By legal definition, this is child pornography... why is that so hard to accept?

Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area.
Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity.
Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child.
Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude.
Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity.
Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

Wikipedia: DOST Test

There are many such scenes in the trailer alone that violates this. That they're using actual children instead of legal age actors who look like children (what is often done in American movies to prevent child pornography laws from shutting them down) is what dooms this. By legal definition, it is child porn.

Trying to defend it as not being child porn because of the artistic image is what we did for ages for other non-nude child porn and even nude child porn... the argument being that it was okay to have children model in sexual poses as long as no one actually penetrated them. Thankfully we recognized that these acts actually were damaging to the child and made it illegal.

If this film were produced in America, the director would be in prison... our laws are clear, this is child porn.