News about Netflix exclusive films and content

[ImLawBoy]

An article I read earlier suggested that they were intentionally using preteens specifically to make the audience uncomfortable, and that the highly sexualized scenes showed the audience itself being uncomfortable, and emphasized that every time the girls took the 'sexy is cool' approach it backfired on them. I'll try and find the article when I get home.

I get the intent of it, but to take it to an absurd degree to try to make a point, is it OK to show an actual rape onscreen if it helps to make a point about sexual violence? In the real world, these are still preteen girls who some would argue are being sexually exploited to make a point about the sexual exploitation of preteens.

[coopasonic]

Someone should just watch the damn movie. It would make this discussion possibly useful. AB said french and subtitled so I'm out.

[Skinypupy]

Someone should just watch the damn movie. It would make this discussion possibly useful. AB said french and subtitled so I'm out.

I’m afraid I’d end up on a FBI watchlist somewhere.

[stimpy]

I watched the little clip they show when you hover over the title.
Seemed harmless enough, but yeah.....no way I'm clicking play.

[Paradroid]

I wasn't going to see Cuties to begin with, but I've been astounded by all the Mary Whitehouse clones who have popped up, along with countless Youtube videos saying Netflix must be run by paedophiles. So I decided to watch it, and I am not the slightest bit shocked that everyone is wrong. As usual.

It's a very average film, actually quite cliched really, but I understand the writer wanted to simply point out that young girls are being led astray in this way all the time. I think it achieved that goal pretty well, and I agree that it would have defeated the purpose to use older actresses.

Far from being "child porn" (give me a fucking break) it's actually more of an indictment of what passes for pop culture these days, and the shit young children can be influenced by. It's not an offensive film at all in my view. Moreover, to address the point I've seen many times that young girls shouldn't act in this kind of role, well - first of all, they're acting and I'm sure they were very carefully counselled about the roles. Secondly, I personally think other types of roles are much more harrowing for child actors. Playing the child of an abusive parent for example, or certain war or horror films etc.

Anyway that's my take.

[Unagi]

Anyone see the movie: Kids ?


This movie had actual kids in it, and told a pretty adult story - about 12 year olds...

"The film generated a massive controversy upon its release in 1995 and caused much public debate over its artistic merit. It received an NC-17 rating from the MPAA, but was released without a rating. Critical response was mixed..."

The film begins when a boy named Telly and an unnamed 12-year-old girl are making out on a bed. With no adults around, Telly, who is a few years older, persuades the girl, who is a virgin, to have sex with him. Afterwards, he meets with his best friend, Casper, and they talk about his sexual experience. Telly has taken to only having sex with virgins. They go inside a local store, where Casper shoplifts a 40 oz. bottle of malt liquor as Telly distracts the cashier. Looking for drugs, food, and a place to hang out, they head to their friend Paul's apartment, though they express dislike of him on the way there. They arrive at Paul's house, join the other boys in boasting about their sexual prowess (as well as their nonchalant attitudes to both unprotected sex and diseases), and smoke marijuana while watching a skating video. Casper inhales nitrous oxide out of balloons, which Telly considers dangerous.

The (would eventually be) wife and I saw this one.. it was hard to watch. But it certainly had a message in it.

[hepcat]

Someone should just watch the damn movie. It would make this discussion possibly useful. AB said french and subtitled so I'm out.

How would it ever prove useful to you if you have no interest in it to begin with?

Anyone see the movie: Kids ?


This movie had actual kids in it, and told a pretty adult story - about 12 year olds...

"The film generated a massive controversy upon its release in 1995 and caused much public debate over its artistic merit. It received an NC-17 rating from the MPAA, but was released without a rating. Critical response was mixed..."

