Skip to main content

We now have more African Americans under criminal supervision than all the slaves back in the 1850s.

13th
(2016)

I felt much the same way about Ava DuVernay’s Oscar-nominated (and BAFTA-winning) documentary as I did about her earlier, Oscar-nominated feature Selma; it’s a solid, rather than remarkable piece of work. Towards the end of 13th there’s a debate about how to elicit change, and several voice the view that “You have to shock people into paying attention”. I’m not sure this does that.


Certainly, DuVernay appears content to fall back on stylistically tried-and-tested documentary tropes, such as washing the piece with a sombrely plaintive piano it simply doesn’t need (and, after a while, which actively begins to detract from the substance). But, despite a measured pace, she covers significant ground during these 100 minutes, and it’s notable that the strongest territory comes from her starting point; the commoditisation of the prison system, and what this means for African American incarceration.


She charts a cogent course in evidencing that the current system represents slavery in a different form, from abolition and The Birth of a Nation to Jim Crow and the civil rights movement, with the Nixon presidency seeing in the era of mass incarceration, spinning in to Reaganite drug prevention policies (most revealing is footage of Lee Attwater explaining, pre-election, the “Southern Strategy”, whereby old racist terms and policies are redressed abstractly).


DuVernay also illustrates that there’s very little difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes down to such economically-based policy making; we hear the rhetoric of both Clintons (Hillary with her “super predators”, and Bill’s omnibus crime bill, which saw the expansion of the prison system, is credited as being far more damaging than anything his Republican presidential predecessors enacted, such that his unconvincing, retrospective “I’m sorry” just doesn’t wash).


But the documentary is perhaps too tempered, too reserved, lacking sufficient sharpness. On a few occasions, it feels like it is becoming truly galvanised – when Angela Davis is a talking head, and we see historical footage of her. It’s interesting that DuVernay cites delving into ALEC (Action for Legislative Change) as the most challenging piece of her jigsaw, in both understanding and relating it, as this is by far the most engaged part of the doc narratively (and again comes back to her starting point of attacking the subject from a business perspective).


She appears to express surprise that a “shadowy group” would be up to such lobbying, probably because she isn’t an arch-conspiracist, but my takeaway was that she could probably have gone even further down the rabbit hole (although probably not to awards acclaim). The list of ALEC-influenced legislative actions (Stand Your Ground, Three Strikes and Out, Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, and SB 1070 – the right to stop anyone who looks like an immigrant) makes for entirely damning evidence, and the twisted way in which ALEC can now claim it isn’t working with Corrections Corporation America, and is rather focusing on bail and parole – but purely because their client is the American Bail Coalition, as there will be money to be made from GPS monitoring: incarceration in communities instead of prisons – is a masterpiece of cynical behaviour.


Elsewhere, DuVernay discusses the judicial system (“If everybody insisted on a trial, the whole system would shut down”; 97% of locked up African Americans have plea-bargained), and the disparity in African American male prison statistics (6.5% of the US population, but 40.2% of the prison population). While the closing passage, on the subject of shocking people, brings out actual footage, it is, perhaps because it has been more discussed and seen, less effective in terms of overall effect. DuVernay is quite right to say that the documentary maker has to go where the story takes them, but in this case, it’s also true that she’s on stronger ground where she started from than in the broader canvas. 


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

I have discovered the great ray that first brought life into the world.

Frankenstein (1931)
(SPOILERS) To what extent do Universal’s horror classics deserved to be labelled classics? They’re from the classical Hollywood period, certainly, but they aren’t unassailable titans that can’t be bettered – well unless you were Alex Kurtzman and Chris Morgan trying to fashion a Dark Universe with zero ingenuity. And except maybe for the sequel to the second feature in their lexicon. Frankenstein is revered for several classic scenes, boasts two mesmerising performances, and looks terrific thanks to Arthur Edeson’s cinematography, but there’s also sizeable streak of stodginess within its seventy minutes.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…