Texas grand jury indicts Netflix on 'lewd exhibition' charges for 'Cuties' film

Not Cute: The Sexualization of Youth in Netflix’s Mignonnes

Mignonnes, or Cuties in English, is a French coming-of-age drama that garnered criticism for its hypersexualization of young girls. The scrutiny began in August when Netflix released an explicit poster advertising the movie and has continued through the movie’s release, despite the poster’s recall.

Cuties follows eleven-year-old Amy, a Senegalese Muslim girl who defies her conservative family after her father leaves to procure another wife. She joins a provocative dance crew of young girls called the “Cuties,” dresses revealingly, and even posts a photo of her genitalia on the internet. Throughout the film, Amy strives for the ideals she sees in hypersexualized online trends.

The film highlights the dichotomy of two extreme and conflicting kinds of femininity: one of modesty dictated by her family and the other of sexuality determined by a secular Western society that seemingly has no boundaries.

The film incorporated director Maïmouna Doucouré’s personal experience growing up in France in a conservative Senegalese household. She was inspired to create the film after attending a neighborhood gathering featuring eleven-year-old girls performing a “very sensual” dance that shocked her.

Doucouré notes the influence of social media on young girls throughout her film and in real life. As young girls see sexually explicit conduct online as socially desirable, they replicate that behavior.

Doucouré received Sundance Film Festival’s 2019 World Cinema Dramatic Directing Award for her work, but #CancelNetflix trended in the days after the film’s US release. Several members of Congress—many of whom have not seen the film and will not watch it—are calling for the Department of Justice to investigate Netflix, arguing the filmmaker violated federal law against the production and distribution of child pornography.

The film is guilty of hypersexualizing the four primary young actresses. There are multiple scenes of the girls twerking and gyrating—camera angles linger on the girls’ bodies without their heads—and the girls are generally scantily clad. The scenes shown in the movie are appalling, triggering a protective reaction, exactly as intended. In the film’s final dance competition, the audience’s reaction to the girls mirrors our reaction to the film—some viewers were appalled while others just gawked.

As often as the movie portrays the “Cuties” maturely, it also indicates their naiveté about sex and the adult world. One of the girls blows up a used pink condom completely unaware that it was illicit. Her friends yell at her that she will contract AIDS and get pregnant, making her cry. While they know what a condom is, they clearly have no understanding about sexual health and reproduction.

Whether or not Cuties is exploitative is up to the viewer. While there are sexually explicit images, the scenes have a thematic purpose. Doucouré may have taken the sexualization of these girls too far for some viewers—chiefly, a scene where Amy is forcibly unclothed in the street and another where she twerks in only her underwear—but there is a purpose behind the director’s choices. By depicting the avenues that expose girls to precocious behavior, the film claims to portray the consequences of hypersexualization.

The same cannot be said about Netflix’s promotional material.

In contrast to the original French poster (above), Netflix’s poster clearly sexualizes the young stars. The Cuties poster is obviously suggestive, whereas the Mignonnes one hones in on one of the film’s central themes—pre-teen girls exploring their femininity in a provocative secular society.

Cuties condemns radical patriarchal and extreme secular cultures, noting that they hurt women in opposite ways. While the movie can certainly be criticized for oversexualizing the girls, the line between depiction and exploitation is obviously crossed with Netflix’s poster.

Cuties represents the absurdity of youth, particularly as young women begin to explore their sexuality while unable to fully abandon their childhoods. The movie ends with Amy crying on stage during her performance, realizing the gravity of her behavior. While she does return home, she still doesn’t conform to her family’s expectations. She skips her father’s second wedding and does not wear her traditional Senegalese garb. Instead, she wears modest Western clothing to jump rope outside in an attempt to reclaim her innocence.

I do not believe that Cuties is pedophilic as numerous congresspeople do. But regardless of its messaging, a movie like this should not be so explicit; it could have achieved a similar, if not identical, message without exploiting the nascent sexuality of its actresses to such an extreme degree.

Cuties makes an important point about modern childhood and femininity that quasi-justifies the images shown in the movie, while Netflix’s corresponding poster does not. While the film and the advertising are deserving of criticism, the divergence of purpose between them is what distinguishes depiction from exploitation.


https://www.nupoliticalreview.com/2020/09/16/not-cute-the-sexualization-of-youth-in-netflixs-mignonnes/
 
Texas Republican RED-STATE Politicians are gaining the reputation of Scary Clowns filing corny and laughable Frivolous Lawsuits.

f7a1c85a3a986b063e255db978ed7931.jpg
 
Cuties and the Sexualization of Young Girls

The problem is real life, not a Netflix film

If one outrage has managed to unite both liberals and conservatives in the past week, it’s the Netflix movie Cuties (original French title Mignonnes). Although Maïmouna Doucouré’s debut nabbed the Director Award at the 2020 Sundance Film Festival, viewers and non-viewers alike (I suspect more of the latter) seem to share a range of common opinions. The film ‘normalizes sexualization of young girls,’ is a ‘vehicle for pedophilia,’ and ‘exploits child actors.’ In other words, it should not have been made, let alone distributed on a streaming channel. Cuties is an evil, lascivious movie — not to be watched or commended by anyone.
Naturally, I had to see for myself.
Full disclosure here: this film is a provocative work. It’s meant to provoke. That is its purpose. But provocation in art is not an end in itself. Films like Cuties push the envelope on acceptability to make a point, shed new light on reality, and cause the viewer to think — and perhaps to effect change.
Does Cuties succeed in its goal? I think so — it certainly made me look at the real-life dance competition culture differently. Unfortunately, stating this simple opinion caused one angry Twitter user to call me a name I’ve never been called before: a pedophile. (I’d sue for libel, but I don’t think it’s worth my time.)
Our task now is to concern ourselves with the real-life problems of child sexualization, poor parenting, and social media influence — not the work of art that has illuminated these problems.
Depiction is not endorsement
“Amy, an 11-year-old girl, joins a group of dancers named ‘the cuties’ at school, and rapidly grows aware of her burgeoning femininity — upsetting her mother and her values in the process.”

