Hacker News Reader

Comment by identity0 | Hacker News Reader

No, wanting to denounce sexualization does not require showing over-sexualisation. It especially doesn't require the film maker doing it herself to these poor actresses. It doesn't matter how "subtle" it is, the movie is part of the problem. It's like making a movie denouncing puppy murders and then the entire movie is just the director shooting puppies. "But don't you get it? How can our movie be bad if it's denouncing bad things?" you may say, oblivious to the fact that this director just created a great movie for puppy-murder enthusiasts.

View on HN

Requiring or not requiring showing stuff does not make things bad or wrong... What you show or not show, the way you show it just make a different movie.

If you make a good movie denouncing dog mistreatment, that is good. The fact it may sexually excite some people mistreating dogs is not really relevant... Those fetishist should see a doctor for being excite by this, and can find plenty of other exciting material on internet.

If the movie was targeting those sick people, or was using this displaced erotic tension in mistreating puppies, of course that would be wrong, because it fuels and use this "sickness"... Here this definitely not the case

And I hope we won't ban gymnastic competitions, or forbid skin-tight pre-teen jeans cause it may excite pedophiles...

>If you make a good movie denouncing dog mistreatment, that is good. The fact it may sexually excite some people mistreating dogs is not really relevant...

You've missed the point. If you kill puppies to make a movie denouncing dog mistreatment, the puppies are dead.

If you exploit children to make a movie denouncing exploiting children, the children are still exploited.

It has nothing to do with the subjective reception of the film at all.

Specifically to this point, the actresses that played the young girls in the film all auditioned in front of the director, doing the sexually explicit dances behind closed doors, along with many others that didn't get the part. The creator of the film was a victim of sexual exploitation like this at a younger age.

Additionally, it is very common for victims of various traumas to inflict those traumas on others, and it's also common for them to be in denial about their motives for victimizing new victims in the same way they were victimized themselves.

Doing twerk in a movie when you are 11 years old and have support and context is not child exploitation. Especially given that twerk is a very small part of the actor work and of the film.

And there is nothing supporting the idea that the female director took advantage of those girls in any form.

Beside that, we read the film differently. To me this film is not really about pedophilia or child exploitation...

How can you compare real child abuse to young actresses, with the permission of their parents, dancing around like they normally do anyway? You really think the actresses are traumatised after this? Why?!?

Trying to blow things out of proportion is actually a huge disservice to actual cases of child abuse. Please don't do that.

Why does the permission of their parents matter, even in the slightest? Do parents have the right to marry away their pre-pubescent daughters in our society?

In addition, a large portion of sexual abuse is from family, and the parents of child actors don't exactly have the best reputation when it comes to not abusing their children, and show business in general doesn't have the best track record on this either. Remember Corey Feldman?

> You really think the actresses are traumatised after this?

Yes.

> Why?!?

I think children being told to perform sexually explicit dances while in revealing dress for the enjoyment of adults (the nuances of such enjoyment will be lost on the child) will likely have a negative effect on their mental health later in life and yes, is a traumatizing experience, because they are being coerced into performing a sexual act, the likes of which they cannot understand or consent to due to their age. It doesn't matter if the coerced sexual act is stated to be in opposition to coerced sexual acts: the child has no choice! I shouldn't have to explain this!

If Taxi Driver could make a movie about sexual exploitation of young women without forcing Jodie Foster to literally dance in undress I think we can hold other filmmakers to the same standard.

> perform sexually explicit dances while in revealing dress for the enjoyment of adults

If you interpreted what was done in that movie using this description you're just projecting your own sick fantasies on it. When the girls finally performed for adults, they disapproved of it... a normal movie watcher would also have been a bit shocked (which was the intention of the movie makers) and would not enjoy their dance sexually unless they have a freaking pervert mind.

> because they are being coerced into performing a sexual act

You need to understand that dancing with the supervision of parents and honest adults, all the while given support and freedom to refuse to do anything they or their guardians did not approve, is NOT being coerced into a sexual act. There was no coercion. there was no sexual act. They absolutely did not perform sexual acts or anything close to it. Dancing is NOT a sexual act... if you think it is, you need to seek help.

> I shouldn't have to explain this!

When you start thinking that your own beliefs are so obvious you shouldn't need to explain them, is when you know you're no longer using reason in your arguments.

Donnie Darko did it years earlier, flaying the same culture for the same reasons.

And guess whose culture it was that got flayed? Yup.

I've never seen that movie so I can't guess. Would you tell me?

Oh tsk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=accEKtBebaU

Good movie. A bit nuts. Product of a much more innocent time; set in an even more innocent time than that. Also no-one’s innocent. Free to watch with ads on Amazon Prime, or you can rent or pick it up on DVD for a few bucks.

https://www.amazon.com/Donnie-Darko-Jake-Gyllenhaal/dp/B002M...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com