13th

The voices and arguments here are not new. Read "The New Jim Crow." Read "Just Mercy." Read any critical analysis of modern American jurisprudence. But this film brilliantly assembles disparate voices (Newt Gingrich and Jelani Cobb? Together? Really?) to tell the story...to tell our story. DuVernay finds our nation's narrative arc. It may be disturbing, but it is also true. As the prison population ticks up, so does your understanding of who we have been and who we are becoming.

The documentary is an excellent summary of American History. To a larger degree it is important to address some of the comments made. I find several people's comments such as, "don't do the crime, if you can't do the time" indicative of the very systemic racism that was the impetus for the need of such a piece. The comments are very telling and actually say more about the people writing them than do their intentions to demean the documentary by leaving negative reviews.

The fact that people can disregard this for the myriad of completely shallow reasons such as, "I stopped watching when I realized it was against Trump and for Hillary" is laughable. The reality is that you don't want to accept America's REAL history. The documentary was well over an hour and the section about the presidential race was a minute fraction of that.

Again, shallow reasons such as this speak volumes about the people leaving them. America's history is what it is. None of us are proud of these particular aspects or at least you shouldn't be but in an effort to get better we must first accept the truth. This is the truth. Acceptance is the first step towards getting better. It is so not about Trump or Hillary. I almost don't think you actually watched because no reasonably intelligent person would dismiss the piece as you guys did for the reasons you chose.

It appears that all reviews of this documentary are in turn reviewed by where people stand politically. I'll side-step that by analyzing this as a film lover who is multi-ethnic and has studied criminology and has worked for many years in the behavioral health system, including rehabilitation and diversion of people entering the judicial system, of all races and social classes. And so it goes...

"13th" or "The 13th" does well in cinematic sense with an interesting photography of the subjects it interviews, and very effective editing. Its juxtapositions of past and present work well for film purposes, although some may object to the sociopolitical comparisons. What was ineffective and annoying was the use of sudden words quite often going into the screen, including the occasional song lyric, not all of which felt like it matched. It often felt like it was there to pad time, which is odd given the wide range of subjects that were interviewed who likely had more to say. That stole from the experience for me, akin to complaints that I've read others make of other documentaries that have done this, e.g. "Nico Icon". As a whole, the narrative starts off potent but loses some traction about 2/3rds through, similar to how I felt about DuVernay's "Selma".

From the criminal justice and political aspect, "13th" does best when it sticks to its thesis: that politicians created a system of mass incarceration for dubious reasons, which are rooted in racism and intentional disenfranchisement, and which is possibly influenced by businesses that make a profit from running prisons and using prisoners as a cheap or free workforce. Yes, it is a long run-on sentence, but that's the thesis. It supports itself well when analyzing politics, and the intentional and unintentional consequences. It alternates between stating one side of a debate as fact (e.g. whether Woodrow Wilson endorsed "Birth of a Nation") and having people who represent both sides of the debate. Regardless, it achieves its effect of a plausible theory, while eliciting horror, anger, and disgust. It is less well supported when exploring the link of current companies that stand to gain from imprisonment. They clearly document that they lobby to expand their business opportunities, including some highly questionable attempts and an inappropriate role in writing laws, but it's less clear that they are a driving force behind the incarcerations. It doesn't help when they use some gross generalizations, e.g. that Aramark sells rotten food. I've seen Aramark serve their generic, fattening cafeteria food to dozens of institutions, and it is never rotten, as in those two awful instances. However, DuVernay does raise an effective alert of a potential threat, that at the very least leaves us questioning the role of commercialization/privatization of the criminal justice system.

She is less successful when she goes off course into tying in Black Lives Matter; it didn't really fit the main narrative, but more of a sub-narrative of law and order being altered by racism. This deserves a larger, longer, more careful focus, as it brings in much debated situations that are too recent, some brought in too briefly. "OJ: Made in America" addresses this sub-topic better, using a greater length.

But as much as DuVernay puts into the film to explore how incarcerations increased, she misses many factors. Racism, explosion in population in the post-war era, political machinations, and introduction of drugs and drug laws are all mentioned. She somehow leaves out the increase in availability in firearms, the development of gangs (ironic, as the Bloods and the Mara Salvatrucha started in US prisons), and a sharp increase in a pro-crime, narcissistic sub-cultures. This is not limited to one racial/ethnic group or socioeconomic group, nor is it recent. But 90s-on gangsta culture has driven in hard a message that life is short; you need to blow massive amounts of money in narcissistic displays of it; that decent jobs will not get you there, that stealing, dealing, grifting and boosting are the only ways; that going to prison is good and inevitable; and that the slightest challenge to your being the center of the universe should be responded to with violence. This culture, when it is bought into by anyone of any group, is the hardest thing to deal with when trying to rehabilitate someone, second only to an abusive family. And I've seen it with white kids from wealthy families, 2nd generation Latinos with hardworking parents with different values and culture, African-American kids with extremely hardworking parents who reject this message, and adults who should know much better. And it is now being exported overseas, with the same result of increased incarceration and police violence. Why skip this? Why not question it as well? DuVernay's thesis suggests that almost everyone in the criminal justice system are only there because of petty drug charges, but she fails to test the null hypothesis. While this is true of a segment of prisoners, it does not apply to all. I bring it up because more than half of felons and people otherwise with repeat criminal justice involvement that I have encountered (of all races) have charges for multiple crimes; it is not just simple possession, or dealing small amounts of lesser drugs, but additional crimes such as those around theft, sudden acts of aggression, forgery, or driving while intoxicated. Are African Americans more exposed to drug crime in general, due to the same factors she lists? And what are the alternatives to incarceration? DuVernay also regrettably skips probing rehabilitation and probation, other than to briefly question the latter as over-done and possibly driven by profit.

