If a person came up to you and immediately began extolling the \u201cvirtues\u201d of white supremacy, and how Adolf Hitler wasn\u2019t that bad, and how the holocaust was \u201cgrossly exaggerated,\u201d you would rightly think you\u2019re dealing with some unhinged neo-Nazi.<\/p>\n
So imagine how this writer felt while reading a movie review from the once-reputable Rolling Stone magazine wherein the article \u2026 largely downplayed the horrors of child sex-trafficking and ridiculed those concerned about it.<\/p>\n
The first thought that came to mind was sheer disgust, but the second thought that followed was: How in the world did Rolling Stone green light this debacle of an article?<\/p>\n
The Rolling Stone review of the independent thriller, \u201cSound of Freedom,\u201d violated the very first rule of any good review: objectivity.<\/p>\n
Because the author, Miles Klee (keep this name in mind when Bart Simpson is mentioned later) makes it very clear that he hates everything about this movie \u2014 the movie itself, its fans, its star (\u201cPassion of the Christ\u201d star Jim Caviezel), and its entire underlying messaging that child sex-trafficking is a scourge on this planet.<\/p>\n
The title\u00a0of the article<\/a>, \u201c\u2018Sound Of Freedom\u2019 Is a Superhero Movie for Dads With Brainworms,\u201d pretty much sets the tone for the whole thing.<\/p>\n For the unaware: \u201cSound of Freedom<\/a>\u201d is a dramatized biopic depicting the real-life adventures of Tim Ballard, head of the anti-sex trafficking nonprofit Operation Underground Railroad.<\/p>\n The movie has been an unmitigated success by any metric.\u00a0Deadline<\/a>\u00a0pegs the movie to make $37.2 million at the box office by the weekend\u2019s end, despite being in fewer than 3,000 theaters across the country (\u201cIndiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,\u201d which \u201cSound of Freedom\u201d shockingly beat\u00a0head-to-head<\/a>\u00a0on July 4, was in 4,600 theaters.) According to the entertainment website\u00a0ScreenRant<\/a><\/p>\n , the movie\u2019s budget was anywhere from $14.5 million to $20.5 million if you include crowdfunding. With $37.2 million (and counting), the movie is very likely profitable already.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n So the movie is a success, regardless of context. Throw in the rather significant fact that the film only has Angel Studios, a downright tiny outfit compared to the\u00a0Disneys<\/a>\u00a0and Warner Bros. of the world, behind it, and \u201cSound of Freedom\u201d is something of an enduring movie trope itself \u2014 the plucky underdog who comes out on top.<\/p>\n So then why, pray tell, do Rolling Stone and Mr. Klee hate this film so much?<\/p>\n Here\u2019s Klee\u2019s summing it up: \u201cBallard, Caviezel, and others of their ilk had primed the public to accept \u2018Sound of Freedom\u2019 as a documentary rather than delusion by fomenting moral panic for years over this grossly exaggerated \u2018epidemic\u2019 of child sex-trafficking, much of it funneling people into conspiracist rabbit holes and QAnon communities. In short, I was at the movies with people who were there to see their worst fears confirmed.\u201d<\/p>\n OK. First of all, child sex-trafficking is an objectively heinous, monstrous and evil stain on humanity.<\/p>\n Why would you ever, ever, ever downplay it by calling it \u201cgrossly exaggerated\u201d? Even if you truly, genuinely and dementedly believed that child sex-trafficking is just something that happens in life, why would you say that part out loud?<\/p>\n Could you imagine an actual survivor of child sex-trafficking reading these words? That goes beyond just cruelty and callousness.<\/p>\n Now, if Klee had issues with the movie\u2019s pacing, plot or acting (he does) that is more than fair game for him to critique. But this review takes things to a dark and disturbing place by all but dismissing child sex-trafficking as little more than a made-up boogeyman.<\/p>\n It\u2019s sad that this needs to be said, but for anyone who thinks like Klee: Even if just one child has been\u00a0sex-trafficked<\/a>, that\u2019s one too many.<\/p>\n Curiously, Klee also seems to take specific quibble with certain parts of the child sex-trafficking crusade that have been co-opted by QAnon. He cites things like children\u2019s organ harvesting and extracting adrenochrome from them, as if using the most extreme examples is a compelling argument to make.<\/p>\n Even if\u00a0QAnon<\/a>\u00a0was completely wrong (which, if we\u2019re being frank, is a very distinct possibility) about harvesting and extracting, does that somehow detract from the very real problem of child sex-trafficking and the pornography industry it helps prop up?<\/p>\n Speaking of which, that\u2019s another curious distinction in Klee\u2019s review. He mentioned \u201cchild porn\u201d twice in it, but only in the context of the movie\u2019s characters. Nary does he bother to mention the real porn industry or any of its sordid underbelly and connection to child sex-trafficking.<\/p>\n No, Klee wanted to focus on the movie\u2019s \u201chackneyed white savior narrative,\u201d \u201cits wildly immature assumption that abused and traumatized children go right back to normal once the bad guys are in handcuffs\u201d (this is the absolute closest Klee came to making any sort of observation worth having) and that the movie \u201cenforces stereotypes about trafficking.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Klee ends his review with this pathetically patronizing snippet: \u201cThere is visible suffering all around us in America. There are poor and unhoused, and people brutalized or killed by police. There are mass shootings, lack of healthcare, climate disasters. And yet, over and over, the far right turns to these sordid fantasies about godless monsters hurting children. Now, as in the 1980s Satanic panic, they won\u2019t even face the fact that most kids who suffer sexual abuse do so not at the hands of a shadowy cabal of strangers, but at the hands of a family member. To know thousands of adults will absorb \u2018Sound of Freedom,\u2019 this vigilante fever dream, and come away thinking themselves better informed on a hidden civilizational crisis \u2026 well, it\u2019s profoundly depressing. Worse still, they\u2019ll want to spread the word.\u201d<\/p>\n Ah, yes. Because there are children who are sexually abused by family members in the world, we should all just stop caring about international child sex-trafficking rings. Those mental gymnastics are something else.<\/p>\n As for why Klee would pen such a questionable review (seriously, how hard would it have been to write a critical review without stooping to dismissive and insulting rhetoric?), that\u2019s anyone\u2019s guess.<\/p>\n But there is one last thing about this Rolling Stone author so vociferously dismissing child sex-trafficking worth noting: He may not think child sex-trafficking is any problem worth spilling ink over, but the sexuality of a cartoon 10-year-old apparently is.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t take this writer\u2019s word for it. Take his.<\/p>\n \u201cI keep wondering about Bart Simpson\u2019s sexual identity,\u201d Klee wrote six years ago for\u00a0MEL<\/a>\u00a0magazine.<\/p>\n Well, then.<\/p>\n