Documentary Filmmaking: A New Pedagogy for Justice Educators

AbstractFilmmaking is an unconventional, but supremely rewarding career path for criminal justice educators. The author chronicles his career as he transitioned unexpectedly from a traditional path involving legal analyses and policy research to the very unusual enterprise of documentary filmmaking. Each of his film projects emanated directly from his teaching or research experiences, experiences that might just as appropriately have culminated in articles for publication. But he chose a different mode for disseminating his research and insights. The author reviews the myriad challenges he faced as a filmmaker—both inside and outside of the film industry, itself. Throughout, he describes—and outlines his efforts to overcome—the staunch resistance by the academic community to filmmaking by faculty who reside outside traditional departments of theatre and film. He also urges colleagues to consider the path for themselves.Keywords: Documentaryfilmmakingpedagogyteachingcorrectionslife coursenew media Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 “Filmmaking” is a misnomer, as only my first product was on “film.” The second was videotape. The remaining are termed “new media,” as data are recorded and manipulated digitally. For convenience, I refer to the creative process as “filmmaking.”2 I use the first-person here because (1) this is a personal narrative and third-person references “distance” me from the story; and (2) frequent use of “the author recalls” is awkward.3 Film trailer is at https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/112784329 .4 Film trailer is at https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/112976540 .5 Film trailer is at https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/115018479 .6 I am well aware of the logistical and pedagogical challenges and impact of so-called “prison tours.” This is not the place for that debate. I am preparing an article that will address precisely those issues in considerable detail, including an empirical analysis of the dramatic impact of the weeklong excursion through eight prisons on student attitudes and beliefs.7 A routine feature of our tour of California State Prison-Sacramento (“new” Folsom), years in the making, was a one-hour conversation on the yard with Eric Menendez. When we filmed, that and other parts of our tour were cancelled for reasons not consistent with CDCR media policy, discussed below.8 Common practice is to blur the faces (not entire frames) of people refusing to sign a release.9 The tour included San Francisco’s Delancey Street, an innovative private residential facility.10 Film trailer is at https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/189289077 .11 The PrisonTour program ended with my retirement, after 33 years and 113 excursions.12 California uses a risk-based classification system in which prisoners are assigned to one of four levels, level IV being the highest risk category, reserved for those convicted of the most serious or violent offenses.13 When a stabbing occurred just outside our classroom, all officials rushed out of the classroom, leaving us alone with 24 maximum-security prisoners. Upon returning, officers apologized profusely for having thoughtlessly abandoned us. “No worries,” declared the leader of the writing group, “No one is going to hurt these guys!”14 Film trailer is at https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/119194596 .15 Trailer for film is at https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/191109411.16 Film trailer is at https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/143162526 .17 Apple’s “pro apps bundle for education” includes five powerful editing programs: Final Cut Pro, Motion, Compressor, Logic Pro, and MainStage. The discounted educational price for the entire bundle is $199. YouTube is replete with outstanding instructional videos.18 Outlets have different standards for production quality and duration. Commercial broadcasts are usually limited to 45 minutes, Public Television, to 55 minutes. Film festivals rarely accept submissions longer than 60 minutes.19 Despite my 60-minute target, I was only able to reduce the show to an awkward 82 minutes.20 Preparing for Prison Through the Eyes of Tomorrow, I talked first with the wardens, since without them, no film could happen. All consented. Deeply offended that I not spoken with him first, however, the Director of OPEC not only denied the film request, he threatened (but failed) to terminate my touring program of 20 years. I was able to renew the project years later.21 For the full media policy, see State of California, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Adult Institutions, Programs, and Parole: Operations Manual (Jan. 1, 2023). Chapter 1, Article 13; page 24. Access is granted to “news and non-news media representatives…involved with the production of broadcast or print endeavors…for proposed news or entertainment programs.” In my experience, CDCR requires affiliation with a major media outlet and written assurance that the final product will be aired. Network production like CBS’ Sixty Minutes and cable programs like MSNBC’s Lockup routinely get access. But practice effectively bans nearly all unaffiliated independents.22 Participants must sign a “release” granting filmmakers permission to use their image or voice.23 Recall Richard Nixon’s calamitous media appearance, for example, in the fateful 1960 Presidential debate. Off-camera, he was formidable enough; on-camera, he was a disaster.24 I do not want to overstate the “welcome” we received from the incarcerated population during the first movie, as we learned years later there was a scheme to take my film crew hostage. Fortunately, we completed our work before the conspirators could execute their plan.25 Despite Doing Time’s two Emmy Awards, when the film was screened at the National Endowment for the Humanities in Washington, one NEH official criticized the film for what he termed a “lack of treatment of humanities issues,” an underlying focus of NEH.26 Litigation for copyright infringement can also be lucrative; law prevents further discussion.27 We discovered the problem quite by accident. As a rule, legal settlements generally prohibit discussion of both the fact and outcome of litigation.28 Intellectual property litigation is expensive, time consuming, and complex. Because the defendant here would have been a conglomerate with deep pockets, we were advised that if we did not prevail on all counts in a lawsuit, their counterclaim for costs would likely bankrupt us.29 Violators often erroneously rely on the “fair use” doctrine. One violator unabashedly apologized for the “bad quality” of the pirated copy of Doing Time that he posted on YouTube. His incredulous excuse: “I had to copy it from an old VHS videotape.”30 SDSU’s Human Subjects Committee refused to accept our lawyer’s draft of a standard “release form” by which subjects grant producers legal authority to use their voice, image, likeness, etc. in any media production, in perpetuity. …31 By this time, I had already been promoted to professor—but for publishing, not filmmaking.32 https://aaspeechesdb.oscars.org/link/057-3/Additional informationNotes on contributorsL. Paul SuttonL. Paul Sutton, Ph.D., is a Professor Emeritus in the Criminal Justice Program in the School of Public Affairs at San Diego State University. His research interests included criminal and constitutional law, sentencing, and corrections, before he produced a series of award-winning feature documentaries about prison. These include Doing Time, the first documentary shot inside an American prison and Doing Time: Ten Years Later, the sequel that revisited the prison after the 1980 riot that destroyed the Penitentiary of New Mexico and left dozens dead. He has produced two other award-winning prison documentaries and is editing three more.