I feel like the outrage both against and for this film highlights our culturally accepted delusion that the types of products we consume not only strengthens one side of our political structure but also is the key to "winning" the invisible culture war. We're no longer just consuming products, we're consuming ideologies alongside the product whether we like it or not.
This is why the "Musk vs Zuck" stuff feels like a capitalist dystopian hellscape to me, but even my leftist friends are into it to see Elon get "owned" lol
Zizek has mentioned this in Pervert's Guide to Ideology when using the example of Coca Cola and Starbucks. This part has been playing in my head the last eight years everytime I open my phone.
0:10 - Disturbing - Unflinching, + Rescue Story - Controversial Response to _Sound of Freedom_ 1:06 1. Is _Sound of Freedom_ a good movie? 1:26 Jared Bauer believes Sound of Freedom is a good movie. 2:43 2. Is _Sound of Freedom_ an accurate depiction of Saving Children in South America? 5:29 Critiquing _Sound of Freedom_ in a Vacuum vs Film outside in The Real World. 6:34 Child Trafficking is a real and concerning problem. 7:00 Fantasy. 7:30 Ideology - Telling Stories to help Mankind understand Mankind. 8:11 Ideological Fantasies. 8:35 _Sound of Freedom's_ idealic fantasy. 9:30 _Sound of Freedom_ feeds Qanon fantasies. 10:37 There is a Belief Market willing to buy into _Sound of Freedom_ 11:05 Carl Schmidt on the viability of Democracy. Friend v. Enemy. 11:57 Universal Ideology. 12:13 Culture War. 12:43 5. Why does the Media dislike _Sound of Freedom_ ? 13:26 1. Hollywood Executives want to remain powerful 13:51 2. Culture War Emotional Response. 14:06 3. Headlines embellished to keep people reading. 14:58 + Solid Movie, generating moral concern in something important - Ideology to feed people to believe Qanon type fantasies 15:50 Jim Caviezel's ending request to The Audience. 16:30 Art enchants life, making life more magical. 17:38 Thanks for watching, appreciate you all, peace.
so glad we are able to watch wisecrack's true successor/continuation. some of the best, nuanced, and deepest analysis i find on youtube comes from Jared
Interesting note. Mick LaSalle the critic for the San Francisco Chronicle wasn’t aware of the movie’s existence when I asked him why he hadn’t reviewed it. He said the Chronicle and most major newspapers didn’t review it simply because the producers didn’t provide a screening for critics. This is common for conservative films like 2000 Mules because when they don’t get reviewed then they can cry censorship. It’s part of the marketing strategy. When the New York Times reviewed it they had to buy their own tickets. And the liberal magazines that were slamming it hadn’t actually seen it.
There you go, exactly what I thought from the beginning. The controversy was just a way to make a fuzz and get more sales. Kingdom Come, Hatred, they just rode the controversy discourse to the bank. Even Hogwarts Legacy did the same.
@@Puerco-Potter doesn’t really absolve liberal critics for criticizing something they didn’t even see or something they never even intended to give an unbiased take on. Btw Hogwarts Legacy not only has an openly transgender character, it allows you to appear as a man/woman but identify as whatever gender you want. They didn’t court controversy, the media just has an axe to grind.
These are the same media houses that refused to review Matt Walsh's "What Is A Woman?" after Daily Wire had sent them the movie. I don't think invitations were the issue here...
The film was produced by FOX a few years ago then it was transferred to Disney when they bought FOX. I don’t see FOX as a conservative film studio. The studio that is now distributing it crowd funded to buy it off of Disney. Disney wasn’t trying to hide it. Everybody’s narrative of this film seems to serve their political bias.
Great take, kudos to you for actually taking your time in watching the movie, and presenting your opinion in a non toxic manner. Keep up the good work, Jared!
We can have hundreds of left-leaning movies that focus on race issues, LGBTQ issues, environmental issues, and economic issues, all of which point to a cartoonish depiction of a conservative as the villain, and we don't have so much disgust for it.
"Fabian Marta, whose name appears in Sound of Freedom credits for helping crowdfund the anti-child trafficking blockbuster film, is charged with kidnapping a child" Why are Republicans so consistent in their projection?
@seanpatrick1243 he was one of many, many, many people who donated to a crowd fundraiser...he donated 500 dollars...not exactly a big time player Jared also mentioned this in the video but for some reason you're trying to play it ul as though he was some major force behind it
@@warbler1984 I know, but it doesn't diminish my point about projection. I'm surprised Matt Gaetz wasn't an investor. Also, I fail to see why they didn't just come out in say how much Marta invested rather than giving an average.
You should’ve mentioned the success of Oppenheimer, a movie you probably wouldn’t classify as "ideological". There are still people out there who want to see movies for ‘magic’
Oh don't get me wrong, the movie has ideological things in it, but as always, when a good movie is a good movie, the message is going to be left behind by most people because it was a well made film. An example of that is The Batman, which had a leftist message, but people didn't care or just simply didn't agree with it, and the movie didn't suffer for it. In fact, it was very well received and most people from both of the political wings agree it was a great time
The magic of Oppenheimer is that he was a failure at real science and just scribbled on blackboards, what secondary scientists do. He stole the limelight from others who really were the inventors, like Saulk who held p the polio vax and then got the glory, his work mates found him sleazy. Oppenheimer is made only to glorify a Marxist, the God of Hollywood. They are shameless.
There are people who do the wrong thing for the right reason, the right thing for the wrong reason, and the wrong thing for the wrong reason. This may be one of the only channels on TH-cam to attempt to do the right thing for the right reason. Thank you for your unbiased perspective with an agenda of seeking truth. 🙏
The idea that something being a fantasy it means it's desired is kinda ridiculous. Zombie apocalypse movies sometimes become these wish fulfilment fantasies not because people want it to happen, but because SOME parts of it are things they want(the freedom from day to day life, being a badass etc). So if people say this is a conservative fantasy, it's the " saving children by doing action movie shit" idea that they're attracted to, not the "children are being trafficked" part.
The fact that you didn’t even go over the controversies surrounding Operation Underground Railroad (Tim Ballard’s org), makes this otherwise nuanced feel lukewarm at best. Surface level analysis.
The youtube Channel fundie fridays goes more into those controversies and how angel studios might have manipulated ticket sales with their pay it forward free ticket thing.
@@marcospisanis739 yeah for sure. Many creators have covered this, I’m just surprised that Jared doesn’t. The lack of that analysis waters down his critique. I grew up Mormon and was inundated with OUR shit growing up. The whole group is a mess and the movie is effectively a propaganda piece for that group, which absolutely makes it a conservative fantasy
@jamesshepard3 I'm heavily disappointed but I wanted to give him a fair shake. I feel that this isn't the same as other culture war stuff and honestly, I'm critical of his takes on the culture war. I feel Jared is like Chidi from The Good Place, too anxious to make a decision and thus ends up damning himself not by what he does but by what he didn't do.
I feel like Jared is REALLY mad at crazy liberals ala Joe Rogan or something, makes him 'both sides' everything like conservatives today are the same from the 80s.lul
Your commentary is reasonably balanced. I do think this is an important movie much as were pictures like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, and Grapes of Wrath. This doesn't mean the way it has been used and abused by supporters and opponents alike is rational. For me it made me more aware of how pervasive human slavery still is today, and that is an important message.
It’s hard for me to imagine even 1 person ever wanting to sexually abuse a child but millions n millions of children are being sold…Who on earth are all these evil people wanting to actually do that?!!!! It’s so dark n disturbing!!!! GAWD, that must mean that many of them are our own friends, relatives, clergy, neighbors n coworkers 😤🤮🤬!!!!!!!
if one has no sense of absolute righteousness, one is lost to his own opinions and definition of truth, thinking that you can find the answer inside you. but when you know the Truth, you will realize that it is simple picture of someone in the dark hating the light.
Excellent take. Thanks for trying to instill some common sense into this crazy, crazy world we live in. We need to move away from the extremes and try to find some common ground.
I'm still not convinced about the validity of the criticisms. The Northman had also criticisms of being somehow a white supremacist movie, which was absolutely absurd, but if I'm using Jared's reasoning, then the Northman indeed faced some valid criticisms, just because of all the culture surrounding it, and because someone might use to amplify their racial messaging. What it comes down to is, that topics become taboo in movies just because there's a strong existing political/sosiological opinion for and/or against on the matter. This is the politisation of everything, and it ruins everything it touches.