The film begins when a boy named Telly and an unnamed 12-year-old girl are making out on a bed. With no adults around, Telly, who is a few years older, persuades the girl, who is a virgin, to have sex with him. Afterwards, he meets with his best friend, Casper, and they talk about his sexual experience. Telly has taken to only having sex with virgins. They go inside a local store, where Casper shoplifts a 40 oz. bottle of malt liquor as Telly distracts the cashier. Looking for drugs, food, and a place to hang out, they head to their friend Paul's apartment, though they express dislike of him on the way there. They arrive at Paul's house, join the other boys in boasting about their sexual prowess (as well as their nonchalant attitudes to both unprotected sex and diseases), and smoke marijuana while watching a skating video. Casper inhales nitrous oxide out of balloons, which Telly considers dangerous.

The (would eventually be) wife and I saw this one.. it was hard to watch. But it certainly had a message in it.

Larry Clark has made a career out of trying to retell that same message over and over and over again. That or he really enjoys making films with young teens having sex.

But that’s just my 2 cents on a director I feel is overrated.

Back on topic. I did say that if the film has a message, that’s great. But in the extended scene I saw, there was zero indication of that. It was voyeuristic and creepy. That being said, it was only 2 or 3 minutes of the film. And possibly the worst part.

At the risk of sounding like a prude, it’s not something I would want to watch though. I’m already a believer in the idea that children are oversexualized in today’s media.

[ImLawBoy]

I wasn't going to see Cuties to begin with, but I've been astounded by all the Mary Whitehouse clones who have popped up, along with countless Youtube videos saying Netflix must be run by paedophiles. So I decided to watch it, and I am not the slightest bit shocked that everyone is wrong. As usual.

It's a very average film, actually quite cliched really, but I understand the writer wanted to simply point out that young girls are being led astray in this way all the time. I think it achieved that goal pretty well, and I agree that it would have defeated the purpose to use older actresses.

Far from being "child porn" (give me a fucking break) it's actually more of an indictment of what passes for pop culture these days, and the shit young children can be influenced by. It's not an offensive film at all in my view. Moreover, to address the point I've seen many times that young girls shouldn't act in this kind of role, well - first of all, they're acting and I'm sure they were very carefully counselled about the roles. Secondly, I personally think other types of roles are much more harrowing for child actors. Playing the child of an abusive parent for example, or certain war or horror films etc.

Anyway that's my take.

Thanks for taking the bullet and watching it for us. Your sacrifice is appreciated.

I did want to address your point about them being actors and whether a role that exploits a child's sexuality is any different from a role that requires a child to play some other harrowing part. The difference, I think, is that with a kid playing a child abused by a parent, to use your first example, the child actor is not actually abused by the actor playing the parent. In a role that exploits the child's sexuality, that child is actually having his or her sexuality exploited.

[Blackhawk]

A thought occurred to me while reading all of this. If the author's goal was to start people talking more about this issue, then they succeeded with flying colors, and most of us haven't even seen the thing.

[Unagi]

I did want to address your point about them being actors and whether a role that exploits a child's sexuality is any different from a role that requires a child to play some other harrowing part. The difference, I think, is that with a kid playing a child abused by a parent, to use your first example, the child actor is not actually abused by the actor playing the parent. In a role that exploits the child's sexuality, that child is actually having his or her sexuality exploited.

That would depend on the direction they are given, I would imagine, and their age and if they understand the role they play (speaking to the difference you mention).


A young girl, playing the role of a physically beaten child (for example), is clearly being instructed to 'play the role' of the girl being abused. She isn't "actually" being hit (for instance) by the actor playing her parent.



(and to your point)
However, a young girl, playing the role of a sexually exploited child in the form of 'perform in this way for me', isn't -clearly being instructed to 'play the role' of the girl, as she may just actually "be the girl being sexually exploited.
She is a young actor being told: "I am looking for you to be like "this and like that", and if you can pull that off -- you have a career in movies (under the context that your ability to nail that, is what got you there!")

The danger/difference is that in one case she is being told and trained on what it needs to look like to be authentic, just like the young actor being taught how to "pretend to be hit", etc... If an actor is old enough, I believe they can understand the 'role' they are playing... but young enough - the message is lost, and they are performing 'sexy' for the director/movie... I think for things like being 'beaten', there is a much earlier point in a child's life where they can understand what it would mean to participate in 'playing that role' vs. "being good at that role'.