In sum, good for discussion of political issues, but not comprehensive in criminology issues.

I should start by saying that I am not North American.

I am a Scotsman.

A Caucasian Scotsman at that.

And yes, a Liberal.

I love the United States and my experiences there have been universally positive.

But these were experiences in areas of privilege and that are essentially cleansed for tourists. Largely Liberal areas where whites and people of colour live in harmony (Manhattan, Florida, California, Chicago city centre, Toronto).

In these places I did not see the ghettos and the communities of colour that this shocking documentary uncovers and that has spurred on the whole Where Black Lives Matter movement.

The title refers to the 13th Amendment to the American constitution that was passed in 1864 and aimed to abolished slavery once and for all.

What 13th sets out to expose is the centuries long political outcome, that has resulted in 'Mass Incarceration' mainly of black and coloured men in the USA.

Plea bargaining is one of the most heinous causes of it. Because without money and facing massive gambles 97% of Black men plead guilty to avoid a trail where sentences will be massive due to minimum incarceration legislation.

In other words they can plead guilty to a crime they did not commit and receive perhaps a three year sentence. Or they can fight their conviction and, if unsuccessful, face a 30 year Minimum Incarceration, without parole, term.

The odds don't look good.

So, they typically take the rap and plea bargain.

Under this type of increasingly aggressive legislation and successive governments' "War on Drugs" and "War on crime" the US Prison population has risen from 200,000 to 2.5 million since 1970.

Incidentally Crack cocaine conviction (Black working class, inner city) has a significantly longer incarceration minimum to powder cocaine conviction (White, suburban.)

The US has only 5% of the worlds population, but 25% of world's prison population.

1 in 17 of white men in the USA are incarcerated, but 1 in 3 of Black men are.

Black men represent 6.5% of the US Population, but 40.2% of the prison population.

Does this mean black men in the USA are intrinsically criminal?

No it does not.

It means , the film-makers argue, that there is a political will in all parties and for many, many years to incarcerate black men as a form of replacement of slavery.

It is big business. (ALEC represents the financial interests of corporations.)

It makes politicians look tough.

"The War on Crime" literally, wins votes and Democrats are as guilty of it as Republicans.

Mass incarceration is the new slavery. Which was replaced by Convict Leasing, lynchings, the Ku Klux Klan, the Jim Crow segregation laws. And Yet it was only AFTER and DESPITE the Civil Rights Act that Mass Incarceration became the 'solution'.

But there is hope. Hillary Clinton is planning to redesign the incarceration regime (that her husband dramatically escalated) as started by Obama; the first ever President to visit a Prison and who oversaw the first drop in incarceration numbers in 40 years.

As Trump says (with glee). "In the good old days this wouldn't happen (blacks protesting at his events) because they treated them rough. They'd carry them out on a stretcher."

It's a mess and this documentary makes Ia right good job of exposing it.

OK it's very one-sided and it is represented by extremely articulate coloured American middle class academics and commentators.

But they were not always thus.

I, for one, think it's a thing of greatness and I'd urge you to watch it.

This documentary shines a very bright light on two fundamental issues going on in our country. The power of money and it's influence on profitable incarceration and ultimately perpetual slavery. I think it did a fabulous job of being virtually opinion free and making a point to stay focused on facts. That said, I think you have to be open to the information. By that, whether you lean right or left, it's best to digest this documentary with an open mind free of your own political thoughts and opinions.

It's foundation is about slavery and how it plays a role in modern events. It suggests that slavery never went away, it merely reinvented itself to "keep up with the times", always having financial gain being the catalyst for it's continued existence. It really shines when it presents it's case on how mass incarceration is today's slavery. The direct correlation between labor based slavery of yesteryear and labor based incarceration of today is frightening in regards to similarity. You can deny it if you choose to, but if you continue to do so after seeing this presentation, then it's simply because you deny fact.

When Colin Kaepernick protested the flag, though I'm a black man, I was offended by his stance. After watching this documentary however, I look at his point of view with a different lens. I don't entirely agree with his approach, but I have to admit that oppression in this country is still very alive and well. I think too many people look at oppression in traditional views like slavery and the holocaust. But in my opinion, you have to appreciate oppression as the complexity that it is, in order to acknowledge it's existence. Again this documentary does an excellent job of making that case. I won't delve too deep into why, I would just simply recommend watching it.

Word of caution however. This documentary doesn't pull it's punches. It's very dark, very disconcerting regarding politics and if it hits you right, it will make you angry and sad all at once. My two children stayed in the forefront of my mind while watching this, and my heart bled for them throughout, seeing what kind of world that awaits them. I tried to be optimistic about light being brought to this issue in such a well put together way, but I believe that we as a country, still have a ways to go, seeing that someone like Trump could get so close to being President.

Overall, this documentary is very important and should be seen by everyone able. Whether you lean right or left, you cannot deny some of the dirty deals made by politicians to keep their pockets lined via profitable incarceration. Real change needs to happen without question, but this documentary drives home the point that as long as "the almighty dollar" rules, don't expect much change anytime soon.