This is a trick people seem to have learned from Black Panther which managed to sell seeing the movie, or even better buying lots of tickets for other people, as an act of "antiracism". Can't remember seeing it before that.
I have to admit as a leftist I got sucked into the "movie bad" bandwagon without knowing much about it. Thanks for the great breakdown. Like most movies, there's some embellishment (historians say Schindler's List was VERY generous to Schindler) but that's to be expected in entertainment. I just wish as you said movies would show a more accurate representation. The conservative "fantasy" that all victims of trafficking are kids is harmful, and i've spoken with more than one who believe if you're an adult you must've got there through your own bad choices and deserve it.. It feels less to me like a film raising awareness, and more like a saviour fantasy for people to project themselves onto. I mean it's not like movies and video games haven't been doing that forever, but in this current era of "discourse" around grooming, it feels a little too much like a dogwhistle to me, and I think it would be disingenuous to consider the subject matter out of context of the filmmakers beliefs
Nobody said “all victims of trafficking are kids”, you did. Thelma and Louise is not indicative of every woman’s experience. When did everybody become so literalist? Depiction is not endorsement & just because a single story doesn’t show EVERY SINGLE perspective doesn’t mean it’s perpetuating the idea that only one group of person is subject to those ills.
@@Hack_The_Planet_ notice how I said "fantasy" and not "reality?" If you're gonna attack me on semantics, at least understand what they mean first. I didn't say that every movie is indicative of ONE experience, if that's what you choose to believe my words meant that's on you.
@@Hack_The_Planet_ then a) you don't understand what semantics means, or b) it's a you problem for choosing to be outraged over an invented thing you interpreted. How reactionary of you
Why the movie focus on child trafficking? Because otherwise people would not talk as much of it and depending of the victims people of both sides would have be complaining of the representation of the victims
$173 MILLION on its way to $200 MILLION PLUS isn't so bad. Film is doing a lot of GOOD and pouring interest and support for those organizations working on shoe string budgets to help/free those enslaved/oppressed by sex trafficking'. Hooray for Sound of Freedom and the good impact it is already having. And will continue to have -- even worldwide.
"Fabian Marta, whose name appears in Sound of Freedom credits for helping crowdfund the anti-child trafficking blockbuster film, is charged with kidnapping a child" Why are Republicans so consistent in their projection?
@@seanpatrick1243the dude was one of MANY who donated. He was also a landlord who gave lodging to a mother going through a custody battle. From what I understand, he was released the next day. He was arrested because he wouldn't let law enforcement into the house. Not sure if the cops had a warrant or not. Do some research before commenting. Plenty of time has passed since this happened. So there is no excuse for ignorance.
@@cthulhuspawn6290 The source of that story was Marta's lawyer. If the lawyer's story does the up being true, then why didn't he just comply with the police as you complain every time the is an extra judicial killing? Oh wait, you didn't say that about the recent FBI killing in Utah or Bundy, either. Also, I fail to see why they didn't just come out in say how much Marta invested rather than giving an average. I am just surprised that Matt Gaetz wasn't an investor.
@@seanpatrick1243 So how was the film; since you saw his name in the credits? Did it have a profound impact on you? I have not seen it yet. Wow you actually stayed to read the credits -- amazing. I has already made over $176 MILLION thru Saturday (Aug 19th). I think the international run of the film will make another $25 - $30 million.
@@mdb1239 You must be the guy who thinks someone who has declared bankruptcy 6 times is a brilliant businessman because he claims to be a billionaire. Or that other narcissistic sociopaths are brilliant and should be worshiped just because they are real billionaires.
The top comment on your channel with most likes is a person denying Jeffrey Epstein island ,and say trafficking organisations dont exist , says enough about your viewers.
The film is fine. The issue is that the man/organization that they’re covering Is not as heroic as it’s made out to be. There’s plenty of resources that she can read up on to find out this information. But again the film is fine. You just have to take the movie with a grain of salt on the facts.
@@WinstonSmithGPT Not paying attention are you. I said the movie was fine. So the issue of trafficking human trafficking especially children in this film is a good thing covered in this film. The only issue that with film is that the person/Organization it’s not as heroic As it’s made out to be. There are plenty of online articles you can read on that particular subject. So please save your outrage for someone but actually said something that was against The premise of the film.
I love Jared, but he really dropped the ball here. The You're Wrong About episode about Sound of Freedom really put into focus just how badly he flubbed examining this movie.
Lots of unwell people here. It’s a real story about a real-life individual working in a real-life job for real-life homeland security tracking down real-life traffickers before going out on his own.
Ehhh not a fan of the hand-wavey dismissal of the criticism of the "agent" the movie is based on. O.U.R. is widely accepted to be an organization that does more harm than good, but is very good at marketing itself otherwise. It is Koni 2012 all over again.
One of the few things that confuse me about the controversy surrounding Sound of Freedom, is why isn’t anyone scrutinizing any other piece of media that depicts child trafficking? I don’t really get it, I mean Taken with Liam Neeson is entirely about that ( I don’t think it’s necessarily all that great of a film, but nonetheless it was extremely profitable, and I’d argue it’s still somewhat in the cultural zeitgeist ). Same with Netflix’s Daredevil, the opening scene is DD taking on child traffickers, and then they bring it back in season two as well. The only difference that I can see so far between these two instances of child trafficking shown in media, versus in Sound of Freedom is that Taken and DD are fictional. And Sound of Freedom is based on a true story ( reportedly ). I haven’t seen Sound of Freedom, all I’ve heard is that it’s either this really important and informative film you should see because idk, or that’s it’s conservative Q propaganda. And I’m genuinely trying to understand what separates this from every other time child trafficking has been used as a plot device in film. From an outside perspective who will acknowledge that doesn’t know as much about this topic as they should, my takeaway is it kind of sounds like everyone is super uncomfortable with the fact that they are showing child trafficking, and are really upset that it could inspire Q vigilantism. Mainly because it’s based on a true story. So yeah someone please tell me the difference I guess, I just don’t really get it
Maybe it's simply because it's a Christian network or company that released the movie. Atheists can be zealots as much as those in any other cult. Taken, Daredevil etc were released by studios or networks that aren't exclusively pushing religious content. That being said, I didn't think this movie was trying to be overtly preachy or trying to convince me that I need to come to Jesus 9r whatever. I just thought it was a well made film and told a story that kept me engaged throughout. Lots of films I can think of literally hit you over the head with messaging that it feels like you are being forcefully taught some sort of lesson. This one just told it's story and it didn't shove it's agenda down my throat. 🤷🏻♂️
I cannot speak for everybody, and also haven't watched the movie, but what makes me uncomfortable about it is its star Jim Cavizel. Dude seems like a religious nut who claims that god spoke to him. Also he's a devout member of the Catholic Church, the biggest pedo-ogranisation of the world to which he very probably donates money to
More than just taking liberties, this film outright bases its story on fabrications made by the real man himself. There's also the fact the movie portrays child trafficking incorrectly, like children being snatched up left and right on the streets when the real thing is a lot more sinister; they're usually trafficked by someone they know.
the ¨mythic religious language¨ is just basic christian beliefs. Are all of us christians now ¨alt right¨?. I mean, Biden himself is a catholic, as I am, I only heard ¨child traficking is evil, it´s a sin, it comes from the devil, we should fight it as our saints¨. If other films should be judged on their own merit, this film too. It is one thing to analyze the film and another to analyze this crazy political ideologies that you ¨gringos¨ have. My main issue with these ¨gringo¨ ideologies is that they decant to our countries, because of the (excesive) importance of the US cultural products. Your extreme bipartidism forces people of the center to embrace ridiculous ideas because it is the ¨party line¨. I mean, even a comedy about a doll is, somehow ¨an ideological object¨.
I'm a conservative Christian, I really liked this movie, and I think your take on this is exceptionally fair and well thought out. Thanks for doing a reasonable evaluation on this when everyone seems to want to be crazy about it. Also, there's definitely a fantasy element to this movie. Just like there's a fantasy element to Mission Impossible. Who doesn't walk out of a Fast and Furious movie wanting to try drifting or running a red light on their way home? And is saving children really a bad fantasy to have? I'm just sort of baffled by that.
even with everything going on around this film... i 100% recommend it...go watch it, take off your ideological lenses (left or right) for once and go enjoy a good movie.