[Paradroid]

Thanks for taking the bullet and watching it for us. Your sacrifice is appreciated.

Heh. Honestly it's not a bad film and I don't regret watching it. I also forgot one other element that I've seen barely discussed anywhere, in that the writer apparently grew up in both Muslim and non-Muslim cultures and one of the threads is a critical look at some of the nastier aspects of Muslim culture from a woman's point of view. There's a scene very close to the beginning where Ami's mother learns her husband is taking a second wife and she's expected to be happy for him and host a wedding, and privately she's deeply upset about it. It's a powerful scene.

I did want to address your point about them being actors and whether a role that exploits a child's sexuality is any different from a role that requires a child to play some other harrowing part. The difference, I think, is that with a kid playing a child abused by a parent, to use your first example, the child actor is not actually abused by the actor playing the parent. In a role that exploits the child's sexuality, that child is actually having his or her sexuality exploited.

Of all the criticisms of this film I've seen, this one probably holds the most water. Unagi responded to it excellently; my take is personally I don't agree that it's harmful for the actresses in the proper context. That's my opinion anyway.

Most of the time people are simply saying that the dance scenes are disgusting. Watching them is very uncomfortable. Yes! That's the point! The film would've lost all impact had it showed those scenes in a more censorious manner, or if the girls had been young women pretending to be young girls. The director had a simple message to convey and she did it brilliantly. And as Blackhawk rightly points out, here we are, all talking about it. I'm sure the director is delighted.

As an aside, there are two excellent actresses in this film. The girl who plays the lead Ami is particularly good and I hope she has a bright career ahead of her. The lady who plays her mother is also very good. I really felt for her deeply conflicted character.

[hepcat]

Most of the time people are simply saying that the dance scenes are disgusting. Watching them is very uncomfortable. Yes! That's the point! The film would've lost all impact had it showed those scenes in a more censorious manner, or if the girls had been young women pretending to be young girls. The director had a simple message to convey and she did it brilliantly. And as Blackhawk rightly points out, here we are, all talking about it. I'm sure the director is delighted.

But we’re talking about the film’s merit in conveying the the message you believe it’s conveying. Not sure I would call that a success.

Also, the marketing for this one may be partially to blame for my feelings towards this film. The way the trailers are structured for the movie, it’s like they’re saying these children are being empowered by their transformation to being sexualized and objectified. That felt more like an attempt to further the very thing you say it condemns.

[Paradroid]

But we’re talking about the film’s merit in conveying the the message you believe it’s conveying. Not sure I would call that a success.

Are you saying there isn't merit in a cautionary tale about how easily young girls can be influenced? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Also, the marketing for this one may be partially to blame for my feelings towards this film. The way the trailers are structured for the movie, it’s like they’re saying these children are being empowered by their transformation to being sexualized and objectified. That felt more like an attempt to further the very thing you say it condemns.

You should watch the film, honestly. I can't speak for the marketing as I didn't see any, but it's absolutely not an empowerment story by any stretch of the imagination.

With all due respect, you use phrases like "the message you believe it's conveying" and "the very thing you say it condemns". Well, I've seen the film and you haven't - so I'm currently astride a significantly higher horse than you are.

[hepcat]

But we’re talking about the film’s merit in conveying the the message you believe it’s conveying. Not sure I would call that a success.

Are you saying there isn't merit in a cautionary tale about how easily young girls can be influenced? Or am I misunderstanding you?

You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that if you fail to convey to people that what you're creating is a cautionary tale because you failed to contextualize it as such in any significant manner, then I wouldn't call your work a successful attempt at creating a cautionary tale. I understand that I'm speaking from a position of only experiencing a very small portion of the film; but that aside, we're not discussing the message the film is supposedly conveying, are we? We're discussing whether or not it was successful in that endeavor. With or without judgement based on watching the film, that's not a discussion I feel you can call successful in light of the filmmaker's intent.

With all due respect, you use phrases like "the message you believe it's conveying" and "the very thing you say it condemns". Well, I've seen the film and you haven't - so I'm currently astride a significantly higher horse than you are.

