The Left goes bananas over the popularity of the "Sound of Freedom" film
Can't a movie just be a movie?
The “Sound of Freedom” has turned into a box-office blockbuster, mostly by word of mouth. It’s a story about child sex trafficking and the determined and courageous fight by a man to, if not end it, at least rescue some boys and girls trapped in this brutal slavery.
So, it’s a wonder why anyone would badmouth this popular film and advise people not to watch, right?
Turns out the Left has done just that. They have politicized the movie, claiming that it is a tool of the far Right. That it’s a thinly veiled piece of radical propaganda. A tool to persuade that world that there’s a massive conspiracy that the world is run by child sex traffickers.
For example: “CNN Begs America Not to See ‘Sound of Freedom,’ the Hit Film Exposing Child Trafficking,” is a good summary of the Left’s criticisms, some of them just goofy. Here is more: “The media’s bizarre Sound of Freedom freakout: Jim Caviezel’s madcap views are a reason to dismiss his film’s success. Yet Tom Cruise’s aren’t?”
Among them: It’s a recruiting film for the rightwing QAnon movement. It’ll appeal to the “conspiracy-addled boomer.” Such films are created out of “moral panic,” “bogus statistics,” and “fear.” It’s a conspiracy.
Gosh.
Okay, the movie has a message and point of view. But sweep away all the breathless, politically inspired criticism, it’s simply a film about child sex trafficking. Sure it can be criticized for its artistic value—such as the staging, the cinematography and script. But the reviews are split on that.
Surely the film’s critics aren’t in favor of child sex trafficking. Their argument is that the film’s depiction of the problem is over the top. Okay, so, maybe the Left should make their own film about sex trafficking, in which they can claim that their views alone are the only acceptable views. Oh, they haven’t made one?
Movies with messages are far from new. The Left has made good use of film and other forms of entertainment to spread their version of the truth.
“The Last Temptation of Christ” attacked Christian beliefs by, instead of dying and resurrecting, Jesus survived the crucifixion and married Mary Magdalene and Mary, sisters of Lazarus, and starts a family. Roger Ebert thought the films was swell. Awards headed its way. No thought about its deep offensiveness.
Then there’s Murphy Brown, a TV sitcom that’s about a woman who decided she would raise her child on her own. Who needs a man, right? It was a deeply politicized show, celebrated by the Left because it defied traditional beliefs about the importance of two-parent families. Never mind that it contributed to the cognitive, emotional, socialization and other problems that social science studies have confirmed that are the result of absent fathers.
The bullet-pointed Left obviously doesn’t think that message movies are a bad thing, unless they disagree with their viewpoint. It’s not a bad thing for offended people to passionately campaign against a movie. Plenty of Christians did for the “Last Temptation.”
The problem with the rank criticism of “The Sound” is that diminishes the fight against child sex trafficking. Some people might take that to mean that the Left doesn’t care about sex slavery. I find that hard to believe.
But they appear not to be aware or are determined to ignore the horror to promote their political ideology. This is a bipartisan issue To not to join in is unforgivable. A pox on them.
Speaking of movies with a message, here’s a new one: “The Essential Church.”
It’s a documentary about the government’s assault on churches during the Covid pandemic. I haven’t seen it, so I can’t review it. If you’re interested, here’s the trailer.,
