French society at large — its exclusions and the exertions demanded to overcome them. Though many of Amy's actions are dubious, her spirit of revolt is nonetheless sublime and heroic. "Cuties" dramatizes what people of color and immigrants endure as a result of isolation and ghettoization, of not being represented culturally and politically — and of not being represented in French national mythology. Its underlying subject is the connection of personal identity to public identity—and the urgency of transforming the very notion of French identity, of changing the idea of who's considered the representative face of France. That idea is brought to the fore in an extraordinary, brief, symbolic ending; it's enough to give a right-winger a conniption.

The problem with this analysis defending the film is that it presents a false premise and a false dichotomy.  It's saying the Senegalese protagonist can be a miserable oppressed unassimilated Muslim, or else she has to be a twerking stripper of the kind who makes big bucks in Hollywood.  There's no middle ground — such as having a family with conservative Judeo-Christian family values of the kind that vehemently oppose kiddie porn.  Those are the values of conservatives, which are not presented in the film.  The dilemma in fact is a blue-on-blue one, with libertine leftists and unassimilated migrants duking it out, and conservatives who oppose the whole thing non-persons.  Conservativism is never considered in the film, they have been completely written out of the picture, because leftists don't recognize conservatives, ever.  When conservatives object to the kiddie porn depicted in the name of art, they are dismissed as uncultured rubes. 

That's saying a lot about why the critics can't understand the criticism.  There's plenty to be critical about with this picture, and point number one is that there's no such thing as opposing kiddie porn by acting out kiddie porn.  The petitions against Netflix will go on then, the stock will continue to drop, and conservatives will be blamed, cast as anti-art, when in fact they oppose this perversion as the new normal. 

Image credit: Twitter screen shot.