🐱 How Cuties Got Caught in a Gamergate-Style Internet Clash - And there it is

CatParty


EVEN BEFORE Netflix released the French film Cuties in the United States, review sites were brimming with emotional audience judgements. The movie, which centers on a panicked Parisian preteen named Amy (Fathia Youssouf) as she joins a rebellious clique and navigates her family life, currently holds an 11 percent audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes. “Absolutely shocking that this was allowed to be broadcast,” one reads. Another: “Extremely inappropriate.” One more: “The world is worse for having this film in it.”

The debut film of director Maïmouna Doucouré, Cuties is a sensitive, small-scale character study of a French-Senagalese girl—not, historically, the sort of movie that attracts that much mainstream attention in America at all, let alone intense hatred. Yet members of Congress are calling it child porn, Doucouré is receiving death threats, and conspiracy theorists obsessed with secret elite cabals of pedophiles are targeting Netflix under the pretense that the streaming service is part of a global scheme to normalize the sexualization of children. Caught in the internet's crosshairs, Cuties has become a lightning rod, but not an anomaly—it's a new front in a culture clash that's been going on for years.

Cuties is part of a growing subgenre of intimate indie movies focused on outsider girls. Catherine Hardwicke’s Thirteen is an obvious predecessor. In both Cutiesand Thirteen, confused young female leads rebel in upsetting, age-inappropriate ways to win peer approval and avoid stressful family lives. Both treat the bonds between female friends and mothers and daughters as their primary concerns. No romances, no epic endings. Not exactly traditional box-office catnip geared to grab the masses. Andrea Arnold’s Fish Tank, which focuses on an East London girl named Mia, also has thematic overlap. Like Amy, Mia takes solace in hip-hop, lives in public housing, and has a single mother. Like Amy, she leaves a dance competition when she realizes it’s way too much for her. In its exploration of how social media can distort a young person’s sense of identity, Cuties recalls Bo Burnham’s Eighth Grade. In French film, it echoes Céline Sciamma’s Girlhood, which also follows a Black French girl as she joins a mischievous clique. Thirteen did provoke some hand-wringing upon release, but for the most part, these films have been well-regarded, auteur-driven dives into the experiences of young women. When it premiered at Sundance this year, Cutieslooked poised to join this canon.
ADVERTISEMENT

Maybe it will. But first it has to navigate a backlash of unprecedented proportions, as its reputation gets dragged through some particularly fetid mud.

To be unambiguous: Cuties is not a pornographic film. Doucouré drew from her own experiences—like Amy, she’s a French-Senegalese woman who grew up in Paris—and from the stories of young girls she interviewed to create an intimate, funny, painful coming-of-age story. There is no nudity. There are no sex scenes. It does feature disturbing sequences where its young actors dance provocatively in inappropriate clothing, and it shows Amy taking a picture of her crotch and posting it to social media. These scenes are intended to horrify the viewer, and the plot hinges on Amy understanding that she’s tried to grow up too fast. And, look, France does have a history of producing some frankly gross art about young girls—but Cuties has a fundamentally moderate message. Amy rejects aspects of her traditional Islamic upbringing, but she also ultimately turns away from her misapprehension that growing up means turning yourself into a sex object. In interviews, Doucouré has been very clear on this point. “Our girls see that the more a woman is overly sexualized on social media, the more she’s successful. Our children imitate what they see, trying to achieve the same result without understanding the meaning,” she said in a recent interview. “It’s dangerous.”


The casual smearing of this filmmaker is the most obscene aspect of this scandal. This is an exploratory movie, not an exploitative one. That hasn’t stopped Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) from calling on the Justice Department to launch an investigation into the production and distribution of Cuties to determine whether it violates any child pornography laws.

Controversial movies about young people aren’t new. When Larry Clark’s Kids came out in 1995, The Washington Post called it “child pornography disguised as a cautionary documentary,” which is exactly the critique of Cuties today. (The films have little else in common besides the propensity to generate scandal. Kidsis a nihilistic grotesque about Manhattan teens having sex, doing drugs, and contracting incurable infections; its story is driven by two white boys. Conversely, Cuties is a tender tone poem about growing up in two cultures with a Black female protagonist.) At first glance, the fight over Cuties is breaking down along the same political lines as the Kidsdebate, with “liberal” voices arguing for its merits and right-wing “conservative” voices railing against it. But this isn’t the ’90s, and what’s happening here is much more layered.


