i'm joining the fray but in a grumpy manner with no quotes or
references to what has come before, bah.
i'm xposting to thingist too, double bah.
i'm just gonna list my points:
To properly understand the web site it's probably necessary to see
the french film of which it seems to be an homage.
Just because the site deals with adolescent sexuality and suicide
doesn't make it exploitative. In fact, it seems to be the exact
opposite. It's seems very critical of patriarchal society. I haven't
seen the film, but I would bet that the film is as well (from what I
could glean from the film quiz section of the site which is found on
Mouchette, though said to be a little girl, also transforms into a
fly at different points in the site. Hmmmm? What could that mean?
Could it be a critique of some sort? Could it somehow be a critique
of a patriarchal society which has taught a young girl that she is
worth no more than a fly? That she is better off dead than being a
burden to a man who has committed a horrific crime against her?
Seriously Eryk, you are committing an incredible error with your
review of this site. It's one usually committed by the religious
right (in the US), but it's also committed by extremely radical
feminists as well. The error being: A knee-jerk response to any
questionable subject no matter what the content is that it carries.
If you make this error than a 'girls gone wild' film and
Mouchette.org–since they have the same subject, adolescent
sexuality–can be critiqued for being exploitative when in fact the
content of the pieces makes them polar opposites. One is exploitative
and the other is critiquing that exploitation by revealing it's