What about the criticisms of the real life main guy's method to battle trafficking encouraged trafficking? His methods were criticized by a lot of trafficking prevention organizations themselves. Entrapping by going to a a desperate impoverished area, asking for certain women quickly, and paying a lot of money for them, could create traffickers, or make them increase their violence to new and current victims to satisfy their "benefactors".
Yeah he creates a scenario that typically doesn't exist. Goes to a desperate poor area. Promises 10s of thousands of dollar for people to bring children to the house he is renting and then those desperate idiots that take the bait are busted for a crime they had never committed until being offered an unrealistic amount of money for it.
This is just the movie marketing, no one would have watched the movie if they didn't lean into political controversy. I just don't care anymore for people using consumption as a political stance! You are just filling the pockets of millionaires one way or the other you are not making any difference just choosing a different set of pockets.
It seems quite telling to me that Jared is willing to be overtly charitable to this propaganda piece disguised as a true story, yet couldn't even understand the story of barbie enough to actually discuss it.
Ah... what a shame. I really liked Caviezel in "Person Of Interest" but I had no idea he was a Q nut. I've met my share of famous people and I'm no longer surprised when they turn out to be incredibly broken with very little will or agency of their own. I worked on a movie with well known actor Tom Sizemore (RIP) and he was legitimately one of the most fundamentally broken human beings I've ever met. Completely helpless without his assistant. I've literally met mentally and physically handicapped people with more autonomy and self-sufficiency than he had. I don't like talking ill of the dead but the guy had a complete emotional meltdown on set and everything had to be stopped for a substantial amount of time in the middle of a public golf course where we were holding up play for filming and the director had to stop everything to talk the guy down all because the toilet in his RV was broken. And it wasn't really even broken broken it just didn't work as well as it could have. So someone left immediately to swap out his rented RV for another one with a better functioning shitter. And on another day he had another meltdown because his assistant left the set of the restaurant we were filming in to use the bathroom at a gas station down the block because he would have been fired for using the bathroom in Tom's RV and the restaurant bathroom was "in the shot." When the scene was done he started calling for his assistant frantically but the poor guy had only been gone for like ten minutes. Not nearly enough time to make it to the gas station, do his business, and come back. And though I told Tom where his assistant went and that he would be back shortly he exited the restaurant howling his assistants name like a lost puppy. I don't mean to just lay into Sizemore. There are other stories of the crippled famous I could tell. Sizemore was just the worst example and serves well as a lesson to not take the crazy shit famous people are into that seriously because there's usually other people running their lives and taking advantage of how helpless they are that are the actual reason they are espousing such nonsense.
I havent seen the movie (for no other reason that I dont go to the cinema postpandemic), once they hit a streaming service I have, I'll definitively will. That said, I feel that the right are media outcast so anything that happens outside they desperately want to adopt it as a win. Once the content creator reciprocates which people from the move have done. They go hard in and make it an icon of their cause. And they weasel their way in people's worldview. They take something as universal as children's welfare (I remember House of Cards, when Kate Mara figured the first item of the president's agenda "education reform. everyone can get behind children"). Well once they have your attention, they move the conversation to other things. Like "you mean 13% of the population makes up 52% of the crimes nationwide" , then they talk about immigrants, then the sanctity of life against abortion... and little by little shaping the mind of many vulnearble to influence individuals.
How come you didnt even discuss how the movie's crowdfunding situation might have been controversial with how they might have had people buy multiple tickets to ensure it seems more people might have seen the film without seeing the movie? Not to mention it seems the film is kinda exploitative of the situation in that the narrritive is flawed of the situation where most of the film focuses too much on Tim Ballard. All other characters feel like props. Theres no real character development. Mira Sorvino and Bill Camp only appear and then disappear from the rest of the plot. The boy who's kidnapped gives Tim a medallion of protection of St. Timiteo, (Timothy) even though he's a patron saint of stomach issues. He has nothing to do with children like how St. Nicholas is the patron saint of children. I know Ballard is Mormon but South America is Catholic and a saint that is a protector of children would make sense. The film is more an ego trip for Ballard than an actual film. The sad part of all this is that obviously the film is about an important message but honestly it takes advantage of the "based on a true story" more to stroke Ballard and Cavizel's egos than be an actual film with an important message. The youtube channel Fundie fridays did a better job with criticizing the movie, Tim Ballard and his organization, and how Angel Studios also took advantage of the marketing with striking the same politicial advertisity and using it to their advantage. You should watch their video to understand more about the situation. @JaredBauer
Believe it or not, the video I mentioned with King James of Fundie Fridays actually mentions this problem. It's all part of their pay it forward situation. They had a pay it forward where if you bought a ticket, you could pay extra for someone to have a free ticket to watch the movie. A pay it forward.
The marketing allowed to where you can see the movie if you wanted to but also help those who couldn't. You could hypothetically purchase up to as many tickets as you want to have people see the movie. And this was evident in how they made it to where it was a cultural hallmark of a movie because it had to be seen. Angel studios would then later send people tickets on a wait list of those who want to see it but can't afford a movie ticket. Cause in normal movie ticket sales, one ticket equals one person unless an emergency or something else. One ticket should should generally mean one person should watch the movie but since the tickets for Sound of Freedom sold through their pay it forward had no measure to check on if anyone saw the movie. Meaning one could purchase as many pre-emptive tickets as possible without angel studios giving all the tickets away to customers on the waitlist anxious to see the movie. So if they oversold pre-emptive tickets but there's a lack of customers... who cares it's a bunch of tickets sold!
The problem is that there is no system of the tickets sold with the movie and who actually watched the movie. For reference, earlier August 1st, 2023 on the Sound of Freedom website claimed the seeling of about 14 million tickets and over 242,284 contributors to the pay it forward initiative. Now if this is true if the math is done on average 1 contributor to this intuitive would need to pay up to 60 movie tickets to help people see the film. But the question is did any of the 60 people one person might have bought ever watch it? We might never know.
Mr. @jaredbauer, I hope my explanation helps as to why I was concerned although I believe Mr. Ballard has been denounced from the Mormon Church and OUR, the organization he started for some reason.
I've never seen the movie and never will. The message seems noble enough so no complaints there. There are other reasons to not take mainstream conservatives seriously though.
Leftists will get mad when ppl call them groomers but actively hate on a movie highlighting to horrific extent of abuse kids that are sex trafficked go through
@@adrianseanheidmann4559 It's a big part of the Qanon conspiracy that links real trafficking to fantasy nonsense and something that Jim Caviezel has been pretty outspoken about. It's kind of a line that separates people who flirt with conspiracy theories from those who embrace it. But my comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek since it's not the kind of thing I'd expect to see on a channel like this.
I found the movie very uncomfortable, because it made me ask the question of myself "is there nothing I won't masturbate to?" Thank you Frankie B for that one...
The biggest problem with the movie is it portrays human traffickers as people who randomly snatch children off the street when in reality most victims of human trafficking KNOW the person who trafficked them and were groomed by the person they knew before they were trafficked
Before you critique or criticize the movie you may want to read about the 98 arrests for molestation & trafficking in Florida just 6 days ago ( Aug 7 or 8 th ) 2 FBI agents were killed in a warrant search in 2021 and the investigation has finally turned into arrests in many different locations 🤯
Offtopic: Your video about Ghost in the Shell on your old channel was the only one on all of TH-cam that actually addressed the questions I came out of the film with. Thank You for making worthwhile content.
Think you've fully adjusted to this new video format super well and I hope your individual channel keeps growing! Agreed on all points except that I don't think the majority of audiences see Barbie as anything more than lightly empowering fluff at best - it's essentially just a new Mean Girls-type movie, not to be taken as any type of manifesto except to the chronically online. It's even deliberately evocative of the era of Mean Girls, the late-90's - mid-2000's girl-power comedy.
Where do you draw the line between ideological and "magical" stories of good versus evil? Isn't the distinction in the eyes of the reader/viewer? Is about authorial intent? Or something else entirely?
