Retratando a la familia Friedman

Knowing some of the parties involved in the actual case I was curious to see the film to see how they came across on the big screen. I was however reluctant to see it since the furor over who did what or who didn't or who's lying or not was clouding my perception of the film from the get go.

I let time pass and finally sat down to watch the film once I thought things had calmed down.

As a document of a family on the path to destruction I am floored by the film. This is a heart breaking exploration of how things are not what we think they are and how character flaws can and will wipe out the ones we love.(Although I think Character flaws is the wrong term)

A great deal of the later half of the film dances around whether Jesse, the son who pleaded guilty to the charges, was really guilty. Its here I found the film to be slightly flawed because to me the film wants to have it both ways, him guilty and innocent. I think the film makers should have picked aside, since what they have done here seems less than subjective and fair (to either side)

This is a tough film. If you can't handle frank sexual talk about child molestation then stay away. However, if you want to see an excellent film about a family in crisis then see this film.

9 out of 10.

I rented Capturing the Friedmans out of curiosity. I have read about these child molestation cases made during the eighties in which many innocent people were sent to jail because of the incompetency and lack of experience the cops had in dealing with these cases. The documentary centers around the destruction of a family after Arnold Friedman (patriarch) and the youngest son, Jesse, are accused of committing horrible acts against children. Arnold Friedman as it turned out was into kiddie porn and he got busted and then led to a series of accusations made against him by his students. The documentary uses footages filmed by the Friedmans that captured all the events and reactions during the trial. It was like the film Happiness, but only real. Watching the film I saw glimpses under the surfaces of these seemingly "normal and happy" people. The eldest son, David, is angry and in denial of his father's homosexuality and pedophilia. Elaine Friedman is a woman who had lost all identity of herself and eventually begins to turn on David (who still resents his mother to this day), Seth (the middle son) refused to be interviewed for the documentary but he is shown in the features. What is fascinating and even laughable is how the cops who were handling the case were incompetent and they coerced the "victims" with the exception of one "victim" whose face and name are anonymous. I for one analyzed and found that while Arnold Friedman may have been the one that was guilty I felt sorry for him and yet angry. He knew that his own guilt and his own perversions were not only convicting him, but they were putting his family in danger and they were the ones in trial. I don't think that Jesse Friedman did anything nor was he abused by his father. I am sure that Arnold may have played out his fantasies in his head and possibly with one or two children, but I do not think he made any advances against or even harmed his sons. I felt that the real bad guys were the lawyers and the cops who investigated and coerced the testimonies of the children interviewed and the majority of the children who accused Arnold and Jesse Friedman later on recanted their testimonies and said that nothing happened and that they only said what they said to make the interviews stop. Hell, a parent even said that a police officer threatened his son into testifying against the Friedmans. If you are a psychology or criminology major than this is a great film to study.

It is also sad because we see a family being ripped apart by secrets that are convicting them and putting them before the public. Capturing The Friedmans is a fascinating character study and a devastating one to watch.

The most riveting aspect of this documentary was the inclusion of home movie footage taken during the family's most profoundly personal private moments in real time. How could the Friedmans allow its most painful moments to be recorded? And what kind of child would record such events? That's how I realized how deeply dysfunctional the whole family is. This family is guilty, and it's not of pedophilia, but of an extreme form of alienation from one's own humanity. And the worst part of it is they are not even aware of it. In a way, I found the family's obsession with home movies frightening. It made them vulgar and I felt cheap and dirty, as if I were a peeping Tom. What a frightening film. And how seductive Mr. Jarecki is for capturing my attention.

You really have to be open-minded watching this, because it deals with subject matter that's so easy for us to condemn without the will to examine. We have a man, Arnold, who is accused of child molestation after porn magazines are found in his possession. We have his son, Jesse, who is accused of being his accessory in the molestations. Jesse says that he was abused by his father at a young age and that he enjoyed the attention. Then Jesse says his lawyer made that up. A man slouched on a couch, inarticulate and seemingly placing himself in a sexual position while being interviewed for the film, gives testimony against the Friedmans that led to 35 criminal counts. Jesse claims he is innocent. Someone is lying.

This is rich, complex stuff, and the filmmaker doesn't put his own views into the film. He doesn't question the interviewees outright -- although he does "catch" one guy, and contrast different remembrances, some of which indict the Friedmans, others that wave away all accusations. The story gets told to us largely through Arnold's home videos, and so we're witness to the family's self-destruction. This is Shakespeare, and there's a shattering moment when Arnold's wife, Elaine, asks, "Where did this come from?"

The film is craftily put-together -- there's a shock left until the end, the kind of thing that calls into question what we've just seen -- and the filmmaker looks at the situation as a family drama, with the backdrop of the trial, where understandably furious parents try and attack Arnold ("You raped my son!"). But the film also has this sense of sleaze -- or, at least, the sense of something iffy: the sex is inherently "dirty" -- Arnold bought gay-related magazines, and the film has mentions of incest. There's a kind of public hysteria that exists, where people throw their hands up into the air when anything deviating from the sexual norm is mentioned, and refuse to even listen to an argument that suggests there might not actually be anything wrong. But I think it's important to stand back and analyze the situation before we make our decision about Arnold. He does, in fact, eventually admit to abusing one child, a son of a friend, so he is a molester; whether or not he abused the children that he taught and that is the subject of the documentary is another matter; my own feeling is that the evidence is pretty sketchy, and that he was made an example out of for possessing magazines. (And he does openly admit to having experimented sexually with his brother -- whose admission at the end of the film is revelatory -- and his lawyer says that Arnold expressed arousal at one young boy bouncing on his father's lap when the lawyer visited Arnold in jail.) It's my belief that there's nothing wrong with Arnold's pedophiliac desire and owning of child pornography. (Although obviously the purchasing of pornography fuels the industry which in turn exploits and abuses more children, but I'm talking specifically about his mental state.) If he didn't act on his desires, then he does not deserve to have his life and his family's life torn to shreds.

As the film goes on, it becomes clear that Arnold, this somewhat meek, nebbish figure, probably isn't the monster he's made out to be. One student made claims against him, we learn, to "get them off my back," meaning the investigators. That claim led to 16 criminal counts. Some of the charges against Arnold sound horrific, but are pretty unbelievable, like the idea he lined the children up naked in a leap frog position, and then proceeded to penetrate them one by one. (The simple mechanics of male-male intercourse don't make it that easy.) The police claimed that Arnold had stacks upon stacks of child (or, really, adolescent teen) pornography; yet his wife never managed to see them, and the photos of the house taken during the investigation show nothing. These are the reasons that prove Arnold's innocence, not the comments made, like the one by Jesse's friend, who says that he couldn't be a violent molester because he was so quiet in everyday life. (We all know how wrong-headed that idea is.) This is a terrific documentary; the investigation and the children's memories all swirling together, but what makes it so crushing is how it affects the family. The looks and the words and the shadows of doubt they cast on one another is far worse than any jail sentence. 9/10

After reading some of the comments here on IMDB, I was really intrigued about seeing Capturing the Friedmans. However, shortly into the film my training as a historian kicked in. Now, I am no film critic, nevertheless, I have studied documentary film making, and as a historian I must warn those that view this film that the documentarian's methodology is a bit sketchy. If you saw the film in the theater, then you missed the discussion sessions included in the special features of the DVD. Here it is revealed, by those involved in the investigation (judge, detectives, lawyers) that many important details were left out of the movie: the three other adults accused of sexual misconduct associated with the case, that Arnold confessed and gave police the names of the children he had abused so they could interview them, that Jesse went on Geraldo (against the advise of his lawyer - and a signed affidavit declaring as such) and confessed to the American public that he has been abused by Arnold, that the private investigator never contacted the Great Neck police and never reviewed first hand the evidence of the case - and much more stuff that when left out of the documentary skews the viewers perception of the case and creates a false context. This is irresponsible on the part of the documentarian - and altogether bad history.

Here is the big question: What was it about the case that made Jesse confess, and why was his mother pushing it so hard? The documentarian should have grappled with this. It would seem to me that a trail would have been in the best favor for Jesse - since a great deal of what he was accused of seems so unrealistic - given the lack of physical evidence. However, there must have been something else, something that the prosecution had that would have damaged the defense's case. This must have motivated Jesse's mother to push for the plea bargain - it must have saved time, money, and years on Jesse's sentence. But the documentarian gives us no glimpse into that, and take away aspects of the case, and is completely irresponsible as a documentarian.

Do I believe Jesse is guilty? Yes. In the footage of the Judge addressing a crowd during the Q&A at the Great Neck premiere of the video, she makes a pretty convincing case that Jesse's new claim to innocence is retrospective back peddling - and don't even get me started about David.

So, this is just a bit of what I think about Capturing the Friedmans. Let me know what you all think.