To Dehumanize or Rehumanize
Representing the “Criminal” in Scared Straight and 13th
Nikita Urs, Film 108/Discussion 1B, Fall 2018
Redefining a term with a negative connotation is a difficult task, which many filmmakers struggle to do successfully; however, when done correctly, it can be a transformative experience for the viewer. A successful social documentary challenges the mind of the viewer with the intent “to inspire social change” (Brook, Chapter 3). More often than not, criminals are demonized, dehumanized, and treated as the “other.” Two documentaries which attempt to discuss the matter of incarceration, both with very opposite viewpoints, are Scared Straight! (Arnold Shapiro, 1978) and 13th (Ava DuVernay, 2016). Scared Straight! Is a television documentary narrated by Peter Falk which follows a group of juvenile delinquents who are participants in a program at Rahway State Prison called Scared Straight. In the program, a group of inmates deemed the “lifers,” due to their life sentence, attempt to literally scare the juveniles straight by patronizing them. 13th is a Netflix original documentary which takes a more sympathetic route as it scrutinizes the prison system and reveals the underlying racial disparity which remains at its core. Although both Scared Straight and 13th are hailed as superior social documentaries which function to give the viewer an inside look on the prison system, Shapiro failed to create the intended shock effect and was overly didactic in nature. On the other hand, Ave DuVernay created a very persuasive argument on the overcriminalization of people of color and her film functioned to redefine criminality all together.
At the time when Shapiro was filming the special, in the late 1970s, juvenile delinquency was steadily increasing at a drastic rate. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention found that the crime rate among juveniles was around six thousand (per 100,000 persons age 10-17) in the 1970s and increased to around eight and a half thousand by the late 1990s, when crime among juveniles was at its peak. The film claimed that 16 out of the 17 juveniles who were participants in the program ended up being scared straight and were no longer repeated offenders, attempting to make both the program and the film appear to be huge successes. What made this completely unconvincing and deceptive in nature was how short the time period was between when the program was completed, to when they followed up with the juveniles. The host claimed “for sixteen out of seventeen to stay straight for three months is a real success story” (48:00), because most are busted for street crimes every day. While it might be true that this is a good start, it is hardly predictive of whether the juvenile delinquents were actually scared straight, as the point of the program was to stop them from committing crimes for the rest of their life. Perhaps if Shapiro waited for a longer period of time to follow up with the delinquents, the film would be more convincing. Furthermore, in a meta-analysis titled “’Scared Straight’ and Other Juvenile Awareness Programs…” the researchers assessed nine studies which examined the effectiveness of scared straight programs between 1967-1992 and found a negative program effect such that the intervention was “more harmful than doing nothing” because it increased delinquency in those who partook in the program as compared to juvenile delinquents who did not. This further solidifies the deception that Shapiro utilized, and causes the documentary to lose credibility.
One factor that made Scared Straight! so successful initially was its use of blatant profanity on national television. In fact, it was the first time that the words “fuck” and “shit” were broadcasted on many networks. Shapiro chose to air the uncensored version to frighten the audience and to add shock value; however, it was overbearing and overdone. Since a majority of the film is the program itself, minus the pre and post-program interviews, the audience is virtually a participant in the intervention. One scene shows a fuming inmate describing the prison hierarchy and the unfortunate results of being on the bottom of the food chain: “and they [the other inmates] will do bodily harm to your asshole” (16:34). He continues to graphicly describe how the more powerful inmates regularly sodomize others to fulfill their sexual desires which are unmet, due to their life sentence. The camera horizontally pans through the line of juveniles, a majority of which have petrified looks on their faces. This appears to be completely staged particularly because in the initial interviews, the juveniles are extremely unapologetic and have very lax, carefree attitudes. When one delinquent is asked how he feels about his victims he responds, “I don’t give a fuck about them” (7:06). Another boasts about their crimes, “I’m devious…my hands are mechanical… I get in their trunk… and I take everything…I’m about looking for trouble” (7:16). These juveniles have been living a life of crime since the time they were young—some even had parents who committed similar crimes. It is extremely unlikely that one, hour long session would frighten them enough to have such an immediate, lasting effect. The excessive use of language is not enough to scare a group of miscreants, and therefore, appears staged. The excessive use of profanity simply functions to disrespect criminals, painting them as distasteful animals. This highlights the stereotype of criminals being monsters and does not attempt to change the stigma, it only furthers it.