It's such a shame this movie became or is a policital tool. I'm not from the USA but in europe even more than usa this topic is so much taboo and the abuser still get away with it. IT's happening, period. let's be real on smaller scale. but all added end up being such a big number of kids. In belgium you can find forum of some kid who espcaped it. i wish we could reject the christian and propaganda stuff to focus on the terrible abuse and try to help the mouvement. make it our own. Before the Spotligth case with priest no one wanted to believe it or listen, after the boston article came out people started to understand how deep this is. IF priest could do that for decade and be unpusnished why does it sound unbelieveble that rich mess up people would use their power to abuse children and pay bad people to provide the kid. i'm not christian and never will , i care about children and to stop all of this. When people were telling about Epstein, no one would believe it either, yet here he was traffcking underage girl and rape many. We need to act ! i may sound idealistic thinking we can helps but i really hope people would at least support the association that work with the abbused child or the one that are actively trying to fight these guys.
I've seen this film, and my honest opinion is that it's a 7/10. It's a bit slow and overly dramatic at times at times, but it works and everything comes together at the end. This rating is something I have to keep in mind all the time because I'm so annoyed by reactions to the movie by the people around me who love it. First thing: I have to do a lot of forgiving before I admit that this was a decent movie. For a film that was supposedly built off of someone's real-life story, this real-life figure must've been an idiot. One of the premises of the film is that jailing child porn distributors is an ineffective method for reducing child sexual exploitation and human trafficking. I'm sorry that you feel this way about your job, but you're an idiot. If you cut off the money, you cut off the reason for people to commit crimes, and the more you're able to cut off, the better. Additionally, the big plan to rescue kids during the middle act was careless. There was an underlying assumption that the rescuers were buying from a market with a closed pool of goods, which is to say, that they were buying kids away from real customers. But in the words of economics, supply and demand: they increased demand, and they were probably driving an increase in supply, causing MORE kids to get kidnapped and trafficked. Second thing: they had a whole propaganda thing tacked on to the end of the movie, talking about how human trafficking is this huge problem and we have to do something about it and so on and so on. There were multiple factual errors listed there, but I'm going to focus on the number they listed for children trafficked every year, which was 3 million. First of all, I think quite a few people would notice if 1% of our population were being kidnapped every year. Second, the 3 million number comes from the number of reports of missing children for any amount of time; if a kid goes missing at the grocery store, that counts as one, even if they're found 5 minutes later. The actual number of people trafficked in the US is closer to 10,000 every year. It's infuriating that they bloated this number and spread it around because, in my opinion, it creates this sense of disillusionment, something like "Oh, 10,000? That's not as bad as I thought it was (3,000,000)." THIS HURTS YOUR OWN CAUSE. And it's a decent cause to care about. Third thing: I was deeply disgusted by their promotional campaign that they added after their propaganda piece. I'm not sure how many theaters showed this "special clip" at the end of the film, but I had to sit through five minutes of this guy explaining why I ought to buy tickets for other people to see this movie. iirc there was something about "People don't know about child trafficking" or "It does so much damage to children" as though pedophiles aren't already considered the lowest scum of the earth, with the highest rate of death behind bars in the US. Frankly, I'd be shocked to find out that there isn't a Republican voter who hasn't been propagandized by Fox News or w/e to think that half the Democratic senators are secretly sex fiends who frequently visited Epstein's island. There is absolutely no problem with lack of awareness about this issue. "We want Sound of Freedom to be Uncle Tom's Cabin for 21st century human trafficking." Like aight buddy. And the thing that hurts me the most deeply is that despite all this preaching about how human trafficking is so terrible and we need to raise awareness, there was not a single reference to any foundation, fund, charity, or other organization that actively works to combat child trafficking. Their only idea was "We need more people to watch our movie!" Like what the actual
Plastic straws were killing Turtles. Plastic Cups are not. I actually remember the campaign that led to paper straws, people were very concerned (seemingly out of nowhere) about turtles choking on plastic straws, I guess there was a new study that media/activists latched on to, I dunno but there is an actual convincing reason that we replaced the straws, it's not just neo liberal placebo solutions, any other example would have been better.
The part of this movie that gives me the ick is the explicit call for action to purchase more tickets for others. It reminds me of the “gods not dead” campaign that weaponized religious grievance and cathartic ecstasy into a cynical and sinister marketing campaign.
@JaredBauer an interesting case study that could be compared is the Brazilian movie Elite Squad, from 2007 and it's sequel. This movie changed Brazilian culture and society, even influencing elections and the divide between right and left.
@rodrigotakacs5973 in my opinion, I'd say that the director's objective was (in the first movie at least) more with storytelling and exposing the rot of corruption, hypocrisy, and violence that goes around Rio. The second one was more about the depth of the corruption and its many faces, and how "the system" adapts to a changing reality faster than people trying to fight it. The public, fed up with the ongoing war like situation on the streets, cheered on the first one for its denounced hypocrisy of the elites as well as the "the ends justify the means" approach taken by the main character, Nascimento. In the second one, the public also cheered for the fight against the corrupt system (I have to say that I roared with joy when Nascimento beats the everliving crap out of the corrupt politician in the police block scene) but to most people the critic on people that capitalize on the simplistic "tought attitude" approach towards criminals was lost on most people.
I feel like the outrage both against and for this film highlights our culturally accepted delusion that the types of products we consume not only strengthens one side of our political structure but also is the key to "winning" the invisible culture war. We're no longer just consuming products, we're consuming ideologies alongside the product whether we like it or not.
This is why the "Musk vs Zuck" stuff feels like a capitalist dystopian hellscape to me, but even my leftist friends are into it to see Elon get "owned" lol
Zizek has mentioned this in Pervert's Guide to Ideology when using the example of Coca Cola and Starbucks. This part has been playing in my head the last eight years everytime I open my phone.
@@gabe8935You might like a book called Jennifer Government by Max Barry.
@@Tamajyn69
If I cared at all, I would be routing for serious injuries on both sides.
It was very clear seeing the outrage from both Sound of Freedom and the Barbie movie.
"You lost your sanity years ago. You live for this stuff." Had me dying
0:10 - Disturbing - Unflinching, + Rescue Story
- Controversial Response to _Sound of Freedom_
1:06 1. Is _Sound of Freedom_ a good movie?
1:26 Jared Bauer believes Sound of Freedom is a good movie.
2:43 2. Is _Sound of Freedom_ an accurate depiction of Saving Children in South America?
5:29 Critiquing _Sound of Freedom_ in a Vacuum vs Film outside in The Real World.
6:34 Child Trafficking is a real and concerning problem.
7:00 Fantasy.
7:30 Ideology - Telling Stories to help Mankind understand Mankind.
8:11 Ideological Fantasies.
8:35 _Sound of Freedom's_ idealic fantasy.
9:30 _Sound of Freedom_ feeds Qanon fantasies.
10:37 There is a Belief Market willing to buy into _Sound of Freedom_
11:05 Carl Schmidt on the viability of Democracy. Friend v. Enemy.
11:57 Universal Ideology.
12:13 Culture War.
12:43 5. Why does the Media dislike _Sound of Freedom_ ?
13:26 1. Hollywood Executives want to remain powerful
13:51 2. Culture War Emotional Response.
14:06 3. Headlines embellished to keep people reading.
14:58
+ Solid Movie, generating moral concern in something important
- Ideology to feed people to believe Qanon type fantasies
15:50 Jim Caviezel's ending request to The Audience.
16:30 Art enchants life, making life more magical.
17:38 Thanks for watching, appreciate you all, peace.
so glad we are able to watch wisecrack's true successor/continuation. some of the best, nuanced, and deepest analysis i find on youtube comes from Jared
The subject matter is uncomfortable? You live in a country where to catch a predator was a primetime hit 🤣🤣
Ive been waiting for a level take on this film, thank you!
Interesting note. Mick LaSalle the critic for the San Francisco Chronicle wasn’t aware of the movie’s existence when I asked him why he hadn’t reviewed it. He said the Chronicle and most major newspapers didn’t review it simply because the producers didn’t provide a screening for critics. This is common for conservative films like 2000 Mules because when they don’t get reviewed then they can cry censorship. It’s part of the marketing strategy. When the New York Times reviewed it they had to buy their own tickets. And the liberal magazines that were slamming it hadn’t actually seen it.