With all due respect, stating that your beliefs are opinions would be true with or without my viewing it. I already stated that if they do frame the story in such a way that makes it clear that these children are NOT finding empowerment through pre-pubescent sexual objectification, or that it makes it clear that these girls are being forced through peer and societal pressure into becoming sexual beings way too early, great.

Since I already agree that the statement that you say the film is trying to make is true, and according to your very own words

It's a very average film, actually quite cliched really,

I see no reason to head down to the stable and purchase a horse so I can ride with you.

[Blackhawk]

I think a lot of the problem comes from how Netflix presented it. The advertising really made it look like a 'cool girls having fun' film. The film was a French film released by a French company in France and Netflix internationally. The author may or may not have successfully conveyed that it was a cautionary tale to her original audience. Netflix did not.

[hepcat]

That's my belief as well now.

[Paradroid]

Heh. I don't think there's any further point arguing with people who haven't even seen the film, especially in the context that the director almost certainly had no input into how it was marketed. So I'll leave the discussion there.

[hepcat]

I was wondering what you were arguing against myself, considering that I already admitted that the marketing campaign could be the issue quite a few posts back.

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo: I directed ‘Cuties.’ This is what you need to know about modern girlhood.

This film is my own story. All my life, I have juggled two cultures: Senegalese and French. As a result, people often ask me about the oppression of women in more traditional societies. And I always ask: But isn't the objectification of women's bodies in Western Europe and the United States another kind of oppression? When girls feel so judged at such a young age, how much freedom will they ever truly have in life?

And that's why I made "Cuties": to start a debate about the sexualization of children in society today so that maybe — just maybe — politicians, artists, parents and educators could work together to make a change that will benefit children for generations to come. It's my sincerest hope that this conversation doesn't become so difficult that it too gets caught up in today's "cancel culture."

[hepcat]

I admit to bristling a bit when it seemed I was being accused of being a puritanical prude in not so many words. But my perception of the film was formed by a rather provocative extended trailer that was and is disturbing, and the fact that the marketing by Netflix seemed to insinuate this was a film about the empowerment of young girls through their own attempts to accentuate their sexuality.

Some folks don't like horror films because they can't stand the violence, and that's fine. I would hope I'm allowed to say I'm not interested in watching a film about the sexual objectification of children, without being considered a member of the moral majority. I didn't call for anyone to cancel Netflix at any point.

[Rumpy]

You, hepcat, a prude?? Hahaha, that's a good one! I know you're not much of a prude. FWIW, I felt the same way with Little Miss Sunshine.

Of course, if you really are, the secret is safe with me.

[hepcat]

The Devil All the Time is ominous, oppressive, overwhelmingly bleak and I couldn’t take my eyes off it for one second. Tom Holland is fantastic, but Robert Pattinson steals every scene he’s in. It kind of falters at the end though.

Now I need to grab up all of the author Donald Ray Pollock’s other works. Turns out he’s a fellow Ohioan that spent 32 years working as a laborer in a paper mill 2 hours from my hometown before turning to writing. He reminds me a little of another great Ohioan writer Harvey Pekar because of that.

[Zaxxon]

In I'm late to the party news, Grace and Frankie is fun.

[ImLawBoy]

I'm shocked there hasn't been more discussion of Camp Cretaceous around these parts!

The kids are enjoying it after two episodes (of six for season one). The animation is good quality (Dreamworks), and it's compelling enough that the 10 year old seems to be enjoying it as much as the 6 year olds. It centers around 6 (I think) kids who get early admission to "Camp Cretaceous", which is to be a great camping experience for kids at Jurassic Park. There's the rich jerk boy, the social media obsessed girl with pink hair, the Southern girl, the nervous germaphobe boy, some other girl who is maybe an android (? to be honest, I'm not paying much attention), and our hero, Darius. Darius is a total dino nerd (like boy twin) who won the opportunity to go to camp. He loved dinos with his dad, who died.

It's fine for a straightforward kids' cartoon.

[McNutt]

Project Power was ridiculous and never entertaining.

[Jaymann]

Project Power was ridiculous and never entertaining.

