Flasz On Film

As of writing this article, Sound of Freedom has earned over 180 million dollars at the box office, and it is likely to increase its take as it is now slowly rolling out across the globe. However, it is impossible to estimate how many people actually saw the film because of its producers’ pay-it-forward scheme which allowed many viewers to see this film free of charge. For all I care, this film is probably trailing Barbie and Oppenheimer as one of the bigger successes of the summer, most likely ahead of Mission: Impossible 7 and Indiana Jones 5. If anything, Sound of Freedom owes its surprising success to the word of mouth surrounding its release, ironically provided pro bono by those sections of the mainstream media bent on shutting it down as a QAnon-adjacent, alt-right loon-fest full of conspiracy theories and advancing an allegedly dangerous worldview.  

Really? 

Look, I have seen this film and all I can tell you is that it shouldn’t have been anywhere near as successful. Not because it’s politically charged or because it propagates a dangerous worldview. It’s just a boring thriller full of heavy-handed thematic messaging. End of story. This should have been a straight-to-streaming piece of schlock (remember Left Behind?) nobody should have any reason to watch, let alone adopt as a lightning rod in an ongoing cultural war between the Evangelical right and the neo-Marxist left on the opposite fringes of the American Overton window. It’s just not a good movie that most people wouldn’t even have heard about, if it hadn’t been for the hysterical screeching coming from the press about “an utterly despicable movie” about to come out and ruin everyone’s day. 

I can’t possibly understand how nobody saw this coming because it is so easy to frame the release of this film as “the movie The Left doesn’t want you to see”, which immediately charges it politically. What is more, when you see the film, you might start wondering why exactly you were not supposed to watch it in the first place. What’s so bellicose about a guy going places to save kids from sex traffickers? 

The answer would be that it is not so much about the child sex slavery part of it, although you can find a whole slew of “well-actually” articles fact-checking the true story behind Sound of Freedom and pointing out its glaring omissions or deployments of dramatic licence. The main point of contention seems to be Jim Caviezel and his personal views, which is where the press would happily teach you about the many conspiracy theories this man allegedly endorses.  

Look, I’ll be straight here: if it hadn’t been for the media onslaught against this film, I don’t think I’d ever even think about giving QAnon enough attention to learn that there is a word like “adrenochroming”, let alone what it means. For my money, this is loonyville stuff I just don’t have the time and energy for. I don’t think I’d even be able to connect Jim Caviezel to any of this and probably wouldn’t have gone out to see this film. I think for most regular tax-paying people, Jim Caviezel is not a name they connect to anything. Maybe some will be able to remember he played Jesus in The Passion of the Christ, but for most viewers he’s just an actor. Just a guy. Who maybe looks like someone you’d mistake for Jeff Bridges or Dennis Quaid before someone corrects you and remind you he’s much younger than any of those two. 

Alas, now I am aware of all of this. Not because it’s in the film that somehow tried to brainwash me into adopting its allegedly QAnon ways, but because the backlash against the movie taught me all this. None of this nonsense is in the film. In fact, we live in a world where you don’t need to rely on second-hand information subject to editorial control, if you want to get some clarity on things. You can go and listen to actual people who were behind the film and hear their take on things in a longform conversation. You can do what I did and listen to a bunch of podcasts where Tim Ballard talked about his life and making the movie. You can listen to Paul Hutchinson talk about the message they wanted to advance. I promise you won’t find much conspiratorial derangement there. You might emerge wondering why the idea of fighting sex traffickers is considered such a taboo that it invites a widespread backlash from the left-leaning media.  

This is where some people might begin to ask questions, because the movie is effectively harmless. It’s just boring, is all. So, why was it so hard to put together? Why did these people have so many problems getting it off the ground? Is it because nobody wanted to green-light a movie which was unlikely to make money? That would be my guess. But in the context of the current social division and considering the retrospective backlash, it will be so easy to speculate and wonder that maybe someone didn’t want this movie to be made. And if so, why?  

Do you see the breadcrumbs forming a trail here? I do. I can easily see that it is the press coverage, not the movie, which is more likely to contribute to formation of conspiracy theories and having some of them spin out of control because they effectively scream into our ears to disavow a movie with a perfectly acceptable – and perhaps too obvious for its own good – message behind it. What are they asking us to oppose? The message? Are we supposed to boycott this movie because sex trafficking is fine all of a sudden? Or is it because the movie is heavy-handedly simplifying said messaging? Are we screaming at ham-fisted movies now? If so, should we also moan at Women Talking and Promising Young Woman, both of which are just as obnoxiously preachy? 

Or are we supposed to boycott the film because Jim Caviezel is in it and he has said strange things? If it’s the latter, should I also boycott anything with Tom Cruise and John Travolta, on the back of their strong connections to scientology? 

Look, if it hadn’t been for the utterly insufferable sensationalism pouring from the mainstream media, Sound of Freedom wouldn’t have become even half as popular. It would have just disappeared. And nobody would have to sit through its ending credits looking at a timer counting down to a message from Jim Caviezel about how difficult it was for this movie to come together and how important it is to spread this message. I think we all get it. I don’t necessarily believe we needed a special movie to alert the world to this fact, because it’s pretty obvious. If anything, Tim Ballard’s story itself would have made a solid thriller, had it been handled by filmmakers who knew how to tell this story in a way that would both make logical sense and be narratively compelling, as opposed to using it as a moral crutch.  

C’est la vie… Ironically, when I was younger, you could count on this level of braindead sensationalism to come from the Evangelical right who would insist that death metal bands worship Satan during their concerts, that Marylin Manson is the Antichrist and that if you listen to Judas Priest backwards, you’ll get hypnotized into throwing yourself off a cliff. Now, the same noises are coming from the left-hand side of the political ledger, as though to even out the stupidity and throw even more oil into the burning skip that is the American socio-political discourse.  

I suppose we ought to thank America for this wonderful gift of reactionary knee-jerk coverage for a movie we shouldn’t even be aware of, and which we all ventured out to see because it was such a hot-button issue in The Land of the Free. Without their intrepid journalistic devotion, Sound of Freedom would have been just a picture you occasionally see on Netflix while you’re browsing for nonsense to watch. Now, it’s an item of societal division. Congratulations, America!

Now, if you excuse me, I have some Led Zeppelin to listen to backwards before I attend Black Mass.  

Wait! Maybe I had it wrong all along? Maybe Sound of Freedom becomes an incendiary piece of right-wing propaganda only if you watch it back-to-front? Hey, Jim! Can I have one of those free tickets? Because I am not paying to see this again, that’s for blooming sure.