There you go, exactly what I thought from the beginning. The controversy was just a way to make a fuzz and get more sales.
Kingdom Come, Hatred, they just rode the controversy discourse to the bank. Even Hogwarts Legacy did the same.
@@Puerco-Potter doesn’t really absolve liberal critics for criticizing something they didn’t even see or something they never even intended to give an unbiased take on. Btw Hogwarts Legacy not only has an openly transgender character, it allows you to appear as a man/woman but identify as whatever gender you want. They didn’t court controversy, the media just has an axe to grind.
Have any of these critics ever considered, you know, paying to go see the movie like the rest of us?
These are the same media houses that refused to review Matt Walsh's "What Is A Woman?" after Daily Wire had sent them the movie. I don't think invitations were the issue here...
The film was produced by FOX a few years ago then it was transferred to Disney when they bought FOX. I don’t see FOX as a conservative film studio. The studio that is now distributing it crowd funded to buy it off of Disney. Disney wasn’t trying to hide it.
Everybody’s narrative of this film seems to serve their political bias.
Thank you for providing some sanity among the crazies.
Things that distort the real problems with child abuse, help contribute to child abuse.
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Of fucking course.
Great take, kudos to you for actually taking your time in watching the movie, and presenting your opinion in a non toxic manner.
Keep up the good work, Jared!
“Thank you guys for washing, I a-preach you all.”😂
Thanks Jared, we a-preach you too!
Yes! We aprich-eate you so very much!
We can have hundreds of left-leaning movies that focus on race issues, LGBTQ issues, environmental issues, and economic issues, all of which point to a cartoonish depiction of a conservative as the villain, and we don't have so much disgust for it.
Yes you do 😅
"Fabian Marta, whose name appears in Sound of Freedom credits for helping crowdfund the anti-child trafficking blockbuster film, is charged with kidnapping a child"
Why are Republicans so consistent in their projection?
It doesn't help that the main fans are Qanon worshippers
@seanpatrick1243 he was one of many, many, many people who donated to a crowd fundraiser...he donated 500 dollars...not exactly a big time player Jared also mentioned this in the video but for some reason you're trying to play it ul as though he was some major force behind it
@@warbler1984
I know, but it doesn't diminish my point about projection. I'm surprised Matt Gaetz wasn't an investor.
Also, I fail to see why they didn't just come out in say how much Marta invested rather than giving an average.
You should’ve mentioned the success of Oppenheimer, a movie you probably wouldn’t classify as "ideological". There are still people out there who want to see movies for ‘magic’
Oh don't get me wrong, the movie has ideological things in it, but as always, when a good movie is a good movie, the message is going to be left behind by most people because it was a well made film. An example of that is The Batman, which had a leftist message, but people didn't care or just simply didn't agree with it, and the movie didn't suffer for it. In fact, it was very well received and most people from both of the political wings agree it was a great time
The magic of Oppenheimer is that he was a failure at real science and just scribbled on blackboards, what secondary scientists do. He stole the limelight from others who really were the inventors, like Saulk who held p the polio vax and then got the glory, his work mates found him sleazy. Oppenheimer is made only to glorify a Marxist, the God of Hollywood. They are shameless.
Love your perspective. Wish more folks could be as nuanced, interesting, and fair about cultural questions
There are people who do the wrong thing for the right reason, the right thing for the wrong reason, and the wrong thing for the wrong reason. This may be one of the only channels on TH-cam to attempt to do the right thing for the right reason. Thank you for your unbiased perspective with an agenda of seeking truth. 🙏
You're one of the only content creators that seems to have a genuinely even handed commentary on media and I really appreciate that.
Why do we need to be even handed by a far right propaganda?
The idea that something being a fantasy it means it's desired is kinda ridiculous.
Zombie apocalypse movies sometimes become these wish fulfilment fantasies not because people want it to happen, but because SOME parts of it are things they want(the freedom from day to day life, being a badass etc).
So if people say this is a conservative fantasy, it's the " saving children by doing action movie shit" idea that they're attracted to, not the "children are being trafficked" part.
Best description I've heard was that this movie is a Lifetime movie for Dads
The fact that you didn’t even go over the controversies surrounding Operation Underground Railroad (Tim Ballard’s org), makes this otherwise nuanced feel lukewarm at best. Surface level analysis.
The youtube Channel fundie fridays goes more into those controversies and how angel studios might have manipulated ticket sales with their pay it forward free ticket thing.
@@marcospisanis739 yeah for sure. Many creators have covered this, I’m just surprised that Jared doesn’t. The lack of that analysis waters down his critique.
I grew up Mormon and was inundated with OUR shit growing up. The whole group is a mess and the movie is effectively a propaganda piece for that group, which absolutely makes it a conservative fantasy
@jamesshepard3 I'm heavily disappointed but I wanted to give him a fair shake. I feel that this isn't the same as other culture war stuff and honestly, I'm critical of his takes on the culture war. I feel Jared is like Chidi from The Good Place, too anxious to make a decision and thus ends up damning himself not by what he does but by what he didn't do.
I feel like Jared is REALLY mad at crazy liberals ala Joe Rogan or something, makes him 'both sides' everything like conservatives today are the same from the 80s.lul
Your commentary is reasonably balanced. I do think this is an important movie much as were pictures like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, and Grapes of Wrath. This doesn't mean the way it has been used and abused by supporters and opponents alike is rational. For me it made me more aware of how pervasive human slavery still is today, and that is an important message.
It’s hard for me to imagine even 1 person ever wanting to sexually abuse a child but millions n millions of children are being sold…Who on earth are all these evil people wanting to actually do that?!!!! It’s so dark n disturbing!!!! GAWD, that must mean that many of them are our own friends, relatives, clergy, neighbors n coworkers 😤🤮🤬!!!!!!!
great take... minus referencing russell brand and the voice of clarity or sanity, lol
if one has no sense of absolute righteousness, one is lost to his own opinions and definition of truth, thinking that you can find the answer inside you. but when you know the Truth, you will realize that it is simple picture of someone in the dark hating the light.
How does the movie peddle Q conspiracies when it predates QAnon?
Excellent take. Thanks for trying to instill some common sense into this crazy, crazy world we live in. We need to move away from the extremes and try to find some common ground.
Wow, excellent work, man! Appreciate you diving into this discussion!
We shouldn't use "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy" interchangeably.
I'm still not convinced about the validity of the criticisms. The Northman had also criticisms of being somehow a white supremacist movie, which was absolutely absurd, but if I'm using Jared's reasoning, then the Northman indeed faced some valid criticisms, just because of all the culture surrounding it, and because someone might use to amplify their racial messaging.
What it comes down to is, that topics become taboo in movies just because there's a strong existing political/sosiological opinion for and/or against on the matter.
This is the politisation of everything, and it ruins everything it touches.
Very familiar to anyone in Eastern Europe during the Cold War or China today.
fart noise
I just played Alan Wake for the third time, beat it yesterday, super hyped for the sequel!
Comparing child trafficking with paper straws is fascinating. Says a lot about your values.
so weird he said that.
I like how Jared talks like he’s so above ideology when he can be identified as a social democrat
16:10 Some main stream studio will try crowd funding tickets but just pocket the extra.
didn't one of the producers get caught with CP recently?
Hell yeah Shoe0nhead Jared Bauer crossover.
Cursed lol
The best part of all this is people think there are help solve child exploitation by watching a movie😂
For reals! The equivalent of putting a ukrainian flag on profiles.
@@peecon7 Right 😂😂
Spreading awareness is a help.
Yes let's not do anything at all it will solve itself.
This is a trick people seem to have learned from Black Panther which managed to sell seeing the movie, or even better buying lots of tickets for other people, as an act of "antiracism". Can't remember seeing it before that.
Damn, now we know why Mel Gibson had the Roman soldiers ACTUALLY hit Caviezel during the film of Passion Of The Christ 😂😂😂😂
What a good, balanced review. I've yet to see the film, waiting for its international release.
Should I read Zizek's 'The Sublime Object of Ideology' after this?