One of the reasons Cuties has found itself as the center of this firestorm is due to Netflix's carelessness. When the streaming service began promoting the film earlier this summer, it displayed a new poster showing “the Cuties”—the film’s young stars—posing suggestively in their skimpy dance costumes, as though ready to perform for the viewers. The accompanying description noted that the preteen troupe in question twerked. People noticed how perverted the film looked based on these promotional materials, and outrage spread on social media. Netflix pulled the art and apologized, but the damage was done. What was intended as a critique of the hyper-sexualization of young girls was now the subject of widespread rumors that it deliberately promoted the very thing it stood against.
ADVERTISEMENT

Netflix deserves criticism for bungling the promotion, and it’s worth noting that some conservative critics have raised valid, crucial questions about the streaming service’s marketing choices. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), for instance, sent Netflix a letter asking why it chose to market the film with a poster of the girls in sexually suggestive positions. That’s a question the company should answer. But the letter also urged Netflix to “immediately remove this film from your platform.” And by the time Hawley sent it, petitions calling for the removal of Cutieshad already garnered hundreds of thousands of signatures online. The velocity and vigor of the backlash against Cuties can’t be explained by an ill-advised poster alone. And if it were simply that people hated content about children who dance in cringey, completely age-inappropriate ways, well, why didn’t Dance Moms stir a national crisis?
Cuties isn’t getting this reaction because of what it is as a piece of filmmaking. It’s a casualty of a culture war it had no part in creating.
In recent years, and particularly in recent months, the right has been vociferous in railing against “cancel culture” and arguing that the left is full of sensitive snowflakes who can’t bear to lay eyes on anything or anyone that offends them. Just this past summer, Cruz publicly lambasted another streaming service for its cautious approach to streaming curation. “STOP the censorship, you Orwellian statists!” he tweeted after the new service HBO Max temporarily removed Gone With the Wind to add some contextualizing information about the epic Civil War melodrama’s depictions of slavery. Gone With the Windbecame a flashpoint, with many prominent right-wing figures arguing that HBO’s decision to pause offering it amounted to suppression. (It didn’t. The film remained available for rental and purchase on a wide variety of platforms, in a variety of formats, and was quickly added back to rotation once HBO added the bonus materials.) Cruz has frequently bemoaned cancel culture and what he perceives as big tech censorship, expressing support for conspiracy theorist Alex Jones after Jones was barred from several major social platforms. “As the poem goes, you know, first they came for Alex Jones. That does not end well,” Cruz said during a 2018 interview, alluding to the Martin Niemöller poem about the perils of ignoring Nazism. Yet the senator has come out hard against Cuties, describing it as pornography, suggesting that it is illegal, and calling for its removal.
ADVERTISEMENT

This isn’t exclusively a cause célèbre for conservative figureheads. US Representative Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat, called it child pornography. Christine Pelosi, the daughter of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, also urged Netflix to remove the film. The actress Evan Rachel Wood, who starred in Thirteen, posted a series of Instagram Stories suggesting that the film was exploitative. Boston Celtics center Enes Kanter urged Netflix to “take down Cutiesimmediately” in a tweet. And former reality star Courtney Stodden said she was “sickened” by the film. “Turning this into an art debate about freedom of expression is ridiculous to me,” YouTuber D’Angelo Wallace said in a video with over 1.2 million views. “We have child exploitation, so I’m just going to have to say go to jail immediately, forever.” Cutiesis the most vulnerable target imaginable for this type of rhetoric. It’s a feminist film by a Black immigrant director. It’s not American. The fact that Amy’s inappropriate dance visually echoes the moves from Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion’s “WAP” video, which conservatives have been decrying for much of the summer, leaves it especially open to attack. And the charges against it—child pornography, child exploitation, pedophilia—are arguably the most universally-damning charges imaginable. To defend Cuties now is to risk appearing to endorse a list of truly heinous actions. Criticizing it leaves pundits and influencers safe among a like-minded crowd.
Supporters of the popular online conspiracy theory QAnon have also started agitating against Cuties. In one popular QAnon Facebook group, members called the film pedophilia and speculated that the Obamas were involved with Cuties because of their connection to Netflix. The primary narrative Q pushes is that a cabal of elites in Hollywood and Washington, DC are secretly controlling world affairs while engaging in pedophilia and sex trafficking. In recent months, some QAnon adherents have made a concerted effort to co-opt the hashtag campaign #SavetheChildren, which began as a good-faith effort against child trafficking, and this summer a baseless rumor that the furniture ecommerce company Wayfair was selling children online went viral because of Q fans. The backlash against Cuties plays neatly into narratives about depraved elites, and helps Q further suggest that it stands opposed to child exploitation.
ADVERTISEMENT

