Change Your Image
dkjensen84
Reviews
Sound of Freedom (2023)
Important Topic, Bad Execution
Two things can be true at the same time--child trafficking can be awful and this film can be, too.
Also, let's address the elephant in the room. The "true story" this is based on is Tim Ballard's work with OUR. By now (October 2023), any viewer of this film has the ability to learn of the accusations against Tim and OUR, including misappropriation of donor funds, gross misrepresentation of relief efforts and data, reliance on faulty information (including a psychic), and sexual abuse and spiritual manipulation by Tim Ballard. Back to the film...
This film portrays the protagonist, Tim Ballard, in an alarming number of compromising, unnatural, and/or amateur situations. Toward the beginning, the film shows Tim alone in a detention facility (no guards present), he enters the cell of detainee, unilaterally releases the detainee, and proceeds to accompany the individual to a place of private conversation. Each of these situations are remarkably implausible and concerning. This theme of implausibility and problematic behavior continues throughout the movie, with Tim having a shockingly problematic approach to children. Tim inexplicably operates as a lone wolf, with several scenes portraying him as solo in situations where obviously many people would be present. This includes scenes in which he is alone with a child, asking direct personal questions, and touching/carrying the child. This neglects the reality that trafficked children will not be trusting and will be adverse to such actions and that an adult should never be unaccompanied while with a child, especially a vulnerable child. The film shows Tim as having heroic intentions, yet little regard to the autonomy of the child.
The movie's scripting is quite brazen, unnaturally using the word "pedophile" repeatedly and thrusting contrived spiritual overtones willy-nilly. In one scene, a child shows a neckless with a Tim Ballard token on it, as if there was some divine plan that Tim Ballard would rescue the child. Why a Homeland Security agent would have a medallion made after him and why a parent would obtain it and give it to his child (in anticipation of trafficking?) is left to the imagination. It is certainly fantastical fiction at best. Yet somehow, it seems calculated to pull heart strings.
Tim is portrayed as a James Bond type, to a comical extreme. Scenes follow a James Bond formula, following a variety of cars, boats, and planes to exotic locations, with nebulous bad guys, and secretive special agent conversations while flanked by attractive women dressed to the nines. This is interspersed with montages of Tim jogging (Rocky, anyone?) before heading into the jungle to rescue a girl (Hi, Rambo!). The movie is centered around him, not child trafficking, and in several conversations throughout the film, Tim is shown as having minimal understanding of the complexities of child trafficking, including the impact on children.
All in all, this film is problematic at best. It misrepresents the realities of child trafficking (most are older teenagers, typically part of a custody issue, or coerced by people they know for economic gain and pressured into prostitution). This makes it look like slavery of young children. I imagine that in this cruel world, child slavery through abduction occurs, but to think Tim Ballard is stopping it by rampaging like Rambo through the jungle is pure fiction and detracts from the work professionals do. Ultimately, this film serves Tim Ballard's hero complex, not anti-child trafficking efforts. If you are watching this to learn about child trafficking, look elsewhere (hopefully a trusted and reputable government agency or NGO).
Under the Banner of Heaven (2022)
Critical response more interesting than the show itself
Imagine making a documentary about a city. The doc shows clips of sewer facilities, graffiti, poverty, crime, and partially demoed buildings. Is everything real? Sure. Is it accurate?
As a former Mormon, who now lives in Utah and attended BYU for both undergrad and masters, I understand Mormonism, and as someone who has left the church, I understand the joy and comraderie that comes from sitting back and mocking a church that has been deceiptful about its problematic history and doctrine. But that doesn't make this show good or helpful.
First, let's set aside the Lafferty cult. Mental health and fundamentalism are real, and their story was noteworthy and interesting. There is certainly a dialogue that needs to be had relating to the role religions play in enabling extremism. That part of the story was great, and not where the problem lies. The problem lies with their portrayals of mainstream Mormons and Mormonism.
This show starts out with a cooky scene from Pioneer Day, designed to otherize Mormons from the onset. The dialogue is heavy handed throughout. Mormons don't talk like that. Sure, each phrase has been said by someone at some point, but putting them together with such regularity is a neighborhood exclusively of sewers. There's not one damn Mormon in that show who is normal. The show mocks one Mormon's understanding of history while posing another version, which has been dismissed by non-Mormon scholars as fiction, as fact. It extends grace to the atheist, who is able to express that just because he is atheist doesn't mean this that or the other, and then extends no grace to the Mormon. The show deliberately portrays atheism as vibrantly diverse, while Mormons are a rigid monolith. It fights propaganda with flagrant propaganda. I know much of the love from fellow post-Mormons is a trauma response and provides validation needed for healing. Yet in all, this show is no better than the web of lies people like me left. It just perpetuates and normalizes otherization and mis-characterization.
Top Secret UFO Projects: Declassified (2021)
Counterproductive Film
UAP's have gained newfound intrigue, so I was excited to see this new documentary on Netflix. It wouldn't be so bad if this documentary provided no new evidence, no new credible interviews, no new insights. This documentary did something worse--it provided sensationalized narrative and focused on the fringe and disputed stories. It meshed verified and credible incidents with fantastical ones. It drew conclusions on shaky assumptions, and pushed those conclusions as fact. It furthers the unfortunate narrative that people who "believe in UFOs" (i.e. Recognize the existence of UAP's) are lunatics. Destigmatization comes from reasonable inquiry and credible sources, of which there is plenty to draw from. This did the opposite.
Israel: Birth of a Nation (1996)
Painfully Nationalistic
The documentary is shameless in its advancement of Israeli nationalism. Replete with interesting archival footage, the narrator imposes his views on virtually everything. Irgun is not viewed as a terrorist group, but acts from Arabs are. He viewed Britain as having a limiting effect on Israel, when it could equally be argued that they were an enabler for the Israelis. He stated that the Israelis granted full civil rights to residents, no matter what ethnicity or religion, which is patently false, even if it may justifiably be argued that Israel grants a significant amount of rights that exceeded those granted in surrounding states. No effort is made to view the conflict from the Arab side, with only minimal information brought to light about the Arab forces, their strategies, and the plight of the Palestinian people. It ends with a sentimental shot of a rainbow, which is a great microcosm for this film. If you want something that will make you throw your fist in the air and say "GO ISRAEL!", then this is your film. If you want something that presents the war in a fair way, then it is not.
Israel and the Arabs: Elusive Peace (2005)
Engaging Film
This film is not an intro-level film to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Instead it provides continual behind-the-scenes information and insights about the brokering of peace deals with Israel, starting at the Camp David accords and going through the 2nd Intifada. It is fact based and uses actual footage from primary sources to guide the viewer through the developments in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks from Camp David (1999) until the film was made (2005). It is not meant to be a background on the conflict, nor is it a basic documentary that provides stock footage accompanied with information readily found on wikipedia. Rather, this film provides in- depth analysis that would require a viewer unfamiliar with the conflict to conduct outside research in order to more fully understand the issues. In that light, this is an outstanding film that opens the doors into a political world rarely seen and understood by voters.