I have to admit as a leftist I got sucked into the "movie bad" bandwagon without knowing much about it. Thanks for the great breakdown. Like most movies, there's some embellishment (historians say Schindler's List was VERY generous to Schindler) but that's to be expected in entertainment. I just wish as you said movies would show a more accurate representation. The conservative "fantasy" that all victims of trafficking are kids is harmful, and i've spoken with more than one who believe if you're an adult you must've got there through your own bad choices and deserve it..
It feels less to me like a film raising awareness, and more like a saviour fantasy for people to project themselves onto. I mean it's not like movies and video games haven't been doing that forever, but in this current era of "discourse" around grooming, it feels a little too much like a dogwhistle to me, and I think it would be disingenuous to consider the subject matter out of context of the filmmakers beliefs
Nobody said “all victims of trafficking are kids”, you did. Thelma and Louise is not indicative of every woman’s experience. When did everybody become so literalist? Depiction is not endorsement & just because a single story doesn’t show EVERY SINGLE perspective doesn’t mean it’s perpetuating the idea that only one group of person is subject to those ills.
@@Hack_The_Planet_ notice how I said "fantasy" and not "reality?"
If you're gonna attack me on semantics, at least understand what they mean first. I didn't say that every movie is indicative of ONE experience, if that's what you choose to believe my words meant that's on you.
@@Tamajyn69 I read and re-read what you said and fully comprehended it. My comment still stands.
@@Hack_The_Planet_ then a) you don't understand what semantics means, or b) it's a you problem for choosing to be outraged over an invented thing you interpreted. How reactionary of you
In your initially are pretending conservatives say “all victims of trafficking are kids” for some reason. Not sure why
Why the movie focus on child trafficking? Because otherwise people would not talk as much of it and depending of the victims people of both sides would have be complaining of the representation of the victims
Can't wait for these ideological artifacts to become relics*.
* "a trace of some past or outmoded practice, custom, or belief"
Imagine seeing a movie about the abuse of children and labeling it “right winged”-
Banger video Jared good work
$173 MILLION on its way to $200 MILLION PLUS isn't so bad. Film is doing a lot of GOOD and pouring interest and support for those organizations working on shoe string budgets to help/free those enslaved/oppressed by sex trafficking'. Hooray for Sound of Freedom and the good impact it is already having. And will continue to have -- even worldwide.
"Fabian Marta, whose name appears in Sound of Freedom credits for helping crowdfund the anti-child trafficking blockbuster film, is charged with kidnapping a child"
Why are Republicans so consistent in their projection?
@@seanpatrick1243the dude was one of MANY who donated.
He was also a landlord who gave lodging to a mother going through a custody battle. From what I understand, he was released the next day.
He was arrested because he wouldn't let law enforcement into the house.
Not sure if the cops had a warrant or not.
Do some research before commenting. Plenty of time has passed since this happened. So there is no excuse for ignorance.
@@cthulhuspawn6290
The source of that story was Marta's lawyer.
If the lawyer's story does the up being true, then why didn't he just comply with the police as you complain every time the is an extra judicial killing?
Oh wait, you didn't say that about the recent FBI killing in Utah or Bundy, either.
Also, I fail to see why they didn't just come out in say how much Marta invested rather than giving an average.
I am just surprised that Matt Gaetz wasn't an investor.
@@seanpatrick1243 So how was the film; since you saw his name in the credits? Did it have a profound impact on you? I have not seen it yet. Wow you actually stayed to read the credits -- amazing. I has already made over $176 MILLION thru Saturday (Aug 19th). I think the international run of the film will make another $25 - $30 million.
@@mdb1239
You must be the guy who thinks someone who has declared bankruptcy 6 times is a brilliant businessman because he claims to be a billionaire.
Or that other narcissistic sociopaths are brilliant and should be worshiped just because they are real billionaires.
Jared, your back! You were missed. How's the dog.
great video , really enjoyed this one!
first time i hear of this movie! It's nice and comfy under my rock
Weirdly enough, image of Dostoevsky in a broken frame, perfectly encapsulates my feelings towards him
See the movie then boycott hollywood
0:57 He got me😮
How does your thesis explain Oppenheimer? How did Oppenheimer divide people to make revenue?
The top comment on your channel with most likes is a person denying Jeffrey Epstein island ,and say trafficking organisations dont exist , says enough about your viewers.
Hey, it's a new Jared video🎉👀
Why the use of the neoliberal term, it doesn't make sense in this context at all
The film is fine.
The issue is that the man/organization that they’re covering Is not as heroic as it’s made out to be. There’s plenty of resources that she can read up on to find out this information.
But again the film is fine. You just have to take the movie with a grain of salt on the facts.
Very true. Tim Ballard himself has said on his podcast that the movie makes him more of a badass than he is. Still a good movie though.
That’s the issue. Not people paying to pork children. Or liberals dismissing it. No the problem is the guy fighting it.
@@WinstonSmithGPT
Not paying attention are you. I said the movie was fine.
So the issue of trafficking human trafficking especially children in this film is a good thing covered in this film.
The only issue that with film is that the person/Organization it’s not as heroic As it’s made out to be. There are plenty of online articles you can read on that particular subject.
So please save your outrage for someone but actually said something that was against The premise of the film.
Saving one kid is heroic- saving 3000 like Tim has is super hero- u have done nothing. Just be happy he saved a child
I love Jared, but he really dropped the ball here. The You're Wrong About episode about Sound of Freedom really put into focus just how badly he flubbed examining this movie.
Didn't think I'd see Mr. J. Bauer be this far removed from where he started. Rough af.
Yea, he's been slowly convincing himself that the Left and Right are equally disastrous to America.
We can all say human trafficking is bad right? But apparently some cannot say this
Lots of unwell people here. It’s a real story about a real-life individual working in a real-life job for real-life homeland security tracking down real-life traffickers before going out on his own.
Ehhh not a fan of the hand-wavey dismissal of the criticism of the "agent" the movie is based on. O.U.R. is widely accepted to be an organization that does more harm than good, but is very good at marketing itself otherwise.
It is Koni 2012 all over again.
That Russell Brand part doesn’t age well 😂
One of the few things that confuse me about the controversy surrounding Sound of Freedom, is why isn’t anyone scrutinizing any other piece of media that depicts child trafficking? I don’t really get it, I mean Taken with Liam Neeson is entirely about that ( I don’t think it’s necessarily all that great of a film, but nonetheless it was extremely profitable, and I’d argue it’s still somewhat in the cultural zeitgeist ). Same with Netflix’s Daredevil, the opening scene is DD taking on child traffickers, and then they bring it back in season two as well. The only difference that I can see so far between these two instances of child trafficking shown in media, versus in Sound of Freedom is that Taken and DD are fictional. And Sound of Freedom is based on a true story ( reportedly ). I haven’t seen Sound of Freedom, all I’ve heard is that it’s either this really important and informative film you should see because idk, or that’s it’s conservative Q propaganda. And I’m genuinely trying to understand what separates this from every other time child trafficking has been used as a plot device in film. From an outside perspective who will acknowledge that doesn’t know as much about this topic as they should, my takeaway is it kind of sounds like everyone is super uncomfortable with the fact that they are showing child trafficking, and are really upset that it could inspire Q vigilantism. Mainly because it’s based on a true story. So yeah someone please tell me the difference I guess, I just don’t really get it
Maybe the people giving you disproportionate responses to movies are wrong and/or biased??
Maybe it's simply because it's a Christian network or company that released the movie.
Atheists can be zealots as much as those in any other cult.
Taken, Daredevil etc were released by studios or networks that aren't exclusively pushing religious content.
That being said, I didn't think this movie was trying to be overtly preachy or trying to convince me that I need to come to Jesus 9r whatever.
I just thought it was a well made film and told a story that kept me engaged throughout.
Lots of films I can think of literally hit you over the head with messaging that it feels like you are being forcefully taught some sort of lesson.
This one just told it's story and it didn't shove it's agenda down my throat.
🤷🏻♂️
I cannot speak for everybody, and also haven't watched the movie, but what makes me uncomfortable about it is its star Jim Cavizel. Dude seems like a religious nut who claims that god spoke to him. Also he's a devout member of the Catholic Church, the biggest pedo-ogranisation of the world to which he very probably donates money to
Because the movie lionizes a scumbag and pretends that it has any basis in reality. Taken makes no such claims.
