"The Sound of Freedom," My (Late) Review

A few weeks ago, I went to see "The Sound of Freedom." I should mention that I avoided reading any details about the movie or perusing any reviews before going to see it. However, it was impossible not to hear some of the controversies regarding the picture, and as I walked into the theater, I was already aware of many of the criticisms surrounding the film. That said, I had no way of determining the validity of the many political critiques.

For those of you who have not heard of it nor seen it, "The Sound of Freedom" is centered on the life of Tim Ballard, a former Department of Homeland Security agent who resigned from his position to establish a non-profit organization known as the Underground Operation Railroad (O.U.R.). Its mission is to rescue children from the clutches of sex trafficking. The movie stars Jim Caviezel as Tim Ballard and Mira Sorvino as his wife.

The collection of criticisms did not colour my vision, but instead made me focus. Throughout the show, I kept asking myself in the back of my mind, why is this I am seeing here in any way controversial? By and large, I could see nothing really controversial in the picture and I have seen dozens of movies with very similar plot structures before. So, what is it? In light of that question, I thought I'd write a few lines about my impressions, hoping that it might be useful (No spoilers!). If you have already seen the picture, I hope you might find some benefit in what I write here.

So, what is the core message of "The Sound of Freedom"?

If I had to express it in one word, I would say it is hope. Yet, a word to the wise, the plot can be a heart-wrenching journey if one focuses merely on the sequence of events. Viewers find themselves in the murky depths of a story that exposes the dark world of sex trafficking. It's a chilling exploration of how the innocence of children is destroyed by the powerful individuals who exploit them for their own perverse pleasure but also by the heartless traffickers who treat these young lives as commodities for their financial gain.

Despite being rooted in actual happenings, some have dismissed the film as conspiracy. One has to wonder why. Why is a story about wickedness and moral rot so hard for many to accept. And why so much partisan political resistance against it?

I think that our secular culture deliberately avoids grappling with questions of ultimate meaning, and that’s where the picture take us. The culture often averts its gaze and dismiss evil as mere hyperbolic wrongdoing because we no longer have the handles to interpret it, understand it.

In the postmodern world, labeling something as being bad is often seen as a matter of personal judgment. Consequently, such a level of "badness," the question of objective evil, has to be fictional, a fabrication. People have trouble with the reality of evil. Costa-Gavras, the director of the film “Missing” (1982), depicted the rounding up, torturing and killings of thousands of Chilean citizens after the military coup in September 1973. In an interview at the time, he said that he found himself toning down several scenes because if he had put on the screen the fullness of the reality of what took place in Chile, the audience would not have believed it.

Similarly, today many consider the portrayal of international networks of traffickers and pedophiles as fantasy. If it were genuine, they might ask, why wouldn't we hear more about it, be more informed about it? It's often seen as conspiratorial when someone insists that something we've always thought of as fiction is, in fact, real. People tend to dismiss such claims, considering them to be devoid of any factual grounding.