Interesting premise that devolved into typical cop tropes.

[hepcat]

The ridiculous attempt to explain the drug as granting “animal powers” made me laugh though.

...wait...it was supposed to be funny, right?

[Anonymous Bosch]

I just noticed that all five seasons of J.J. Abrams & Jonathan Nolan's Person of Interest will be disappearing from Netflix as of Tuesday, September 22. Which is a shame, as it was certainly one of the best sci-fi crime dramas -- and certainly among the most outstanding on the subject of AI -- on Netflix and doesn't appear to be available for streaming anywhere else beyond purchasing the seasons through Prime Video.

[Rumpy]

Thanks for the warning about Project Power. Had it on my list, but from the sounds of it, I should remove it. That's a problem with many Netflix movies. They seem to have a high-concept that fail to deliver.

[Skinypupy]

Netflix just cancelled Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance after one season.

GODDAMMIT!!

[Zaxxon]

Netflix just cancelled Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance after one season.

GODDAMMIT!!

What the actual fuck.

[Skinypupy]

The day after it won an Emmy for Best Children's Program, no less.

I can only assume Netflix is simply throwing darts to decide what gets cancelled at this point.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Netflix just cancelled Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance after one season.

GODDAMMIT!!

What the actual fuck.

Indeed, it's highly disappointing to see another quality SF/fantasy series getting axed from Netflix. But as the io9 write-up observes, it likely came down to how costly it was to make:

It’s unclear why exactly the series wasn’t renewed, but some have speculated on the delay and related issues. Reported behind-the-scenes drama indicates that the series was considered a miss for the streaming platform, with a source telling the Hollywood Reporter earlier this month that Age of Resistance’s failure was one of the reasons Netflix recently pushed out longtime executive Cindy Holland, who helped bring the series to life. The series was referred to as an “expensive disappointment,” per the unnamed source. We asked Henson and Netflix for comment on these claims, but they did not issue a response.

While speaking to executive producer Javier Grillo-Marxuach earlier this year about Cowboy Bebop, we also discussed Age of Resistance. He noted how the show was not only expensive to make, it boasted the longest shoot length in Netflix history. He told us, “This is not a show where you have a franchise that you can say, ‘Okay, we’ll hire a bunch of new writers to look at the first season.’ This is a dynastic labor of artisanal love. To get it right, you need everybody. You need the Hensons, you need the Frouds. You need a certain amount of commitment financially and in terms of time. And it’s hard to get right. Out of everything that I’ve worked on, this would be probably the hardest one to get right. And the conditions have to come together for it to be exactly what it needs to be.”

To that end, some of the key team members behind Age of Resistance have already moved onto other Netflix projects like director Louis Letterier who is in line to direct Bright 2, the sequel to the modern fantasy film written by accused sexual predator Max Landis. Meanwhile, Lisa Henson is keeping busy with Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio adaptation, and Grillo-Marxuach is working as a writer on Netflix’s Cowboy Bebop.

[Blackhawk]

Netflix just cancelled Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance after one season.

GODDAMMIT!!

[Ralph-Wiggum]

The day after it won an Emmy for Best Children's Program, no less.

I can only assume Netflix is simply throwing darts to decide what gets cancelled at this point.

I read on the internet (so it has to be true!) that one of the main deciding factors Netflix uses when canceling shows is how much money from merch those shows generate. Unless it is a show that drives subscribers, viewership numbers by themselves don't generate any money for Netflix.

[Pyperkub]

If Netflix the new fox when it comes to greenlighting good f/sf and then canceling it?

[hepcat]

I'm surprised it won for childrens' series. It struck me as a bit more adult in many ways.

But yeah, that sucks. It took me about 2 episodes to get into it, but once I did get past my initial reservations (all illogical biases based on my usual inability to distinguish marionettes from evil spawns of satan here to steal my soul), I enjoyed it a great deal.

[Hrothgar]

That's silly. They don't want your soul. They want your flesh.

[Archinerd]

Netflix just cancelled Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance after one season.

GODDAMMIT!!

Fuck you 2020

[Isgrimnur]

David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet