09-18-2020, 08:20 PM
(09-18-2020, 06:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I wouldn't watch that. As I've said from the beginning I understand the intent behind the film, at least I'll take the filmmaker at their word in that regard. That being said I believe the execution and marketing were utterly flawed and produced something I have no desire to see. I have friends who've worked in the sex crimes unit, which involves child pornography, and to a person it shook them having to deal with it. I have read numerous articles and statements from the film makers and those supporting the film and I can say, with confidence, that while the contrast between the islamic culture and the west is a key component to the film I do not think the level of scrutiny or criticism was at all equal. I can also make a highly educated guess as to why. One culture can take criticism, and in fact does on a daily basis. The other doesn't seem to have the same ability.
Looks like you mostly answered a different question.
My question was--Why do you say that in Cuties, "only one culture's flaws or issues is subject to close scrutiny whereas criticism of others is completely haram"?
I asked that because (and to borrow your terms)
1) the first "culture" critiqued in the film IS "Islam," not viewed as one monolithic thing, but as the village religion of Senegalese immigrants.* As I said in my review, it offers no resources for young girls growing up in the first world. The film portrays a Muslim family up close and rejects its stunted gender roles. The girl constantly gets bad (from a "Western" perspective) advice, which she breaks from without guidance, in part because of poor (religiously sanctioned) treatment of her mother. In the final scene of the film, the girl refuses to cover up and attend her father's wedding to his second wife, instead goes into the street in "normal" (unsexualized) Western clothes to jump rope. A final REJECTION of that family model, implying health and happiness will come from a new path the girl will discover for herself.
2) While certainly a "component" of the film, "Islam," as practiced by the girl's family and decisively rejected by her and the director, is not "the crux" as you put it; the film's message about feminine identify formation in a porn rich media environment benefits from the contrast to one specific Muslim family's life, but does not require it. The other four girls are from other ethnic backgrounds but similarly affected. The Parisian social environment of the girls--and one girl's path through that environment-- is the focus of the film. It is not about "Islam." It is not favorably comparing a critique-free Islam to a "bad" Western culture.
So if you haven't seen the film, and won't, then I have to wonder--whence comes your urge to make claims like "part of the problem is that only one culture's flaws or issues is subject to close scrutiny whereas criticism of others is completely haram?" And "One culture can take criticism, and in fact does on a daily basis. The other doesn't seem to have the same ability."
You didn't get that from the film. I don't think you got it from reviews, unless they were written by others who decided not to view the film, but still needed to pronounce judgement, projecting their own politics onto a version they re-construct from picture fragments and reviews.
So we're at a cultural moment where Congressional Republicans and others join an orchestrated response to the film led by people who haven't and won't see it, whose argument against the film rests upon de-contextualizing its images.
*No reason to suppose the Director sees Islam as a monolithic religion. Millions of Muslims in the world would not identify with the African village version represented in the film. The Islam she shows us is as much about development as religion.
