If Movie Reviewers Rip Jim Caviezel, They Should Rip These Celebs Too
Selective Outrage Over “Sound of Freedom”
Sound of Freedom runs 133 minutes, but many movie reviewers think it’s a much longer film.
I don’t mean they take swipes at the film’s pacing (although there is some of that). Rather, reviewers have decided to follow the surprise blockbuster outside of the theater into its press junket and beyond.
These critics worry about the spread of kooky conspiracy theories and misinformation. So instead of simply judging the child trafficking thriller on its merits, they downgrade it due to other factors, such as comments made by lead actor Jim Caviezel during interviews.
If the “wide net” approach represents the new standard, reviewers should apply it in a consistent and viewpoint neutral way—otherwise they could come off as hacky partisans who put politics over art. And we know they’re certainly not that!
But where would the new approach to reviews leave films starring A-listers like Gwyneth Paltrow, Tom Hanks, and Tom Cruise? Because, based on the new standard, their crimes against cinema are as bad or worse than Caviezel’s.
And what has Caviezel done?
ABC News summarizes the charges against him:
He has repeatedly referenced some baseless claims embraced by the QAnon conspiracy, which sees Trump as a savior figure.
While promoting "Sound of Freedom" on Steve Bannon's podcast, Caviezel warned without evidence that children are trafficked for their blood -- a claim he has made before -- and, in the past, he has invoked "the storm," which QAnon followers think will be a kind of climatic battle against evil.
It’s one thing to reference Caviezel’s interviews during a news report, but it’s quite another to include such “beyond the screen” moments in a movie review.
Take a gander at the reviews from some of Rotten Tomatoes’ “Top Critics” and keep in mind that the filmmakers and the film itself steer clear of conspiracy theories.
Sound of Freedom languished in Hollywood purgatory for years, but it was completed before QAnon erupted. Of course, that hasn’t stopped critics from outlets like Rolling Stone, Salon, and CBC Radio from making QAnon a central character.
Less than 60 seconds of the nine-minute CBC Radio review addresses the movie itself. The rest of the segment deals with issues such as how the “wrong” type of people like the film, including QAnon conspiracy theorists.
Like the CBC Radio reviewer, I have little patience for QAnon. But why stop there?
If movie reviewers are worried about baseless conspiracy mongering, perhaps they should downgrade future projects from Bette Midler, Rob Reiner, and other celebs who have spread the Russia collusion tall tale.
Sound of Freedom avoids crackpot conspiracies, but other movies dive right in. Should reviewers punish Tom Hanks and his future productions because he starred in The Da Vinci Code and Inferno? Should Katie Holmes go to Rotten Tomatoes jail for her work in The Secret?
If reviewers want to take a stand against kookery, they should brush up on Oprah’s body of work. If they want to decrease teen anxiety and depression, they should call out Nick Offerman, Colin Kaepernick, and other proponents of harmful “microaggression training.”
If they want to ensure everyone’s following the science, they should knock anti-GMO celebs like Gwyneth Paltrow. After all, the West’s GMO hesitancy is a menace to developing nations.
And Tom Cruise may have saved Hollywood, but he might be the wackiest of them all.
If you’re scoping out kookiness and quackery, it would be tough to find a more target rich environment than Hollywood.
So if our tastemakers really do want to warn audiences about crimes against reason, they’ll have to put in a lot of overtime. Instead of conducting afterhours research on the rare “faith based” blockbuster, they’ll need to give each movie a good Caviezeling.
But there are signs that maybe what certain reviewers are really after isn’t so much fealty to reason, but fealty to progressive orthodoxy.
Take our CBC Radio reviewer.
He does mention QAnon conspiracy theorists, but only as one group in his summary of the Sound of Freedom fanbase. Also included in his catalog of “others” are fans of Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, Fox News viewers, and churchgoers.
He plays a clip from a Caviezel interview in which the actor connects border security to sex trafficking. Caviezel says that “we don’t have a Southern border” and that leads to a lot of grooming. He briefly mentions abortion as also contributing to a war on children.
Then our reviewer connects the dots for us:
You see how he’s talking about this movie but he’s threading all these right wing talking points into the conversation about “protecting our children?” … The movie’s success has a lot to do with it being a dog whistle for xenophobic, pro Trump, pro life types.
The good news is that many members of the Rotten Tomato crew are still capable of reviewing movies the old fashioned way—Sound of Freedom’s critics’ score stands at 72%.
Our “wide net” reviewers should take note of their colleagues who base movie reviews on movies. If appealing to principle won’t persuade politicized reviewers, maybe appealing to laziness will.
After all, fighting kookery is a lot of work!
Ted Balaker is a filmmaker, and former network newser and think tanker. His recent work includes Little Pink House starring Catherine Keener and Jeanne Tripplehorn, Can We Take a Joke? featuring Gilbert Gottfried and Penn Jillette, and a soon-to-be-released feature documentary based on the bestselling book, The Coddling of the American Mind, by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt.