Solitary Nation Documentary

Solitary Nation Response:  Why Does America Allow Solitary Confinement in Prison
1
The major issue addressed in the documentary Solitary Nation is the role that solitary confinement plays in the incarceration process. Violent inmates are often put in solitary confinement either for punishment or for their own protection. It was a practice that started in the 19th century but was largely abandoned because instead of reforming inmates it made them lose their minds. The practice was re-instituted in the 1980s and the documentary takes a look at the inmates and those running a Maine penitentiary. The documentary notes that prisoners can spend years in segregation or “seg” as they call it—locked away from others for 23 hours a day. One can see from the interviews with these inmates that it is not a form of incarceration that is supportive of mental health. The documentary is meant to raise awareness on this issue and show that the mental health of these inmates is being grievously impaired. The argument of the documentary appears to be that there has to be a better and more humane way to deal with people who are violent in prison. It does not appear that there is any attempt or much attempt at all to address the mental health needs or spiritual needs of those incarcerated in solitary confinement. One can see the mental decline of these individuals. Their aggression is evident right on the surface. The big question, however, is what to do with violent inmates—what form of punishment or process should prisons use to deal with the problem of violence and aggression from prisoners? The documentary shows that something needs to be done, because the approach taken with solitary confinement is not working.
2
The primary groups in the documentary are inmates and incarceration officers. These include individuals like Peter Gibbs (inmate in solitary, violent); Rodney Bouffard (warden of the Maine State Prison); Adam Brulotte (inmate in solitary); Todd Fickett (inmate in solitary, accused of faking insanity and engaging in self-harm so that he can get out of solitary and sent to a different prison); and Officer Deguisto. There is a narrator who narrates the film and explains what is going on with the setting and the various situations being shown. Todd Fickett ends up in the mental health unit and is put on medication; he feels confident that the medication will help him get through the remainder of his time in “seg” even though the “seg” is quite likely partly to blame for his deteriorating mental health. When he is returned to solitary he lasts for just three hours before he begins engaging in self-harm.
The filmmaker appears on camera to discuss with the warden whether solitary is right for these people. There is a director of mental health who appears on camera to discuss some of the problems of the situation. Adam Brulotte who had a breakdown in solitary and cut himself is finally released back into the general population. The film shows that solitary tends to have a negative effect the longer it is used; but no one seems to have any better ideas for what to do.
3
The filmmakers show the horrors of solitary confinement. There are virtually no positive or uplifting or hopeful stories told. The director mental health tries to have positive human interaction with some of the inmates like Fickett, and gives them puzzles to do so that they are not just sitting in solitary going crazy. However, this is the only real genuine moment of humanity shown in the film. The warden is depicted as cold and aloof. The guards are in a bad situation and basically spend every day fishing someone out of solitary who has cut himself or who has blocked all his windows. The risk of being assaulted by one of the inmates is depicted as being very high. The filmmakers show no stories of anyone doing their time in solitary and this suggests to the viewer that there simply is nothing good that comes out of solitary. However, it could also indicate a bias on the part of the filmmaker in that only negative stories are shared. There is not much attention given at all to what goes on in other prisons. The film comes across as a horror story.
In terms of appeals to emotion, the whole documentary is basically one big appeal to one’s sense of horror. The film basically shows one inmate slowly losing his mind as a result of being put in solitary confinement for months on end. Their reasons for being there are given in the beginning, so the viewer knows what the crimes are. Still, the film’s point is that solitary is futile. The logical viewer is going to see that but may be wondering, too, if there are not other stories or perspectives that might be given to explain why the practice is used at all. The excuses given by the warden are not very good. The film may appeal to those who harbor a prejudice against the corrections system; however, even if one is not prejudiced one will still likely be shocked by what is shown in the film because it is so vivid, so real, so unbelievably despairing and insane that one will have a hard time believing anything good comes out of solitary at the end of it.
4
My own personal assessment of the documentary is that it was very realistic and I liked that. It did not try to sugarcoat what it is like being in solitary but rather got right up on the front lines of it to show what it was like to be there. I liked that it followed one particular inmate through all the way from the start of solitary to the end; I liked that it showed its effect on him and you got to see it as it worsened his condition. That was very dramatic and yet in the end the film stated that he was released into the general population but there was no indication of whether solitary had scarred him.
What I didn’t like about the documentary was the way it focused so much on the dark side of solitary. I had a lot of questions by the end of it—such as: Why aren’t there any priests or religious leaders coming to see these people? Why aren’t they getting more mental health support? It didn’t make any sense what was going on here, because obviously from what the documentary showed these people need help and are not getting it. So I didn’t like that the warden and others seemed to have no idea what to do about the situation.
What I learned after watching the documentary that I did not know before watching it was how harrowing the job of a corrections officer in solitary can be. The documentary made it look like everyday some prisoner was attempting self-harm or flooding his cell or boarding up windows or doing something crazy. It literally looked like being in an insane asylum in a horror movie with prisoners hollering and egging one another on in a very devious way. I did not realize how gruesome the whole situation was. I figured it was more sanitary—but the reality was really shocking.
Nothing about the documentary seemed artificial or unconvincing. The whole thing seemed pretty solid. I did not notice anything that did not belong or that seemed out of place. The film basically centered on the prison, the individuals in isolation, the mental health doctor, some officers, and that was about it.
The film did change my mind about solitary confinement. Just the visuals of what it is like in solitary and how insane the whole process is changed my mind. Seeing a person’s mental health deteriorate before your eyes is very impactful and that is what happens in the documentary. The drama of the subject matter, the way it plays out like a horror film and yet is real life is what had the biggest impact. I have a hard time understanding how this could go on in America. I would think this type of abusive and inhumane treatment of prisoners would be something might find in China or Russia or in a third world country. So it makes me wonder why it is going on here.
5
If the filmmakers were to ask how the film could be improved, I would tell them to try to find some positive stories about solitary confinement working—and if they could not find them then at least let the audience know there were none to be found. I wanted there to be something more that could possibly explain the other side. Of course that would make the film longer, so perhaps for time constraints it had to focus on the one side to get the point across. Still, I think it could be a very good two hour film or even an entire series. So my recommendation would be for them to make the film longer and include more arguments from the other side, from stakeholders who might have good reasons or explanations for why this goes on in America—because that is what I found myself wondering about most while watching the documentary.
If someone asked whether I would recommend this film, I would respond by stating that I would recommend it—definitely. It was intense, informative, shocking, and convincing. It may have been biased but even still—the harm that solitary does comes across clearly and I think that is a point that needs to be driven home.