Connect with us


How Cuties Got Caught in a Gamergate-Style Internet Clash



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 Cuties and 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, Cuties looked poised to join this canon.

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.”


House Of Dragon: Official Release Date Confirmed!




House Of Dragon, the game of thrones prequel to be released soon. This one is actually the second spin-off series of GOT. Apparently, there was the first one though to be titled The Long Night, however, it was axed soon after the pilot episode. So, there’s something we never got to watch. Well, now to the good news we have HBO boss Casey Bloys confirming House of Dragons.

Casey Bloys has confirmed that the House of Dragon is still on track for a 2022 release. Although we do not have an exact release date, we can expect to watch it around mid-2022 or perhaps in October of 2022.

According to the deadline, they found out through an interview that casting is officially underway. According to Knife Edge Media, a casting call for three leads was released earlier this year. The call was for the famous Targaryen siblings Aegon, Visenya, and Rhaenys.

Seeing the pace in production we can positively hope for a 2022 release.

The prequel will take a deep dive into the origins of the Targaryens. Set 300 years before the events of Game Of Thrones we might see it going for an end towards the birth of John Snow. Well, this is still a guess.

However, it is adapted from the book Fire and Blood by George R.R Martin. Well, as we are set to see the Targaryens we certainly will see the Starks, Lannisters, and Baratheons. Moreover, we will also get the answers to several questions from GOT, for instance, how did Benjen survive North of the Wall. Further, we will also see the mad king in action. Moreover, we might also get to see the famous rebellion and Jamie Lannister getting the title of King Slayer. However, that’s more towards the end.

Stay Tuned With Us!

Continue Reading


Doctor Who’s Sonic Screwdriver Started Out As A Literal Screwdriver




Modern Doctor Who uses the sonic screwdriver for a variety of uses, but the handy device began in the Second Doctor era as a literal screwdriver.

Doctor Who fans are used to seeing The Doctor’s sonic screwdriver perform miracles, but the device’s name was originally very literal. Those familiar with classic-era Doctor Who are generally quick to point out how the current show differs from the first run, which charted The Doctor’s first seven incarnations. From romance in the TARDIS to a heavier focus on companions, there’s no shortage of differences between classic and new Who, but one of the most immediately obvious changes is how the sonic screwdriver is used.

Today, the sonic screwdriver is a weapon, a tool, a scanner and a plot device all rolled into one convenient package, sitting in The Doctor’s pocket ready to be whipped out in a host of different scenarios. Despite only appearing to have a single button, The Doctor’s sonic screwdriver can open doors, interact with machinery, scan the atmosphere and enact repairs in mere moments. Sometimes, The Doctor doesn’t appear to be sonic-ing anything at all; just pointing and hoping for the best. Modern Doctors also have a habit of posing with their sonic screwdrivers like guns – something Doctor Who‘s 50th anniversary episode openly mocked through John Hurt’s War Doctor. But despite the omnipotent nature of the sonic screwdriver in the 2000s, the origins of the device are far more humble.

Continue scrolling to keep reading
Click the button below to start this article in quick view.

Related: Doctor Who’s Timeless Child Retcon Broke River Song’s Origin

First introduced in 1968, the sonic screwdriver’s intended purpose was, as the name implies, loosening screws. The Second Doctor landed back on Earth with his two companions, Jamie and Victoria, and something had evidently gone horribly wrong – a gas pipe was generating sea foam in vast quantities, creating an eerie, alien landscape. The Doctor goes to inspect the pipe, but as a meek fellow, can’t dislodge the iron casing. For the first time, the sonic screwdriver is introduced, allowing The Doctor to remove the screws and peek inside the pipe’s control box. Although the original sonic screwdriver was far simpler in design (a small, metallic pencil with a light on the end), the familiar whirring sound was still present. Younger Doctor Who fans might think the term “sonic screwdriver” is just The Doctor’s quaint sense of humor at work, downplaying the power of the device. In truth, the sonic screwdriver was, once upon a time, a literal screwdriver that used sonic waves instead of physical strength.

Second Doctor sonic screwdriver in Doctor Who

Given The Doctor’s alien origins (he hadn’t yet been revealed as a Time Lord), it’s natural that his toolkit would contain some futuristic pieces. The sonic screwdriver was science fiction’s answer to a real life, ordinary screwdriver, removing screws that would otherwise be too tough for a manual tool held by an older man. Unlike more recent episodes, it never felt like the Second Doctor was “packing heat” and fans were seldom left asking “why didn’t he just use the sonic?

