Sound of Freedom

 

If you want to have nightmares, this is a movie to give them to you. Not because some CGI monster is going to show up, but because this is a depiction of real world monsters. They attack and take people everyday around the world, and they hide in shadows protected by digital anonymity and public indifference. This film is well made, compelling and will certainly stick to your brain, but it is not just an entertainment to be dismissed. This is a message film, more compelling than most documentaries because it uses a thriller narrative to pull you in and engage you. There are a couple of places where you will get some narrative exposition, but the film makers play this honestly, and then at the end of the film make their pitch, one that is very effective.

Let's start with a bareboned explanation of the plot. A Homeland Security Agent, investigating international child pornography, gets involved with trying to break up a trafficking ring and recover children who have been stolen.  If you are a parent, the opening sequence will scare you out of ever letting your children out of your grasp. In addition to the dramatized narrative, there are several brief video clips of children being snatched up in places that seem relatively safe, as well as some streets that we have no idea about. All of this comes before we meet the agent who is the lead character in the film, played by Jim Caviezel. Tim Ballard is the real life person that the story is based on. There is an acknowledgment that in various parts of the film, a dramatic narrative was created that is fiction, but there are several moments that directly come from Ballard's experience.  

It will not be hard to accept that the trauma of tracking down child pornography is soul crushing, and that the opportunity to help a child more directly would be tempting, even for someone without faith. The fact that the agent is a devout family man makes it all the more difficult to walk away when there is a problem that he can keep pulling threads on. The process by which Caviezel's Ballard pursues a group of traffickers is not far removed from a number of sting operations where suspected criminals are lured into revealing themselves in the hopes of completing a large scale financial windfall. There are several tense moments visualized in the "sting" as it is portrayed in the film. Some dramatic license may also give the audience the ability of get the retribution catharsis that most films of this type thrive on. There is not a violent explosion of retribution, but rather the figures we have seen participating in the plots get manipulated into turning on one another and revealing the depths of their involvement. 

Critics of the film have focused on an imagined connection between the film makers and a certain conspiracy group that will go unnamed here. The main claims of that group are never made in this movie. This film is purely an advocacy piece for fighting not just child trafficking, but other forms of slavery as well. When that group's identification is connected to this movie, it undermines the real value of the film. Caviezel had a tenuous connection to the group by speaking to some of it's members, but he did not write the movie or live the story. His sincere desire to address the threat to kids is presented at the end of the movie, instead of some mid-title stinger. The conspiracy ideas are never raised, only facts that are widely accepted are presented in the movie and implications that this is some political screed are completely misplaced.

Most audience members will be moved by the mistreatment of children, and will be glad that it is handled without visual exploitation. I saw a couple of reviews that carried the implication that somehow this film glorified the process because of it's slow development approach. I think anyone who believes that is revealing more about themselves than they should. If this is such an obvious subject with a appeal that is a easy sell, why is it we have not seen those films? There are plenty that have focused on the more controversial issue of drug smuggling, child soldiers, and a variety of environmental issues. That this movie takes on a subject that everyone will agree is distasteful, is not really a criticism, it is a justification. The nonsense from an outlier group should be dismissed. It would also be wise to judge the movie on it's own merits, and not assume that because political opponents have embraced it, that you should oppose it. Sometimes cognitive complexity requires that we accept that people we don't like can sometimes be on the same side we are.