While QAnon's obsession with sex trafficking narratives acted as an accelerant for this scandal, the key to understanding the Cuties fracas is another online movement altogether. In 2014, the internet clash that became known as Gamergate created a stir in the gaming world. Like a proto-QAnon, it was ideologically incoherent and loosely organized, seeping across chan boards, forums, and social platforms. Like Q, it was impossible to tell exactly how many people actually believed what they were saying and how many were trolling. According to its adherents, Gamergate was about “ethics in gaming journalism.” The movement’s primary actions, though, were coordinated campaigns of harassment, most frequently toward women who came into its orbit, and then calls for advertiser boycotts. It honed a playbook for contemporary grievance politics. For example, Intel pulled advertisements on a video game website following a flood of angry complaints online from Gamergaters who dubbed the boycott “Operation Disrespectful Nod,” an incident echoed recently when Microsoftpulled an advertisement featuring the artist Marina Abramovic after Q supporters accused her of Satanism. (Microsoft never confirmed that it removed the ad specifically because of these accusations.)

“What we have in Gamergate is a glimpse of how these skirmishes will unfold in the future—all the rhetorical weaponry and siegecraft of an internet comment section brought to bear on our culture, not just at the fringes but at the center,” Kyle Wagner wrote for Deadspin in 2014. Wagner’s argument—that Gamergate would have a lasting impact, that it would not be the last time that a coalition of right-leaning forces would seize upon a small incident and leverage the mechanics of existing online discourse and their understanding of manipulating algorithms to wage intimidation campaigns against perceived ideological enemies—was absurdly prescient. In this case, the inciting incident was Netflix bungling the Cutiespromotional material. The opprobrium Cuties faces isn’t only from a coordinated campaign. Some people who hate Cutiesheard that it was child porn, took that allegation at face value, and went from there. Some watched it and found its dance scenes offensive. Again, the decisions made around Netflix’s promotional efforts should be scrutinized, and Netflix bears responsibility for the negative impression those materials gave. But it is not a coincidence that this film is facing this much heat right now, including people using tactics favored by Gamergate like review bombing, online harassment, and calls for boycotts. It has arrived at exactly the wrong time, when child exploitation bogeymen are everywhere, spurred on by pro-Trump conspiracy theorists. It arrived through exactly the wrong method of distribution—Netflix, which mishandled its promotion, and which was already ripe for targeting as a big tech platform. The reason why this caught fire the way it has is because groups like QAnon helped turn a misunderstanding into a crusade.
One silver lining: Cuties is currently number seven on Netflix's list of most-watched films in the United States. People who see it may dislike it, as is the case with all films, but they will also see that it is not pornography. The controversy that has tainted its reputation may also save it.


Kate Knibbs
is a senior writer at WIRED, covering culture. She was previously a writer at The Ringer and Gizmodo.
 
They're trying so hard to win the culture war that they're actually supporting pedophiles.

This is 2020 folks. You can't make this shit up.

1aleft meme2.png
 
Last edited:
Theres probably a pedophile Kiwifarms equivalent out there-- they didn't NEED this film but they welcome it anyway.
May I direct your attention to this fantastic thread.
I think this is the most cursed article catparty has posted yet.
They do God's work. I hate them but I love them.
That's absolute slander and defamatory lies. We never faked the Moon Landing! We just faked bringing them back.
We absolutely faked the Moon Landings. We just didn't have the technology to fake it convincingly on Earth and had to do it on Mars.
 
The fact that they're using Gamergate in the headline is a clarion call to close ranks and shut everything down. No dooubt the low-opsec message groups are being deleted right now.
They're still seething about it, that much is true. Gamergate was the first time their media bullshit was seriously pushed back on, and even though it was totally inconsequential e-celeb crap, it still pissed them off a bunch of anonymous internet posters and proto-lolcows got the better of them.

Having said that, this is a dog-whistle. Progressives always complain the right wing uses dogwhistle tactics to mask racism, sexism, etc, when progressive ideology has so many dogwhistles it totally changes the syntax of how its acolytes speak!
"making space" "latinx" "toxic" "speaking their truth" and so on. They always complain about dogwhistles as though they don't employ them themselves, but articles like this show they're compelled to namedrop 'gamergate' so their more stupid members catch on "Oh ok, pedophilia is GOOD this week".
What's funny is this is a rare scandal against a media conglomerate where the ire is coming from everywhere. Fascists, communists, christian conservatives, centrists, liberals, anti-feminists, whatever-the-hell-Tulsi-Gabbard believes in. This is a very diverse coalition who hate pedos. But in mobilising the troops you're half praying none of them catch on that there's no way all these people are colluding together behind the scenes to pretend they dislike pedos for the sake of a racially motivated plot.
This is why they think they're smarter than everybody else, because the only way to keep the train on the tracks is convince themselves the vast majority of their opponents are just gullible fools who got tricked into fighting for a cause-- SJWs genuinely think their opponents are useful idiots.
Dance Moms already did it though.
View attachment 1600788
I will simp for Dance Moms. Even look at the youtube promos they put up, most of the time when you see the kids they're staring sadly into the middle distance while their mothers scream over benign crap, or they're doing a random flip idk. The camera rarely focuses in on the kids, because they're too busy explaining the insane bribe attempts by certain moms, or the internicene squabbles among rival dance crews.

