Liberals Complaining About Anti-Human Trafficking Film "Sound of Freedom" Fails to Convince
Have you read any of the reviews on Sound of Freedom? You’d be surprised. But considering who wrote these particular ones, maybe you wouldn’t be.
Take a look.
The Guardian – https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/06/sound-of-freedom-movie-qanon-jim-caviezel
Charles Bramesco
Rolling Stone – https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-reviews/sound-of-freedom-jim-caviezel-child-trafficking-qanon-movie-1234783837/
Miles Klee
AIPT Comics – https://aiptcomics.com/2023/07/07/sound-of-freedom-qanon-caviezel/
Stephanie Kemmerer
This nonsense is in response to a film that is trying to stop human trafficking around the globe. Make any of it make any sense. But no, of course, we get more visceral political hate, pure drivel, and nonsense extremist-baiting, instead. That’s Hollywood fer ya.
In the last few years, this has meant that Hollywood “blockbusters” will often lose money, and Sound of Freedom is making a profit, now hitting $40 million.
In this same time period, the Hollywood & media establishment have corrupted their own institutions by failing to understand or uphold the purpose of their professions. You’d think that the mainstream film reviewers & Hollywood gatekeepers could try an “attempt” at portraying their analyses of art as proof that they can be market tastemakers, or in the minimum, make an appeal to some human sympathy, or to prove theirt professional chops, to bring something to the table, such as a modicum of the curative powers required to break down a film in its elements. But where an artistic mind sees these numerous elements more clearly, a political mind (vacant of these artistic perspectives) sees none of this.
Ballard, Caviezel, and others of their ilk had primed the public to accept Sound of Freedom as a documentary rather than delusion by fomenting moral panic for years over this grossly exaggerated “epidemic” of child sex-trafficking, much of it funneling people into conspiracist rabbit holes and QAnon communities. – Rolling Stone Magazine
This is the kind of bilge water we continue to get from these kinds of reviewers. It’s incredibly unconvincing. We don’t go to film reviewers to learn of their (or someone’s else’s) political views, nor to hear about how social problems are “exaggerated”. Because even if we were politically adjacent to a reviewer, we could still enjoy the films they don’t even like, for the obvious reason that films are made up of a multitude of elements, each of which could be masterfully or shoddily assembled. Even more so, a film lover will often consider the film in its “aesthetic”, meaning that regardless of politics, and any political element of a film that may exist or not, this is often going to be the LEAST interesting aspect of a movie, for a reviewer who actually has a talent to analyze art.
This doesn’t even take into account that if I read a film reviewer (who is overtly political), the result of this first reading is that either I agree with them and may continue to read them (because I don’t mind their political views), but if I disagree with their politics, I stop reading their reviews because I don’t want to hear a bunch of “political nonsense” being spouted in a film review. But no matter the film reviewer’s political alignment, they certainly aren’t going to CHANGE my politics by complaining about, or praising, a film. Instead I want to hear an analysis based in subjective/objective ARTISTIC criteria. This is the purpose of a film review. This is the purpose of Hollywood gate-keeping… to show an artist, or an artist’s work as artistically vital… worthy of viewing or further analysis. Frankly the more one of these “political film reviewers” I disagree with tells me to not see the film, the more I want to watch and SUPPORT that film, because our views are diametrically opposed already.
So, the entire theory of where Hollywood is going with this will fail, and for good reason. They are being entirely INAUTHENTIC and slimy in their claims. From claiming that fans do not like their work because they are racist, or sexist, or “incels” (or some other made-up slur), to claiming that they are dumb, etc, none of these are valid criticisms of unconventional work, of unhappy fans, or of the cultural gatekeeping on the part of their competitors. None of it has to do with the WORK at hand, to assess a product as worthy using more artistic criteria. This criteria can certainly be subjective or objective in nature, as all art is constructed using both of these perspectives, but it is not meant to be judged as a purely POLITICAL message.
There is only one alternative to this. That is, unless these reviewers are claiming that all film and art is, by its nature, a work exclusively BY PROPAGANDISTS. Which makes me question… “what do these reviewers watch on a daily basis? Do they only watch propaganda? Is propaganda considered to be their best kind of art? So, is propaganda the purpose of art for them?” Truly amazing.
In my heart of hearts, I hope not. Because if this is the case, it sure explains A LOT. They live in a world saturated by propaganda, and instead of questioning if this is the best way to live, they have succumbed to the pressure (to not only tolerate propaganda, but) spread it themselves, rallying around it as some sort of “pinnacle” of art. What a way to live! But this is our Hollywood. This is our mainstream media. And this makes so much sense, then, as the reason I disagree with these media outlets so much.
So, join me in supporting their competitors. See the film. Listen to better media outlets. Let these hucksters know that you don’t need to get sold a bag of goods that aren’t even worth being used as a sickness bag for your warm vomitous chunks. Instead I’ll be hovering over some popcorn at Sound of Freedom.
Did you enjoy this article? What is your response to these liberal media claims? Let us know on our social media, or comment down below (with subscription).
