I want to be clear that I am not reviewing the message presented by this film, a flaw in documentary reviewing that I find very common, even (especially?) among professional movie critics.
Instead, I want to address how this film works as a film in delivering its message.
13th is clearly intended to shock its audience. Its message is a wholly unpleasant reality to deal with - the idea that institutional racism is arguably as prevalent in the US today as it has ever been and that it serves the wealthy in maintaining their power and wealth. I consider myself to be relatively well-informed about the privatisation of the jail system in the US and other matters that the film highlights, such as police brutality and attempts to disenfranchise black Americans in many states. However, I did find 13th shocking still, and felt at the end of it that I had learned more than I perhaps even wanted to know. The film commanded my attention and, largely, stayed on topic and linked its points together credibly.
Having said this, I did find that the pace of information delivered and the rapid editing was simply overwhelming at times. More than once, I had to wind back and listen to a point again, simply because my brain was still trying to register what was pouring into it. This made the film feel like a deliberate assault on the senses.
A good illustration of this is the multitude of talking heads that are brought into the movie one after the other, all facing different directions, though they're the only thing on screen at the time, with barely a pause for breath between each point. The effect was as if there were 15 people in a room all talking over each other, but the camera is only ever on one of them at a time. Clearly these are all individual interviews, filmed separately, so why does director Ava DuVernay feel the need to present them all in such a haphazard manner? It felt to me that the only reason for this is to make the viewer disoriented as all of this information comes rushing at them. In short, to make them less able to critically analyse what is being said. It feels like the technique used by someone who isn't telling the truth. Now I am not arguing that this is the case here - I don't think that it is - so why make the style like this? I think that the message of this movie is shocking enough without the need to pummel the audience into submission with the way it is edited and I think that it's a shame that this was the choice made. With some audiences I imagine it will backfire and they will feel alienated by a message they may otherwise have accepted.
Overall, I definitely applaud this film for its ability to enlighten audiences about an important issue, but I fault it for choosing to do so in such an overwhelming manner, which makes real-time critical assessment of its message difficult.
Instead, I want to address how this film works as a film in delivering its message.
13th is clearly intended to shock its audience. Its message is a wholly unpleasant reality to deal with - the idea that institutional racism is arguably as prevalent in the US today as it has ever been and that it serves the wealthy in maintaining their power and wealth. I consider myself to be relatively well-informed about the privatisation of the jail system in the US and other matters that the film highlights, such as police brutality and attempts to disenfranchise black Americans in many states. However, I did find 13th shocking still, and felt at the end of it that I had learned more than I perhaps even wanted to know. The film commanded my attention and, largely, stayed on topic and linked its points together credibly.
Having said this, I did find that the pace of information delivered and the rapid editing was simply overwhelming at times. More than once, I had to wind back and listen to a point again, simply because my brain was still trying to register what was pouring into it. This made the film feel like a deliberate assault on the senses.
A good illustration of this is the multitude of talking heads that are brought into the movie one after the other, all facing different directions, though they're the only thing on screen at the time, with barely a pause for breath between each point. The effect was as if there were 15 people in a room all talking over each other, but the camera is only ever on one of them at a time. Clearly these are all individual interviews, filmed separately, so why does director Ava DuVernay feel the need to present them all in such a haphazard manner? It felt to me that the only reason for this is to make the viewer disoriented as all of this information comes rushing at them. In short, to make them less able to critically analyse what is being said. It feels like the technique used by someone who isn't telling the truth. Now I am not arguing that this is the case here - I don't think that it is - so why make the style like this? I think that the message of this movie is shocking enough without the need to pummel the audience into submission with the way it is edited and I think that it's a shame that this was the choice made. With some audiences I imagine it will backfire and they will feel alienated by a message they may otherwise have accepted.
Overall, I definitely applaud this film for its ability to enlighten audiences about an important issue, but I fault it for choosing to do so in such an overwhelming manner, which makes real-time critical assessment of its message difficult.