Criticism over ‘controversial’ movies drives moviegoers to theaters

Last week, I went with a couple of friends to see the movie “Sound of Freedom.” Apparently, some have opinions about that movie.

If the current buzz surrounding the movie is any indication, an opinionated person might suggest that by purchasing a ticket and watching it, I was accomplishing one of two things: Either I was doing God’s work to learn about and spread the word of an important cause, or I was contributing to the propaganda machine of crazy conspiracy theorists.

I went intending to do neither. I was invited by a friend for a Tuesday matinee when tickets were cheap. If there was some grand pretext to our seeing the movie, it was lost on me. Were I not to have seen it, it would have simply been because I didn’t really care one way or another.

Sound of Freedom is based on some of the real-life experiences of Tim Ballard, a former Special Agent with the Department of Homeland Security who worked undercover on child exploitation crimes including circulation of child pornography. Bothered by the fact that he never knew the whereabouts of the kids whose images haunted him, he turned his focus to rescuing trafficked children. The movie focuses on a rescue operation in which Ballard, played by Jim Caviezel of “Passion of the Christ” fame, quits his job and goes to the South American country of Columbia in search of a little girl who was kidnapped and sold into the child sex trade.

The movie has been described as “controversial,” and the criticism leveled at it has been in no small amount. Writing for Rolling Stone, critic Miles Klee described “Sound of Freedom” as a “QAnon-tinged thriller … designed to appeal to the conscience of a conspiracy-addled boomer.” Focusing as much on the audience with whom he watched the film and the people involved in its production as he did on the actual substance of the movie, Klee theorized that the 60-year-old dolts who filled the theater had showed up craving the harrowing scenes he described as “fetishizing the torture of its child victims and lingering over lush preludes to their sexual abuse” to confirm and feed their own biases about the prevalence of child sex-trafficking, a popular subject of conspiracy theories peddled by movements such as the far-right QAnon, which believes, among other things, that an elite “cabal” of satanic pedophiles runs rampant in the power circles of Hollywood and the government (called the “deep state.”)

Sure, QAnon makes for some real nutjob stuff. Critics like Klee go out of their way to tie Caviezel and Ballard to the lunacy, and any public figure is fair game for scrutiny over their personal beliefs and previous statements, however loony they might be. Where the critics err is in their indictment not just of Caviezel and Ballard, but of anyone and everyone who dares to associate with it — its studio, its investors (the movie’s release was crowdfunded by about 7,000 investors) and especially its viewers.

When a movie is scrutinized not for its talent or its storytelling but by the (perceived) politics of its plot or its people, consumers will take notice. Some will take offense, and some, feeling that it is demanded of them, will take sides. Last weekend made for a mad dash to the cinema, when powerhouse films “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” both opened in theaters on Friday, July 21. Conservative commentator and founder of the media outlet Daily Wire Ben Shapiro announced that afternoon that his producers had “dragged” him to see “Barbie” and posted a 43-minute review the next day in which he berated the “flaming garbage heap” that was apparently riddled with wokeness, or leftist social virtues.

Shapiro could have made some good points in his review. I didn’t watch it, because 43 minutes of watching Ben Shapiro tear apart a movie he decided to hate before ever seeing it sounds about as appealing to me as watching the Barbie movie itself: Not at all. (I hated Barbies as a child and will not see the movie for that sole reason.)

What makes me think Shapiro had predetermined his dislike for “Barbie” movie before he ever saw it? A post from his social media account from the previous day, which read, “All you need to know about ‘Barbie the Movie’ is that it unironically uses the word "patriarchy" more than 10 times.” The post was made the day before the movie opened.

“They weren’t wrong about patriarchy,” said a relative of mine who took her kids to see “Barbie.” But as far as I’m aware, none of them left the movie infected with the woke mind virus.

Shapiro’s criticism probably won’t convince a lot of people to avoid going to see “Barbie.” I’d sooner believe it more likely to annoy some into seeing it just to spite him. Many, interestingly enough, have no problem doing exactly the same thing as the critics who seem determined to pan their film before they ever set foot in the theater — bring their ideology along.

Tell a moviegoer that their intended film isn’t simply unentertaining but evil and watch them grow a little defiant. “Barbie” becomes less about your childhood pastime and more about standing up to the patriarchy. “Sound of Freedom” becomes less about an compelling story and more about standing up to the elitists who hate you want to keep you from being moved by a powerful message. They’re only more inclined to buy in — a tendency that I refer to as “up yours” capitalism. Same with music — yank some dumb country song from a station claiming the song is racist, and watch it shoot to the top of the charts, as happened with country singer Jason Aldean’s “Try That in a Small Town,” a song many would never even heard of had someone not claimed that its lyrics criticizing urban rioting made it “pro-lynching.”

“Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” were already projected to see huge sales. “Sound of Freedom” wasn’t. Yet with a budget of only $14.5 million, paltry by major motion picture standards, it has grossed over $133 million as of Friday morning. A large part of that is likely due to attention from activists and politicians who are happy to embrace “up yours” capitalism and champion its success as part of a movement — a movement to fight human trafficking, a movement to support studios that respect faith-based moviegoers, or even just a movement to stick it to the critics.

“Sound of Freedom” was indeed a heavy movie. But no one from our showing seemed to be overly entranced by it. My friends and I emerged from the theater uncaptured by propaganda, with no plans to dive down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. I did, however, think a little bit about child trafficking, which, no, I wouldn’t have done had I not seen the film. I don’t need to dramatically lament to know that it’s horrific — or that it’s real. It does, however, feel a little weird that I feel a need to justify taking five minutes to reflect on it after seeing a movie. But that’s what happens when we infuse ideology into everything — we create controversy at every turn.

“Heavy” is the closest thing you’ll get from me in terms of an actual review of “Sound of Freedom.” I’m not writing this to tell you whether to see it yourself if you haven’t already. Same thing with “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” and every other movie on the planet. I am writing to say this, though: I liked going to the theater a whole lot more when seeing movies was just about entertainment.

Comments: 319-398-8266; althea.cole@thegazette.com