Anybody pointing to Dance Moms to deflect are innately dishonest. Woke Twitter would find Dance Moms completely unconscionable for totally different reasons, but the 'children in liatards' shots are enough to praise it for this particular internet fight.
One of the highlights of the show for me is when one ambitious mom, who's undoubtedly white, spends weeks scheming to get her precious little daughter the part of Rosa Parks in a dance number-- even though there's 2 black dancers in the troupe, and she does a lot of this plotting within earshot of these other moms!
Do you think these woke personalities would treat that with any degree of innocence? No, if they knew they'd try to cancel everybody involved in the production.
I think the real reason all these journalists are defending the movie is they mistakenly believe, since the director is a Senagelese woman, that everybody voicing disgust are only pretending to be disgusted to try and ruin a female minority's career. That sounds crazy, and it is crazy, but nobody said the skin stasi were reasonable.
 
Gamergate started because an ugly whore exchanged blowjobs for good reviews on her game. Are they implying everyone giving this movie good reviews got blowjobs from the director chick? :thinking:
It wouldn't surprise me if Netflix was paying these journos to write these articles. It's weird to see different people from different outlets writing the same shit.
 
I love how they act like the casting couch hasn't been Hollywood's worst-kept secret from the beginning.

Sure, but Hollywod producers and executives are super strict about age of consent when they're sexually exploiting the hopeful. No former child actor have ever mentioned a seemingly established system where a minor might be passed around for favors and 'career opportunities', sometimes with the parent(s) being aware of what's going on. It's certainly strange to have a coke habit at 13 and hanging out with grown men in night clubs, but they wouldn't ply a kid with drugs and alcohol for nefarious purposes in the way their colleagues do with the 20 year olds.



Right? Who even knows how many people it takes to be considered a "network". A McDonalds seats more than 50 people and no one calls that a network.
 
It’s not just the finished product that’s an issue - there will have been auditions, and apparently there’s talk of hours and hours of audition tapes. Of 11 yo girls twerking. The director says she ‘established trust’ with the girls and their families. That’d be grooming then, eh?

‘Right wing trolls’ is meaningless now. It’s the 21st century equivalent of ‘sinful.’ It’s used to smear anyone you disagree with and even your average Joe sees through it.
But kids being exploited is a step too far, even for most semi woke normal people. The one thing people will form a pitchfork mob for is their kids, even if they’re apathetic about everything else.
And if opposing the exploitation of kids is far right, then I think you’re going to have to pass me my Hugo boss jodhpurs and Flammenwerfer because I’m a nazi now.
 
I wouldn't think much about it. Netflix most likely paid out the ass for the little shreds of positive reviews. I wouldn't say this is a Left vs Right issue, since it seems everyone's in agreement that this was a piss-poor attempt at conveying a shitty message through cheap "shock value". "Sexualizing kids is wrong!" yeah, no shit.

Either way, it cost Netflix money, which is good. Their shows suck ass anyway. Hopefully they cancel Stranger Things after they lost 9 billion in this debacle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cardef1121
She used this as a profile pic:
Knibbs.PNG

Her Twitter:

Instagram:

LinkedIN:

Muck Rack:

Medium:
knibbs lolwut.PNG


Some riveting articles she wrote for TIME:




EAT BUGS!! https://newsfeed.time.com/2014/02/0...-makes-edible-cricket-and-dung-beetle-treats/

https://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/17/how-to-make-money-writing-bigfoot-sex-scenes/ :story:
https://archive.vn/DV8AO

Gee, I wonder why she wrote this one?

Ironically, she wrote this article in 2014:
Hey, gamers: next time someone is badmouthing your favorite hobby as an express path to crippling loneliness and your very own TLC special called “My Incredibly Fat Legs,” now you can shut them up with science. According to a study by researchers at the University of Munster in Germany, taking up gaming does not turn you into an unkempt basement blob like pop culture might have you believe.


Researchers surveyed 4,500 video game players over 14 for the study, publishing their findings in a paper called “Unpopular, Overweight, and Socially Inept: Reconsidering the Stereotype of Online Gamers.” The researchers discovered the gamers they interviewed acted less like Comic Book Guy and more like normal human beings that enjoy a popular activity. “The results indicate that the stereotype of online gamers is not fully supported empirically,” the paper abstract reads.


Take that, mom.
 
Back