More than just taking liberties, this film outright bases its story on fabrications made by the real man himself. There's also the fact the movie portrays child trafficking incorrectly, like children being snatched up left and right on the streets when the real thing is a lot more sinister; they're usually trafficked by someone they know.
I envy your jadedness
Isn't all film a fantasy?
Good video. Glad you don’t like paper straws
the ¨mythic religious language¨ is just basic christian beliefs. Are all of us christians now ¨alt right¨?. I mean, Biden himself is a catholic, as I am, I only heard ¨child traficking is evil, it´s a sin, it comes from the devil, we should fight it as our saints¨. If other films should be judged on their own merit, this film too. It is one thing to analyze the film and another to analyze this crazy political ideologies that you ¨gringos¨ have. My main issue with these ¨gringo¨ ideologies is that they decant to our countries, because of the (excesive) importance of the US cultural products. Your extreme bipartidism forces people of the center to embrace ridiculous ideas because it is the ¨party line¨. I mean, even a comedy about a doll is, somehow ¨an ideological object¨.
I think that lightning bolt that hit Jim Cazaviel really fried his brain
Why?
I'm a conservative Christian, I really liked this movie, and I think your take on this is exceptionally fair and well thought out. Thanks for doing a reasonable evaluation on this when everyone seems to want to be crazy about it.
Also, there's definitely a fantasy element to this movie. Just like there's a fantasy element to Mission Impossible. Who doesn't walk out of a Fast and Furious movie wanting to try drifting or running a red light on their way home? And is saving children really a bad fantasy to have? I'm just sort of baffled by that.
even with everything going on around this film... i 100% recommend it...go watch it, take off your ideological lenses (left or right) for once and go enjoy a good movie.
What about the criticisms of the real life main guy's method to battle trafficking encouraged trafficking? His methods were criticized by a lot of trafficking prevention organizations themselves. Entrapping by going to a a desperate impoverished area, asking for certain women quickly, and paying a lot of money for them, could create traffickers, or make them increase their violence to new and current victims to satisfy their "benefactors".
Yeah he creates a scenario that typically doesn't exist. Goes to a desperate poor area. Promises 10s of thousands of dollar for people to bring children to the house he is renting and then those desperate idiots that take the bait are busted for a crime they had never committed until being offered an unrealistic amount of money for it.
Jared vid 🥰
No Zizek perspective?
Well it’s his definition of ideology lol
@@JaredBauer now the video feels complete 😆
This is just the movie marketing, no one would have watched the movie if they didn't lean into political controversy.
I just don't care anymore for people using consumption as a political stance!
You are just filling the pockets of millionaires one way or the other you are not making any difference just choosing a different set of pockets.
It seems quite telling to me that Jared is willing to be overtly charitable to this propaganda piece disguised as a true story, yet couldn't even understand the story of barbie enough to actually discuss it.
Define 'success' Jared? There are accusations of astro-turfing.
It made more money than expected?
LOL, that clip of Trump speaking about the movie with Caviezel and the director noding their heads says it all.
This is an in-house problem for breeders. Parents have always been the first link in the supply chain.
I think it's a roadmap for making profitable movies that people actually want to see.
Ah... what a shame. I really liked Caviezel in "Person Of Interest" but I had no idea he was a Q nut. I've met my share of famous people and I'm no longer surprised when they turn out to be incredibly broken with very little will or agency of their own. I worked on a movie with well known actor Tom Sizemore (RIP) and he was legitimately one of the most fundamentally broken human beings I've ever met. Completely helpless without his assistant. I've literally met mentally and physically handicapped people with more autonomy and self-sufficiency than he had. I don't like talking ill of the dead but the guy had a complete emotional meltdown on set and everything had to be stopped for a substantial amount of time in the middle of a public golf course where we were holding up play for filming and the director had to stop everything to talk the guy down all because the toilet in his RV was broken. And it wasn't really even broken broken it just didn't work as well as it could have. So someone left immediately to swap out his rented RV for another one with a better functioning shitter. And on another day he had another meltdown because his assistant left the set of the restaurant we were filming in to use the bathroom at a gas station down the block because he would have been fired for using the bathroom in Tom's RV and the restaurant bathroom was "in the shot." When the scene was done he started calling for his assistant frantically but the poor guy had only been gone for like ten minutes. Not nearly enough time to make it to the gas station, do his business, and come back. And though I told Tom where his assistant went and that he would be back shortly he exited the restaurant howling his assistants name like a lost puppy. I don't mean to just lay into Sizemore. There are other stories of the crippled famous I could tell. Sizemore was just the worst example and serves well as a lesson to not take the crazy shit famous people are into that seriously because there's usually other people running their lives and taking advantage of how helpless they are that are the actual reason they are espousing such nonsense.
I havent seen the movie (for no other reason that I dont go to the cinema postpandemic), once they hit a streaming service I have, I'll definitively will.
That said, I feel that the right are media outcast so anything that happens outside they desperately want to adopt it as a win. Once the content creator reciprocates which people from the move have done. They go hard in and make it an icon of their cause. And they weasel their way in people's worldview. They take something as universal as children's welfare (I remember House of Cards, when Kate Mara figured the first item of the president's agenda "education reform. everyone can get behind children"). Well once they have your attention, they move the conversation to other things. Like "you mean 13% of the population makes up 52% of the crimes nationwide" , then they talk about immigrants, then the sanctity of life against abortion... and little by little shaping the mind of many vulnearble to influence individuals.
How come you didnt even discuss how the movie's crowdfunding situation might have been controversial with how they might have had people buy multiple tickets to ensure it seems more people might have seen the film without seeing the movie? Not to mention it seems the film is kinda exploitative of the situation in that the narrritive is flawed of the situation where most of the film focuses too much on Tim Ballard. All other characters feel like props. Theres no real character development. Mira Sorvino and Bill Camp only appear and then disappear from the rest of the plot. The boy who's kidnapped gives Tim a medallion of protection of St. Timiteo, (Timothy) even though he's a patron saint of stomach issues. He has nothing to do with children like how St. Nicholas is the patron saint of children. I know Ballard is Mormon but South America is Catholic and a saint that is a protector of children would make sense. The film is more an ego trip for Ballard than an actual film. The sad part of all this is that obviously the film is about an important message but honestly it takes advantage of the "based on a true story" more to stroke Ballard and Cavizel's egos than be an actual film with an important message. The youtube channel Fundie fridays did a better job with criticizing the movie, Tim Ballard and his organization, and how Angel Studios also took advantage of the marketing with striking the same politicial advertisity and using it to their advantage. You should watch their video to understand more about the situation. @JaredBauer
I doubt you can crowd fund to 100 million dollars. What a dopey comment!
Believe it or not, the video I mentioned with King James of Fundie Fridays actually mentions this problem. It's all part of their pay it forward situation. They had a pay it forward where if you bought a ticket, you could pay extra for someone to have a free ticket to watch the movie. A pay it forward.
The marketing allowed to where you can see the movie if you wanted to but also help those who couldn't. You could hypothetically purchase up to as many tickets as you want to have people see the movie. And this was evident in how they made it to where it was a cultural hallmark of a movie because it had to be seen. Angel studios would then later send people tickets on a wait list of those who want to see it but can't afford a movie ticket. Cause in normal movie ticket sales, one ticket equals one person unless an emergency or something else. One ticket should should generally mean one person should watch the movie but since the tickets for Sound of Freedom sold through their pay it forward had no measure to check on if anyone saw the movie. Meaning one could purchase as many pre-emptive tickets as possible without angel studios giving all the tickets away to customers on the waitlist anxious to see the movie. So if they oversold pre-emptive tickets but there's a lack of customers... who cares it's a bunch of tickets sold!
The problem is that there is no system of the tickets sold with the movie and who actually watched the movie. For reference, earlier August 1st, 2023 on the Sound of Freedom website claimed the seeling of about 14 million tickets and over 242,284 contributors to the pay it forward initiative. Now if this is true if the math is done on average 1 contributor to this intuitive would need to pay up to 60 movie tickets to help people see the film. But the question is did any of the 60 people one person might have bought ever watch it? We might never know.
Mr. @jaredbauer, I hope my explanation helps as to why I was concerned although I believe Mr. Ballard has been denounced from the Mormon Church and OUR, the organization he started for some reason.
