Capturing the Friedmans

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.

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.

I do not dispute the director's craft. This film is enthralling and engaging, and he keeps it interesting albeit frustrating to the end.

What I do dispute is the director's lack of opinion and apparent siding with this family.

If Arnold and Jesse didn't do anything inappropriate, I can imagine they would be flabbergasted with such charges and be wondering to themselves the entire film "where is this coming from? I'm absolutely perplexed". But they're not. The entire film Jesse and David are constantly WHINING and incredibly defensive, constantly saying "nothing happened." When, things DID happen.

• the police found stacks of child porn in Arnold's office. Fact
• Arnold admitted to abusing Jesse. Fact.

• Jesse admitted to his lawyer (who's more credible than he is) that his father abused him and he abused (and was willing to admit to abusing) computer students. Fact.

• there was a computer game with naked men and women used by Arnold to test the boys willingness to engage.

Arnold, David, and Jesse make themselves out to be these spoiled, whining, brats throughout the film. There's no remorse for anything. There's no empathy for any of the victims, including themselves. There's nothing but absolute denial when the evidence is clear as day.

To me, the BIGGEST VICTIM OF THEIR CRIMES IS THEIR MOTHER. The abuse I saw her endure during this film is absolutely atrocious. I'm glad she found someone decent to live out the rest of her days, because her sons and husband treated her like GARBAGE. It was infuriating the watch. They deserved what they got simply for their treatment of her. It was despicable.

What is perplexing is the wide range of testimony from the computer students, with some saying they were molested several times and some saying they never saw or heard a thing. One picture shows the students having fun in the class. This is the biggest question I have - why do some remember and some don't? I do think it's possible the police may have interrogated inappropriately, even to the point of using hypnosis and planting false memories. If this was true, it would be a massive injustice and proof the police were part of the hysteria.

But to me I have biggest issue with Jarecki and how silent he is on the direction of the film. This is a subject that should infuriate you but he treats it so lightly, allowing footage of the sons berating their mother for having any emotion and making us listen to the sons WHINE CONSTANTLY without offering any evidence of Jesse or their father's innocence. All they did was deny. Everyone deserves a fair shake but to me this entire family was in complete denial and clearly couldn't deal with this situation. I don't blame them, honestly. So why doesn't Jarecki call them out?

I can never decide where the entire truth lies; the men in this family undeniably weird, but "weird" alone isn't illegal. Regardless, all empathy sits with Elaine; that poor woman with her lovely accent deserves her new life.

The common trend amongst modern documentary-makers seems to be to step back from the subject matter and let it speak for itself – no voiceovers or preaching – simply fly-on-the-wall stuff. Perhaps the perception is that investigative journalism is too intrusive a medium for the movies and better served on hard-hitting TV shows. But a story such as the Friedmans' needs some further digging despite the impressive raw materials. We have interviews with the major protagonists and oodles of camcorder footage but no incisive questioning or comment from the filmmakers and as compelling and interesting as this film is, the ultimate feeling is one of frustration.

The story of the Friedmans is murky and disturbing and needs poking around with a big stick before the truth can begin to emerge. The family is superficially ordinary: Jewish, middle-class and pillar-of-the-community. Patriarch Arnold is a well- respected and award-winning teacher; wife Elaine is typically supportive and subordinate and their three boys have a touching and incredibly close bond neatly recorded for posterity in hours of home-video footage. But all is not well in sunny suburbia. The police intercept a package intended for Arnold that contains a magazine of child pornography and dirty secrets and wild accusations are soon sullying the family name.

Former pupils come out of the woodwork and accuse Friedman of abusing them in the computer classes he ran out of his own home. His youngest son Jesse is also implicated. In all, over 200 separate charges of rape and child molestation are brought against the two despite no complaints being made by pupils at the time of the alleged assaults and not a shred of physical evidence. An intriguing tale, undoubtedly, but what makes this film unique among all the other tepid yarns about serious crime is that the Friedmans kept the camera rolling.

After Arnold and Jesse are bailed, the family closes ranks and plots their defence. It is fascinating stuff. Arnold retreats into a mumbling, guilt-ridden shell while the rest of the family is split asunder by Elaine's scepticism and despair and the boys' fierce defence of their father. Eldest son David is the most bitter. He is incredulous that such absurd charges have been brought against his father and brother and is determined to clear their names. His video diaries and monologues are insightful as are the family arguments he faithfully films. He emerges as the least stable of the lot of them: A confused, angry, indignant voice petulantly and blindly mitigating his father's flaws; devastated and helpless as his cherished family idyll crashes down around him.

I will not detail events of the trial suffice it to say that the outcome asks more questions than this film can answer. Arnold's history of sexually abusing his own children is hinted at but never fully broached despite long and otherwise candid interviews with both David and Jesse and Arnold's younger brother. All are steadfast and confident in Arnold and Jesse's innocence.

It is difficult to say whether the film sides with the Friedmans or not. Certainly it does not hold back in detailing the hideous crimes that are alleged: Prosecutors, frustrated defence lawyers and victims are all wheeled out but are not truly convincing in their condemnation of Arnold. He actually emerges as a meek, dignified martyr who, at his death, leaves a string of embittered, broken people still adamant that the whole affair was one hideous misunderstanding. This is not your standard paedophile. The true extent of his crimes may never be known and the footage of his loving family make the allegations against him all the more unpalatable and grisly.

As an interesting footnote, eldest Friedman son David (the wrathful, resentful brother) is also the premier children's entertainer in New York. While there is no suggestion he has any history of sexual crime himself, one would have thought his family name may be something of a hindrance in his line of work. But he is still clowning away merrily and the mud doesn't seem to have stuck – America is a strange place.

7/10