You can be forgiven for thinking the current outrage over a French movie called Cuties is the first public debate we've had over child exploitation, particularly in relation to exploitation of a sexual nature. But it's a repeat of an argument I have very vague memories around concerning a little indie breakout called Kids.
I think I've been here before talking about it in relation to Ken Park, but at the time, without an internet to see this film, Kids held some kind of urban legend status. It was heavily derided as child pornography masquerading as social commentary, cashing in on the "It's 10pm, do you know where your kids are?" campaigns blasted across public TV back then. It was genuinely a commentary on that rhetoric, the parents in Kids, few as they are, remain oblivious and inactive. The first girl we meet is home alone while Telly has sex with her in the first scene, (which I believe was cut out of some versions). We meet Telly's mother, who's up to her neck in looking after a younger brother and does little to police Telly and Casper's movements. Aside from this, we spend more time with adults like the taxi driver who picks up Jennie and the nurses at the free clinic, one of whom drops the bomb on Jennie that starts the ticking clock of finding Telly before he sleeps with another underage girl and unknowingly infects her with HIV. If you want a premise to this movie, that's essentially the narrative. It's the depiction of kids boasting about sex acts and engaging in sex acts, violence and substance abuse that we're forced to exam through the lens of a teenager. It was an important film - but did we need to see a protracted rape scene in the finale? Did we need to see Telly aggressively having sex with two girls who plead with him to stop? Larry Clark and Harmony Korine believe we did. It's an exploitation film. It served a purpose and leaves and indelible mark on the viewer, it's a movie you cannot forget or unsee.
And there wasn't a massive gap between this and Cuties. Falling between and receiving higher praise than Kids was Thirteen, which probably owes a lot of its attention to Oprah interviewing the director (I can't find the clip sadly but I remember it). It convinced me to watch it, it's not a bad film, but it's also less insistent on showing graphic sex scenes. The self-abuse, drug use and shoplifting spend much more time in the spotlight. While Tracy and Evie are almost successful in seducing an older boy into a threesome, they fail and he throws them out, meaning the movie kind of threatens to go there but doesn't, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, pulling a punch or two is fine, you can derive tension from what is not seen. And we don't see anything particularly gratuitous in that regard, there's cutting away from the oral sex scene, and while Tracy tries to provoke her mother over the fact she wears no underwear, I didn't that to be overly shocking, it was oddly comical, but others would be shocked, of course. I'm probably desensitized to so much now, and I saw this before I saw two other Larry Clark films, Ken Park and Bully.
While Ken Park was banned in this country I don't think it's impossible to find. The commentary is hard-hitting, the message seems to be sincere, but it still begs the question: Did we need to see that amount of teens having sex? You could trim a lot of this out, to be honest. Did we also need to see one of the sickest scenes of elder abuse and murder in another scene? You'd think us discovering this would be impactful enough. No. Ken Park set out to shock audiences as Korine and Clark always do. And while Bully is based on a true story, Larry Clark lends his needless pervy-eye to the piece with a crotch shot of one girl. It's toned down compared to Kids, but it's still exploitative. Did we need that crotch shot, Larry? DID WE NEED IT? NO.
Cuties apparently exhibits questionable behaviour in the form of twerking and exposure. Netflix failing to market this piece as a thoughtful commentary on the effect of social media on young girls has landed the female director in hot water and I do feel for her now, but I still raise the same question to her. Did you maybe go too far with some of your shots? Can they be trimmed down? I know what you're trying to say but, sadly, people don't like the way you've chosen to say it.
Evan Rachel Wood, the star of Thirteen, agreed this director went too far, interestingly. Maybe implying instead of choosing to be overly explicit should've been done here. You don't want to be conflated with white male perverts at this point. If the director is signing off on this, is it because a producer insisted upon it? The director's word should be final. So this had to have been intentional. Intentional, but pointless. Creating controversy really doesn't help a film ultimately. If the medium is the message, you didn't use the medium properly. Hiding behind a cultural norm of sorts (it's French, they treat their children like miniature adults, however not all the French agree with it) is just as unacceptable. And hiding behind the left as a defense from being attacked by the right is also pretty bad. Because a lot of leftists also disagree with it. Now the right think the cultural elite genuinely are manufacturing child porn.
I don't believe in full censorship. I do believe in moderation. I can see why people get offended by these movies. I understand it's so confronting and unsettling, like real life. I get you see a movie to escape that. But if we don't learn anything from the film at all, if there's no real consequence, there's no point to your movie. If you haven't made a case for how to fix the problem, and yes I'm aware it's not a film-maker's sole responsibility to fix the issue they present, if you've just "examined it" and "presented it", it's going to fall remarkably flat. I don't know how this director can recover from this backlash now. I don't think she's made child porn, but she's made a name particular for herself, one she may not deserve. If Woody Allen had made this film, he would have been crucified. His intentions may have been identical, however his reputation will forever proceed him (and he's been defended by a lot of female actresses as well).
I don't think the right amount of consideration went into this movie. Which is sad because it's imploring its audience to consider the exploitation of children. While inadvertently exploiting them. I would like to see this but I don't think I could stomach the amount of twerking and crotch shots. I'll be persistently demanding the point of this angle and ask why I'm being beaten over the head with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment