>I didn't say that. I didn't even mention sexual arousal, just
>arousal in general. But even if I did, nowhere in my post did
>I say that anyone offended by this is only offended because
>they're defending something repressed about themselves!


Given the sentence you wrote, this is an odd denial. What would it be arousing or suggesting when the full sentence reads: "Maybe it's because I don't see little girls as sexual beings, but I don't find anything about this movie arousing or suggestive." ??
It's not like I'm just guessing you meant sexual. You used the word to preface your use of both arousing and suggestive.
Maybe you've seen people saying the movie is inappropriate because they're sexually aroused tho. I haven't. Not even those judging from clips.


If you're gonna deny how the writing of your sentence comes across, fine. Your 3rd point below does say that you think it's simply about this country's struggle with the female body. That's the closest thing to a pass I can find here, despite the weirdly superior tone of the the initial sentence.


>1. I see a movie about girls who like to dance doing modern
>dance moves.



I see a movie about so much more than that. To the point that I'm not even sure if the dancing is the true "culprit" in the move, so to speak.



>2. I wondered if this movie depicted young boys doing the same
>thing if there would be the same reaction.



I'd see it the same way. Many people would, but overall, probably not... especially if they were Black boys, sadly.



>3. I explained that I wonder that because other countries are
>not having this visceral reaction to this film, whereas this
>country's struggles with the depictions of the female body in
>general predisposes us to sexualizing these dances.



Multiple points here. In the movie, I recall Amy's aunt saying that when she was Amy's age, she was taken to her husband. So maybe in some other countries, the difference is actually that they already sexualize young girls. The visceral reaction we see here is because we don't and parts of the movie with dancing scenes is shot like a music video where grown women are being blatantly sexualized (close-ups of hind parts and crotches, etc) which is just extremely weird and unnecessary imo. The message here would 100% still be conveyed without that.




>Again, if you read into any of that that I think anyone who
>dislikes this movie is a sexual deviant, enjoy that ball of
>yarn you've got. I don't see it and I certainly didn't intend
>to say anything like that.


Alright


>Having seen the movie now and not just the trailer, am I
>comfortable with how some of these scenes were filmed? No, of
>course not. But given the pedigree of the director and the
>overall tone of the film, I'm struggling to see how the point
>of view of the camera in this film isn't a criticism of the
>point of view of whoever's looking through that lens in the
>audience, which is a unique power of movies.



So if people feel the movie is shot inappropriately, then that should be a criticism of the viewer and not the person responsible for shooting the movie? Is that what you're saying?
I'm asking this because the camera generally shows you where someone is looking. For instance, there's a shot in "A Time To Kill" before the man rapes the little girl and there's a close-up of her from the behind, which shows us that that's where the man is looking. That isn't a criticism of the viewer. That's expressly about the director telling us something about a character. What do you feel the director of Cuties is telling us with the same types of shots of little girls done gratuitously?


>I still think
>it's silly to think you should "cancel" a film distribution
>service for supporting a provocative art film for and about
>marginalized people who could possibly benefit from seeing
>this story and these characters on screen.


Which marginalized people are you referring to, and how could they benefit from seeing this movie?