Back in 2010, The Mail’s Funmaster-in-Chief, Christopher Tookey reviewed the film Kick Ass. He gave it one star, summarised it as “evil”, and warned that it should “disturb us all”. Particularly high on his laundry list of tedious grievances was the apparent sexualisation of eleven-year-old star Chloe Moretz.
“It deliberately sells a perniciously sexualised view of children”, he trumpets. “The movie’s writers want us to see Hit-Girl [Moretz] not only as cool, but also sexy, like an even younger version of the baby- faced Oriental assassin in Tarantino’s Kill Bill 1. Paedophiles are going to adore her.”
Once he’s got it into his head that he wants to fuck Moretz, he can’t help but blame the film: “One of the film’s creepiest aspects is that she’s made to look as seductive as possible. As if that isn’t exploitative enough, she’s also shown in a classic schoolgirl pose, in a short plaid-skirt with her hair in bunches, but carrying a big gun.”
“And she makes comments unprintable in a family newspaper, that reveal a sexual knowledge hugely inappropriate to her years.” She says “cunt”, if you were wondering.
To really emphasise what a non-joke paedophilia is, he digs out some stats:
“Underage sex isn’t a laugh. Recent government figures revealed that in this country more than 8,000 children under the age of 16 conceive every year.
Worldwide child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry. In Africa and South America, brutalised youngsters who kill and rape are rightly feared as members of feral gangs or child soldiers.”
His view is pretty clear: Underage girls shouldn’t be sexualised, and anyone who sexualises Chloe Moretz is pretty much as bad as a South American paedo-rapist.
So really, there’s no excuse for a headline such as “Bit short! Chloe Moretz, 14, defies her tender teen years in vampish red dress at National Board of Review Awards”, featuring four different photos of the actress’s legs, appearing in the same newspaper.
In fact, in the accompanying article, which journalist Iona Kirby can be rightfully proud of, they point out “She added a playful bow headband and wore her hair in a bun with a couple of loose curls, leaving her youthful face relatively free of make-up.” It’s alright to perve at her when her hair is in a bun, but bunches? Disgusting.
This isn’t the only article about Moretz. You can also enjoy “Classy Chloe: Teen actress Moretz, 14, looks all grown up as she steals the show at Hugo premiere” (Four photos.) Sample top-rated readers’ comments?
“She’s going to be stunning!”
“A very pretty young girl. She will be a heartbreaker in a few years time.”
There’s also “All grown up! Chloe Moretz looks very ladylike and older than her 14 years as she attends Hugo screening” (Six photos)
So there you have it: A film in which a reviewer sees an 11 year old in a sexual way is the beginning of the end, but actual photographs of the same girl at 14 in which the paper deliberately sexualise her?