Understanding the separation of artistic criticism and politics
In more than 45 years of working in journalism, I have never seen someone ask that a movie be reviewed. I have been told many times that a particular review stinks and the reviewer (sometimes, alas, me) is an idiot. I've often heard people snicker, as if they were the first to ever conceive the statement, that they only read reviews so they can do the opposite of what the reviewer recommends. But it's only in the past two weeks that I've heard complaints - more than once, at least two of which we've published - that a movie is not being reviewed at all.
The rarity of such a complaint, combined with the similarity in language and tone - not to mention the sometimes misspelled or misstated title raising questions about whether the writer himself or herself even knows the movie under discussion - leads me to conclude that these letters are another product of manipulative agenda-driven talk shows or clever suggestive marketing. And in that context, they make me wonder whether the writers really understand the purpose of a movie review.
These writers clearly either consider a review to be at least some sort of validation of a film's legitimacy or expect that any review will be positive, neither of which is necessarily the case.
The movie I am writing about is "The Sound of Freedom," and indeed, for reasons that are practical and not political, we have not yet published a review. The movie's release has a complicated back story and was not previewed for critics, signals that long years of experience have taught us should make us wary of whether we should expend our limited resources to consider it, nor have we received reviews from our Washington Post or Associated Press syndicates. The movie, which is based loosely on the experiences of its director when he served as a Homeland Security agent investigating sex trafficking, is embroiled in - and, frankly, benefiting from - political controversy because, separate and apart from the film, the movie's director and its lead actor espouse support for many ideas professed by the fringe group QAnon, but none of that has anything to do with the fact that we have not published a review. If you want to better understand the political controversy, an excellent Vanity Fair story headlined "Sound of Freedom: The Wild True Story Behind 2023's Most Controversial Film" describes it thoroughly and, for the most part, objectively, and I encourage you to look it up.
But I'm more interested at the moment in the notion that all popular movies get reviewed - they don't - or, even more important, that reviewers base their assessment of a film or book or other work of art on the political or social ideas it conveys - again, they don't. Few people support thievery, brutality, betrayal and murder, but it's the rare critic who doesn't rank "The Godfather" among the best movies of all time. Most people admire themes of love, compassion, justice and standing up to evil but few indeed would put "Billy Jack" or "The Holiday" on their list of must-see video entertainment. Speaking for myself, I agree with nearly every point about feminism, politics, science, love and interpersonal relationships made in the recent best-selling book "Lessons of Chemistry," but if you asked me whether you should read it, I would warn you against the most pathetic piece of nonsensical drivel I've read in years.
I have not seen "The Sound of Freedom," but based on reviews I have read, ranging from excoriating in "Rolling Stone," a sort of "meh, not so much" in The New York Times and a strongly positive review in the Detroit News, I would take issue with any assertion that it is being ignored in the press generally or universally panned by a liberal-leaning mainstream media, an appeal to prejudice that it could be argued is the movie's primary marketing strategy.
No, book, movie, play and music reviews are, in short, the subjective opinions of a single writer, usually - as in the cases of our Dann Gire on movies or Barbara Vitello on theater or many others in these and other fields - highly experienced writers with deep passion for their subject and studied insights about it. But they are not political statements nor anything more than reflections that can help you decide whether you would be interested in a particular work or against which you can compare your own reactions.
As for "The Sound of Freedom," I am more sorry that what is billed as a "Taken"-style suspense thriller has become yet another touchstone in our 21st century culture wars than I am that it hasn't yet been reviewed in the Daily Herald. And, truthfully, I'd be much more interested in publishing letters to the editor (remember, no more than 300 words) from people who've seen and either enjoyed it or not enjoyed it than thinly veiled media criticism from people whose very awareness of the film is suspect.
jslusher@dailyherald.com