On the other hand, 13th utilizes a number of stylistic techniques which sophisticate DuVernay’s argument that mass incarceration is a loophole to the 13th Amendment, which white people use to oppress people of color and minority groups. Visually and metaphorically, the film takes you through history from the time slavery was abolished to the current time period and shows how African Americans were continuously dehumanized and over-incarcerated due to inherent biases that were rooted in our country’s very upbringing and which continue to persist. DuVernay combines talking-head interviews with experts in the field, such as Angela Davis, a civil rights activist, Henry Louis Gates Jr., a director of the Hutchin’s Center for African American research at Harvard, Michelle Alexander, author of the new Jim Crowe, and government officials from the specific time period which adds ethos to her argument. The interviews function to legitimize DuVernay’s argument and create a compelling documentary, which Shapiro’s documentary lacked.
The layering of images in the opening sequence encapsulates DuVernay’s argument in its entirety. It begins with an image of the U.S. flag, a slave ship, and the words of the 13th Amendment. Suddenly, the bright stripes of the flag turn into the bars of a prison cell and images are displayed of incarcerated black men throughout history (2:05). This sophisticated use of imagery stylistically conveys a more powerful message than words ever could. DuVernay’s combination of stock footage and photos captures the pain people of color have had to endure throughout time. Using a montage of clips from D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation (1915), a historian argues how the film was responsible for the rebirth of the KKK (5:13). It’s popularity, despite its inherent racist message and disregard for African Americans function to prove how the United States was rooted in white superiority and black inferiority. In a Washington Post article titled “How ‘The Birth of a Nation’ revived the K in 1915” the author claims that the film “romanticizes racial violence” and perfectly fits “with the version of history the Klan preaches” (Rosenwald). This theme of racism carries the 13th and its linear method of presentation shows how America is bound in the chains of racism and has never truly escaped its grasp.
The 13th cleverly utilizes montage to show how, when one method of racism became unacceptable, a new method was always created to take its place. One montage shows the horrifically graphic photos of Emmet Till completely mutilated, followed by videos of lynching victims hanging from trees, and then finally the word “segregation” in big letters on the screen (9:01). This shift proves how new laws were constantly created to make apparent acts of racism completely legal. Another montage shows a compilation of mugshots of activists who were arrested for standing up for their basic human rights (10:00). This emphasizes the criminalization of African Americans, who, historically, have always had a target on their backs. Even when they were just fighting for basic rights, which the Constitution promised to all Americans, they were still criminalized and treated as less than.
This target only got larger when the War on Drugs was waged by Reagan. Laws were passed penalizing crack, which was more prevalent in lower income, mainly African American and Hispanic communities, more than cocaine, which was essentially the more expensive version of the same drug, being more prevalent in higher-income, White communities. One interview with a historian revealed that most polls showed that drugs were not a significant problem at that time period; however, that did not stop Reagan from focusing all of his efforts into heavily penalizing drugs (20:16). Nonetheless, more important issues, like the rising rate of poverty, were brushed aside. This disguised a black issue and made it appear to be a people’s issue. 13th strategically places interviews juxtaposed with archival news footage and stylistic elements such as music and non-diagetic sound to brilliantly form an analysis which is extremely persuasive in nature.
By showing how African Americans are over-criminalized via mass incarceration, DuVernay humanizes criminals and redefines their nature. A scene which reinforces her parallel between slavery and incarceration is a montage of photos and videos of extremely large, modern-day corporations such as JcPenney and Victoria’s Secret juxtaposed with scenes of inmates working at their factories for little to no pay (1:08). This demonstrates how criminals are stripped of their basic human rights. The scene highlights the hypocrisy of how Americans shun sweatshops in foreign countries, yet have our own citizens working for much less than the minimum wage in poor conditions.
If people of color are over incarcerated, due to the inherent racism that is ingrained in our culture, then a lot of the inmates are, in fact, more human than animal. 13th is thoroughly riveting and functions to convince even the most skeptic of viewers that criminals are humans and redefines the connotation of what a criminal is. Although Scared Straight! and 13th both discuss criminality, they have drastically different viewpoints of what a criminal is. What makes the latter documentary more compelling than the former, is DuVernay’s brilliant use of a variety of expert interviews, montages which reiterate her parallel between slavery and the prison system, and use of archival footage which strengthens her argument and redefines the concept of being a criminal. Scared Straight! should not have received the praise it did, because it is plagued with deceptively staged scenes and excessive profanity which does not function to serve its intended purpose of shocking the juveniles or the viewer. Furthermore, Shapiro makes no effort to inspire social change, as his entire film looks down on criminals, treating them as animals, and ultimately functions to dehumanize them. DuVernay brings a new perspective to the table and challenges the viewers’ traditional beliefs, ultimately making for a more brilliant film.