While modern Doctor Who undoubtedly changed the role of the sonic screwdriver, the device’s usage was expanded long before Russell T Davies came along. The sonic screwdriver began its transition to a science fiction swiss army knife in the Second Doctor episode “The Dominators,” where it cut through a section of wall, albeit only with a special attachment. But it was Jon Pertwee’s Third Doctor who truly brought the sonic screwdriver to the fore, using his model to open doors, scan new areas, and much more. By “reversing the polarity” during “Frontier In Space,” the Third Doctor proved the sonic screwdriver could be customized to open up new settings, which were subsequently written into the sonic screwdriver’s capabilities.

Despite the sonic screwdriver becoming more versatile in the Third Doctor era, the device was still nowhere near as prominent as it is today, featuring far more sporadically compared to the revived series. But as soon as this fascinating concept was introduced to Doctor Who, writers realized the potential of The Doctor’s new accessory, and quickly began relying on the sonic screwdriver to overcome plot wrinkles and quicken the pace of each episode. The Third Doctor ushered in a new era of Doctor Who, designed to be more accessible and action-based, and expanding the sonic screwdriver’s array of utilities helped deliver that change.

More: Why Doctor Who Continuity Is Really So Confusing

Doctor Who returns with “Revolution of the Daleks” this Christmas on BBC.

Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild 2 Sequel Name May Have Leaked Already

About The Author

Continue Reading


Republican Senators Push Back Against Netflix Over ‘Game of Thrones’ Creators’ New Series




The streamer announced earlier this month that David Benioff and D.B. Weiss would be adapting Liu Cixin’s sci-fi trilogy “The Three-Body Problem.”

Republican senators have sent a letter to Netflix chief content officer and co-CEO Ted Sarandos pushing back against the streaming service’s upcoming series “The Three-Body Problem.” Netflix announced September 1 that “Game of Thrones” creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss are adapting Liu Cixin’s science-fiction trilogy “The Three-Body Problem” for the streamer with the help of “The Terror: Infamy” writer Alexander Woo and executive producers Rian Johnson and Rosamund Pike. The letter claims that by producing the series Netflix is “normalizing” the imprisonment of Uighur Muslims in China’s Xinjiang province.

The senators point to an interview “Three-Body Problem” author Liu Cixin gave in 2019 to The New Yorker in which he expressed approval over the imprisonment of Uighur Muslims. Human right abuses are reportedly taking place in Xinjiang province, including the detainment of over one million Uighur Muslims.

When asked in 2019 about imprisoning Muslims in Xinjiang, Liu Cixin responded, “Would you rather that they be hacking away at bodies at train stations and schools in terrorist attacks? If anything, the government is helping their economy and trying to lift them out of poverty.”

The letter to Netflix is signed by Martha McSally (R., Ariz.), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Kevin Cramer (R., N.D.), and Thom Tillis (R., N.C.). The Republican members ask Netflix to rethink its working relationship with Liu Cixin considering his comments, while adding, “Does Netflix agree that the Chinese Communist Party’s interment of 1.8 to 3 million Uyghurs in internment or labor camps based on their ethnicity is unacceptable?”

“Netflix’s company culture statement asserts that ‘Entertainment, like friendship, is a fundamental human need; it changes how we feel and gives us common ground,’” the letter concludes. “This statement is a beautiful summary of the value of the American entertainment industry, which possesses innovation largely unmatched in the global market. We ask Netflix to seriously reconsider the implications of providing a platform to Mr. Liu in producing this project.”

Disney came under fire earlier this month for filming its live-action “Mulan” adaptation in parts of the Xinjiang province. The end credits of “Mulan” also include a “special thanks” to the “publicity department of CPC Xinjiang Uighur Autonomy Region Committee” and to the public security bureau in the city of Turpan, which is where detainment centers are reportedly in operation.

With the first installment of the “Three-Body Problem” series, Liu Cixin became the first writer in Asia to win the prestigious Hugo Award. The book is set during the Cultural Revolution when humans establish contact with an alien civilization on the edge of extinction. After the aliens invade earth, humans split off into two camps: one in favor of takeover by the superior aliens and the other determined to resist.

IndieWire has reached out to Netflix for further comment.

Sign Up: Stay on top of the latest breaking film and TV news! Sign up for our Email Newsletters here.

Continue Reading

Hot Stories