The child porn-loving media are doing two underhanded things to defend Netflix’s Cuties: 1) claim only conspiracy theorists are attacking the movie, and 2) refuse to accurately and completely describe the actual content in Cuties.
The conspiracy theory trope, which I addressed this week, is especially dumb and disingenuous. Apparently, the right-wing conspiracy works like this: America’s political, media, and Hollywood elites are all kid diddlers.
Now I don’t believe that any more than I believe all Catholic priests are kid diddlers. What’s more, my mind — what’s left of it — is an open book on these here Inter-Web-Dot-Nets, and you won’t find me anywhere furthering those conspiracies.
What I do know is that if I were worried about conspiracy theories attacking my elite tribe as a mob of child diddlers, I would maybe not have my elite tribe fire off countless hot takes defending a movie that will serve forevermore as yankity-yank material for every child diddler with access to the Internet.
But if you think about it, that’s really all part of the left’s plan…
Step 1: Produce indefensible soft-core child porn.
Step 2: Defend indefensible soft-core child porn.
Step 3: Attack TrumpTards opposed to soft-core child porn as conspiracy theorists.
See, we’re in a no-win situation. The trap set is so that we either say nothing and burn in Hell for eternity for enabling evil against children, or we’re attacked as conspiracy theorists.
Personally, I’d rather be smeared as a conspiracy theorist than defend child porn. But that’s just me and my bourgeois value system.
What’s so fascinating and revealing about this is how the media are forced to lie in order to defend Cuties. A lie of omission is still a lie, and almost all of these oh-so-sophisticated defenses of Cuties refuse to inform readers of just what these 11-yeard-old characters do and what the camera does to them.
Hey, if you’re going to defend Cuties, you not only have to detail and defend all the wide-open, 11-year-old crotch shots, you haveto defend the motive for including those shots looooong after the point’s been made.
An honest person would say to their readers: here’s all the disturbing content; here’s how the director exploited a group of 12- and 13-year-old actresses; here are all the sophisticated reasons that make it okay to do that.
But no one’s willing to detail the truth because they know if they do, everyone will know they’re defending the indefensible.
Oh, sure, some allude to the content — how it’s “daring” and “provocative.” But that means nothing.
Let me give you a perfect example from far-left NBC News:
It is, annoyingly, important to state plainly that “Cuties” does not portray child abuse, it does not glorify or countenance pedophilia in any way, and it does not “sexualize” its characters[.]
The backlash to the film has, however, twisted the deliberately provocative choreography these girls perform into a problem[.]
Does not sexualize….
Deliberately provocative choreography…
That’s it… That’s all whoever’s dumb enough to get their news from NBC is allowed to know about what the little girls do in Cuties.
Why not lay out the facts?
I’ll tell you why not. Because the facts are this…
On countless occasions, the camera in Cuties lingers on 11-year-olds shaking their moneymakers in tighter-than-tight short shorts. On countless occasions, the camera in Cuties reveals 11-year-olds in short shorts spreading their legs wide open. On countless occasions, 11-years-olds dry hump the floor, put their fingers in their mouths, and pout while sticking their backsides all the way out in a pair of Daisy Dukes.
Why not inform your readers of that truth and then fire off your bullshit about how Cuties “does not sexualize,” how all of that only adds up to “deliberately provocative choreography.”
Which is why these liars won’t.
Get a load of the far-left Slate, which attacked little ol’ yours truly for reporting the facts:
[T]he diligence with which Nolte jotted down every purported crotch shot, at least until he “lost count after five,” speaks to its own kind of not-entirely-uncreepy obsession.
Sorry to offend. Just figured that if I were going to publicly report and criticize something, I had a responsibility to explain why.
Slate isn’t angry because I lied or exaggerated.
Slate is angry because I told the truth.
The far-left Washington Post, the same Washington Post that handed its religion coverage to an occultist without telling us, has defended Cuties more times than I can count. It’s like a cottage industry over there.
Here’s one WaPo description:
Critics of “Cuties” are zeroing in on images from the trailer and the poster, which show a group of 11-year-olds in blue costumes, shorts, dancing suggestively.
Here’s another, the closest I could find to the truth:
The dance routines become progressively more explicit and the camera filming them is unflinching. One minute-long sequence, set to upbeat music as the girls finalize their routine, includes a series of closeups on the girls’ gyrating thighs, butts and stomachs.
Weird how there’s no mention of at least a half-dozen open-wide crotch shots.
Here’s a third:
I can see how viewers might be turned off by the way Doucouré shoots the dance routines, using close-ups of her young actors’ bodies both to show us their abilities as dancers and to make us deliberately queasy.
Here’s the fourth but by no means last WaPo defense afraid to spill the details:
[D]irector Maïmouna Doucouré focuses her camera on the girls’ posteriors a bit too much for my taste as they learn their provocative dance moves.
That said, however, it requires a willful ignorance of the film itself to claim that these scenes sexualize the girls involved.
Oh yeah, cuz we rubes are totally missing the nuance found in more than a half-dozen wide-open crotch shots.
Here’s the far-left New Yorker, which doesn’t bother to offer readers any details, but there is plenty of this:
“Cuties” is a film of the center, and it’s aesthetically of the center—it depicts the unconsidered without advancing to the realm of the subjective, and it doesn’t allow its young protagonists much discourse, outer or inner. It’s not a movie of introspection and self-consideration; it’s more a story of the rule than of the exception, of what’s unduly extraordinary about the effort to live an ordinary life.
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.
My Pompous Ass Translator needs new batteries, so I have no idea what any of that means.
…watching the younger generation gyrate and twerk, biting their lips or their nail in a suggestive way.
I think you get the point, and my point is this…
If you’re going to defend Cuties, defend it.
Don’t water the truth down. Tell your readers the truth and defend it.
If you want to launch a defense of countless shots of barely-clothed 11-year-olds spreading their legs wide open, I’ll hear you out.
But when you hide the truth, when you refuse to acknowledge and directly address the facts and truth, it tells me you can’t defend the movie but still are — which makes me wonder why.