I've never seen the movie and never will. The message seems noble enough so no complaints there. There are other reasons to not take mainstream conservatives seriously though.
What about the fact that the guy over plays his own heroism and involvement in child rescues and none of the money goes to actual victims.
Conservatives getting mad at the media calling it a QAnon film, meanwhile, the star literally talks about bunch about Adrenochrome at press events
Leftists will get mad when ppl call them groomers but actively hate on a movie highlighting to horrific extent of abuse kids that are sex trafficked go through
Clearly Jared lacks the courage to take on the adrenochrome issue, for shame sir.....
what's the adrenochrome issue?
Adrenochrome is a blood cloting agent and it can be Synthesized in a lab
@@adrianseanheidmann4559 It's a big part of the Qanon conspiracy that links real trafficking to fantasy nonsense and something that Jim Caviezel has been pretty outspoken about. It's kind of a line that separates people who flirt with conspiracy theories from those who embrace it. But my comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek since it's not the kind of thing I'd expect to see on a channel like this.
@@hcolli aaaaah! But why do you think he should have mentioned it here?
@@niccage6375 that, I know.
I found the movie very uncomfortable, because it made me ask the question of myself "is there nothing I won't masturbate to?" Thank you Frankie B for that one...
The biggest problem with the movie is it portrays human traffickers as people who randomly snatch children off the street when in reality most victims of human trafficking KNOW the person who trafficked them and were groomed by the person they knew before they were trafficked
Which, importantly, plays into the myth of LGTBQ+ people snatching up kids to groom them and the larger culture war.
Before you critique or criticize the movie you may want to read about the 98 arrests for molestation & trafficking in Florida just 6 days ago ( Aug 7 or 8 th ) 2 FBI agents were killed in a warrant search in 2021 and the investigation has finally turned into arrests in many different locations 🤯
@@bobdees6428not statistically significant
@@bobdees6428 It's like you didn't even understand the point of the comment...
Movie is literally based off a true story
Offtopic: Your video about Ghost in the Shell on your old channel was the only one on all of TH-cam that actually addressed the questions I came out of the film with. Thank You for making worthwhile content.
Think you've fully adjusted to this new video format super well and I hope your individual channel keeps growing! Agreed on all points except that I don't think the majority of audiences see Barbie as anything more than lightly empowering fluff at best - it's essentially just a new Mean Girls-type movie, not to be taken as any type of manifesto except to the chronically online. It's even deliberately evocative of the era of Mean Girls, the late-90's - mid-2000's girl-power comedy.
Thanks. Needed help understanding what I was seeing with this movie and the stuff around it.
It is hard for me to read and understand.
yea, it was pretty good. but it's no "football in the groin". now that's a real classic
Where do you draw the line between ideological and "magical" stories of good versus evil?
Isn't the distinction in the eyes of the reader/viewer? Is about authorial intent? Or something else entirely?
It's such a shame this movie became or is a policital tool. I'm not from the USA but in europe even more than usa this topic is so much taboo and the abuser still get away with it. IT's happening, period. let's be real on smaller scale. but all added end up being such a big number of kids. In belgium you can find forum of some kid who espcaped it.
i wish we could reject the christian and propaganda stuff to focus on the terrible abuse and try to help the mouvement. make it our own. Before the Spotligth case with priest no one wanted to believe it or listen, after the boston article came out people started to understand how deep this is. IF priest could do that for decade and be unpusnished why does it sound unbelieveble that rich mess up people would use their power to abuse children and pay bad people to provide the kid. i'm not christian and never will , i care about children and to stop all of this. When people were telling about Epstein, no one would believe it either, yet here he was traffcking underage girl and rape many. We need to act ! i may sound idealistic thinking we can helps but i really hope people would at least support the association that work with the abbused child or the one that are actively trying to fight these guys.
I've seen this film, and my honest opinion is that it's a 7/10. It's a bit slow and overly dramatic at times at times, but it works and everything comes together at the end. This rating is something I have to keep in mind all the time because I'm so annoyed by reactions to the movie by the people around me who love it.
First thing: I have to do a lot of forgiving before I admit that this was a decent movie. For a film that was supposedly built off of someone's real-life story, this real-life figure must've been an idiot. One of the premises of the film is that jailing child porn distributors is an ineffective method for reducing child sexual exploitation and human trafficking. I'm sorry that you feel this way about your job, but you're an idiot. If you cut off the money, you cut off the reason for people to commit crimes, and the more you're able to cut off, the better. Additionally, the big plan to rescue kids during the middle act was careless. There was an underlying assumption that the rescuers were buying from a market with a closed pool of goods, which is to say, that they were buying kids away from real customers. But in the words of economics, supply and demand: they increased demand, and they were probably driving an increase in supply, causing MORE kids to get kidnapped and trafficked.
Second thing: they had a whole propaganda thing tacked on to the end of the movie, talking about how human trafficking is this huge problem and we have to do something about it and so on and so on. There were multiple factual errors listed there, but I'm going to focus on the number they listed for children trafficked every year, which was 3 million. First of all, I think quite a few people would notice if 1% of our population were being kidnapped every year. Second, the 3 million number comes from the number of reports of missing children for any amount of time; if a kid goes missing at the grocery store, that counts as one, even if they're found 5 minutes later. The actual number of people trafficked in the US is closer to 10,000 every year. It's infuriating that they bloated this number and spread it around because, in my opinion, it creates this sense of disillusionment, something like "Oh, 10,000? That's not as bad as I thought it was (3,000,000)." THIS HURTS YOUR OWN CAUSE. And it's a decent cause to care about.
Third thing: I was deeply disgusted by their promotional campaign that they added after their propaganda piece. I'm not sure how many theaters showed this "special clip" at the end of the film, but I had to sit through five minutes of this guy explaining why I ought to buy tickets for other people to see this movie. iirc there was something about "People don't know about child trafficking" or "It does so much damage to children" as though pedophiles aren't already considered the lowest scum of the earth, with the highest rate of death behind bars in the US. Frankly, I'd be shocked to find out that there isn't a Republican voter who hasn't been propagandized by Fox News or w/e to think that half the Democratic senators are secretly sex fiends who frequently visited Epstein's island. There is absolutely no problem with lack of awareness about this issue. "We want Sound of Freedom to be Uncle Tom's Cabin for 21st century human trafficking." Like aight buddy.
And the thing that hurts me the most deeply is that despite all this preaching about how human trafficking is so terrible and we need to raise awareness, there was not a single reference to any foundation, fund, charity, or other organization that actively works to combat child trafficking. Their only idea was "We need more people to watch our movie!" Like what the actual
Plastic straws were killing Turtles. Plastic Cups are not. I actually remember the campaign that led to paper straws, people were very concerned (seemingly out of nowhere) about turtles choking on plastic straws, I guess there was a new study that media/activists latched on to, I dunno but there is an actual convincing reason that we replaced the straws, it's not just neo liberal placebo solutions, any other example would have been better.
The part of this movie that gives me the ick is the explicit call for action to purchase more tickets for others. It reminds me of the “gods not dead” campaign that weaponized religious grievance and cathartic ecstasy into a cynical and sinister marketing campaign.
It's accurate and pulls it's punches BIG TIME. This exists, though everyone wants to pretend it doesn't.
@JaredBauer an interesting case study that could be compared is the Brazilian movie Elite Squad, from 2007 and it's sequel. This movie changed Brazilian culture and society, even influencing elections and the divide between right and left.
Yes! And is important to contextualyse that the movie director's ideia was the oposit of what the public truly feel
@rodrigotakacs5973 in my opinion, I'd say that the director's objective was (in the first movie at least) more with storytelling and exposing the rot of corruption, hypocrisy, and violence that goes around Rio. The second one was more about the depth of the corruption and its many faces, and how "the system" adapts to a changing reality faster than people trying to fight it. The public, fed up with the ongoing war like situation on the streets, cheered on the first one for its denounced hypocrisy of the elites as well as the "the ends justify the means" approach taken by the main character, Nascimento. In the second one, the public also cheered for the fight against the corrupt system (I have to say that I roared with joy when Nascimento beats the everliving crap out of the corrupt politician in the police block scene) but to most people the critic on people that capitalize on the simplistic "tought attitude" approach towards criminals was lost on most people.