That’s the tagline of Cuties. What the blurb fails to mention is that Amy’s awareness “of her burgeoning femininity” will be visually realized through a few scenes in which eleven-year-old star Fathia Youssouf exhibits sexual behavior far beyond her years (as do the other girls in the cast).

Are these scenes disturbing? Yes. Are they horrifying? Maybe. Do they endorse or promote the premature sexualization of young girls? Absolutely not. Nor do I think Cuties is what one Twitter user labeled a “wank job for pedos.” How many of us truly believe the average pedophile is going to sit through ninety minutes of an English-subtitled French and Wolof indie film just to view a few seconds worth of prurience? Kiddie porn, sadly, is freely available on the Internet — Netflix subscription or not.

Speaking to Zora here on Medium, director Doucouré states: "Now I realize that the people who have started this controversy haven’t yet seen the film. Netflix has apologized to the public and to myself [for its early marketing efforts]. I’m hoping that these people will watch the movie now that it’s out. I’m eager to see their reaction when they realize that we’re both on the same side of this fight against young children’s hypersexualization".

I hope you’re as taken aback as I was on seeing this. In fact, I hope you’re a little bit angry — perhaps even angry enough to do something.

Through numerous questionnaires with competition judges and choreographers, Schultz shows us the ugly side of dance culture. In her conclusion, she tells us: "The conversation of sexualized girls in dance competition is fraught with the possibility of having both heated and uncomfortable discussions. However, at a time in our society where women are sharing their experiences with sexual discrimination, assault, and abuse in public spheres, there has never been a better time to address how this impacts girls in our culture".

You may watch Cuties and decide it’s either brilliant or awful. You may choose not to watch it, having already judged its awfulness. Whichever camp you fall into really doesn’t matter to me. The brilliance of this film is that it has sparked a discussion about something real. In addition, it does a more than fair job of portraying a child’s struggle with innocence, acceptance, and religion.

Writing her review on RogerEbert.com, Monica Castillo says: "Doucouré uses these uncomfortable images to provoke a serious conversation about the sexualization of girls — especially regarding girls of color, the policing of a girl’s sexuality, double standards, the effect of social media on kids, and how children learn these behaviors. To do this, the director shows what it looks like for young girls to emulate what they see in music videos and grown-up dance routines".

Our task now is to concern ourselves with the real-life problems of child sexualization, poor parenting, and social media influence — not the work of art that has illuminated these problems.


https://medium.com/fan-fare/cuties-and-the-sexualization-of-young-girls-8c286a71f9f1
 
I disagree, and they aren't alone.

Really, because these silly, corny, laughable, and frivolous lawsuits are being immediately laughed out of court by REPUBLICAN APPOINTED JUDGES!

EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM AND THIS ONE WILL BE JUST ANOTHER ONE!

God! I'm already gettin' tired of winning- BECAUSE I AM ALWAYS ON THE RIGHT (opposite of being wrong) SIDE OF EVERYTHING!

Trust me! It gets old always being right!
 
Last edited:
Really, because these silly, corny, laughable, and frivolous lawsuits are being immediately laughed out of court by REPUBLICAN APPOINTED JUDGES! EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM AND THIS ONE WILL BE JUST ANOTHER ONE! God! I'm already gettin' tired of winning- BECAUSE I AM ALWAYS ON THE RIGHT (opposite of being wrong) SIDE OF EVERYTHING! Trust me! It gets old always being right!

Do you need me to explain the difference between a grand jury indictment and a lawsuit?

EjqM3FGXYAEXjZc
 
You keep evading the issue. I wonder why.

Where have I evaded anything? Not even your trolling. If you have a point, make it. Maybe I'll even agree with you.

If you want to play your usual asshoat lesion games, then no one can stop you.
 
And you disagreed but keep hiding why. Odd, eh?

What are you taking about?

You made the claim.

QED. The Asshat Legion strikes a blow for personal insults by using a personal insult. ROFL

Is that so?

Yes, it's so.

Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

Where's your evidence that "it's so"?

So you don't agree with Archives?

Sometimes, sometimes not.

What about in this instance?

personal insults on an anonymous vehicle only make you look small

Do you agree with him, or not?
 
Do you need me to explain the difference between a grand jury indictment and a lawsuit?

No! You don't!

Perhaps I should have used the term "Frivolous Indictment"!

Even some people who are sympathetic to the cause of those behind the indictment, like Thomas Leatherbury of the Southern Methodist University, worry that the charge falls down because of the First Amendment. The views expressed in the film – which don’t materially support the promotion of child pornography when correctly understood anyway – probably fall into the category of freedom of expression. Movies and theater are traditionally viewed as expressive activity by the law, and there’s little precedent for banning a film or finding in favor of legal action like this when no apparent crime has been committed.

It is not illegal to exploit children!

161012102650-ivanka-sits-on-trump.jpg


The level at which Netflix could be sanctioned or punished by the court is also unclear. According to Texan law, the theoretical maximum fine that can be applied to a company that’s been found guilty of a felony is twenty thousand dollars. Netflix makes several times that amount every hour of every day. There is, however, a gray area. If a court were to find that a company has benefited financially from the commital of a crime, they might be able to fine the company twice the dollar amount that’s believed to have been made. To do that, though, the court would have to decide how much money Netflix has made specifically from screening “Cuties,” which may be impossible to do. The law also doesn’t clarify whether the rule applies only to the money earned in Tyler County or to money made across the world.
 
Back
Top