Capturing the Friedmans

source: Capturing the Friedmans

This is supposedly a true story, BUT why didnt I believe one single moment of it. It was nothing but home movies of this revolting family. I felt absolutly nothing. How this won & was nominated for awards is beyond me. It was an amature production from beginning to end. At least in Micheal Moore's documentaries,(hated the subject material) They were professional productions & watchable. One of the 3 brothers in the family was so disgusted, he refused to have anything to do with the film.

Capturing the Friedmans: 4/10: Child Molestation, family dysfunction, mass hysteria, homosexuality, and clowns: Where do I sign up. Filmmaker Andrew Jarecki was making a documentary on the high priced children's clown Silly Billy (David Friedman). A very angry and irrational clown that will play into every clown stereotype you will ever have (Think serial killer). Well it turns out David is the older brother and son of the two men convicted in a famous child molestation case. during the witch hunt style child molestation hysteria, of the late eighties. Could the Friedmans also be victims of same said hysteria? Innocent men railroaded to prison? Well it turns out no. If you're looking for a documentary on the abuse of the justice system, especially in such cases, keep looking. If you want a voyeuristic look inside a upper middle class Jewish family one southern twang away from Jerry Springer welcome home. Without the child molestation charges this would be a hilarious romp. Each family member from the angry clown to the screeching mother is a gift that keeps on giving. Using home footage that manages to capture moments that reality television can only dream of. Capturing the Friedmans gives you a ringside seat next to a family imploding upon itself. Unfortunately much of the movie concentrates on the child molestation case at hand. Trying to create suspense and play with the idea that the two men are innocent, the movie sets itself up for a fall. While some of the charges are clearly trumped up (naked group leapfrog?), the father is also clearly guilty (and pleads accordingly). The son Jesse, whose case is on shakier ground, doesn't help his own cause by pleading guilty himself and having zero defense witnesses. (I.E. none of the boys supposedly there come forward and say he didn't do these things.) Jarecki clearly was playing with the hand he was dealt. And while he had an incredible collection of home movies fall into his lap, his attempts at turning it into a documentary about the American judicial system fall flat. On the other hand if I were looking at spending six months filming Silly Billy the clown I would grasp for straws too.

From start to about an hour or something in I thought the film was captivating. Then i got a sickening sense in my stomach once i started to see the whole picture the filmmakers were making. A horrible distortion of the truth. I think there is no question Arnold and Jesse molested some children during computer class. Did they do the ludicrous Leapfrog game? most likely no, however there is no question in my mind at least a few children were molested. The film successfully casts into MAJOR doubt 50 of the 200 counts the friedmans were charged with, but what about the 150 other counts? They are totally ignored, and only 4 people. 4 of the People related to the families who accused The Friedmans are interviewed. WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER FAMILIES. And since all 4 of the people interviewed supported the Friedmans' stance that they were innocent (that one flaky guy on the couch does NOT COUNT), and since the other families are not even mentioned we are forced to assume that they were valid accusations. Why? because there is so much evidence supporting the fact that they molested the children that the filmmakers needed to keep the film interesting by casting doubt on their guilt. They chose to show you only part of the story, the part of the story that made their film interesting INSTEAD OF THE TRUTH. The filmmakers did a horrible job of presenting the prosecution's side of the story and a terrific job presenting the defense's side. The fact that Jesse supports the movie speaks volumes. My Personal belief is that all 3 children were also molested. That is the only way to explain their absolutely bizarre behavior. If your dad never did anything to you and was a perfect father, how would you react after you found out he had a massive stash of Child Porn involving boys? I would think i had no idea who my father really was, in short i'd react like the mother did. We are talking about GROWN MEN (older than 19 years old) here, and they acted like 10 year old children. I say this film is horribly manipulative, a horrible manipulation of the truth to make a point that sometime the truth is hard to discern. which is an interesting point, unfortunately the obvious truth was sacrificed and I'm certain a substantial amount of people will leave this movie thinking that Jesse Friedman and Arnold Friedman are victims, rather than the horrible human beings that they are, human beings that would rape children. IT MAKES ME SICK. 3/10

If you were swayed by this film, and many viewers were, I suggest you read the comments regarding this film by a University of Oregon professor of psychology; who is a specialist in child trauma. She was moved to write an opinion which was published in the The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon. http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/articles/freyd2004oped.pdf I find it deeply disturbing that so biased a documentary has been taken up with such relish by the Academy and many viewers. Greater discrimination in viewing media content is surely in order for this society riddled with denial about child sexual abuse.

A few years ago, Andrew Jarecki set out making a documentary about children's party entertainers in New York. After spending a couple of weeks interviewing the city's number one birthday party clown, David Friedman, he realized that there was a more interesting story to tell, and pitched his original idea. That story is Jarecki's painful and compelling documentary `Capturing the Friedmans', the story of a family that is torn apart by the family patriarch's (Arnold Friedman) penchant for child * who is caught receiving pornographic material in the mail. The ensuing investigation (or witch hunt, depending on your perspective) by the Nassau County police leads to two arrests (Arnold Friedman and his youngest son Jesse) for pedophilia, among many other things. The question posed is, based on the evidence presented, and the integrity of the investigation, are the subjects guilty? The Friedman family are a fascinating study of the American family, and it is painful to watch them fall apart. Due to Arnold Friedman's fascination with film and video, there are an abundance of home movies shot by the family members themselves to assist Jarecki in showing us the `real' family; and what we see is not always pretty – especially once David, in an almost prophetic way, decides to document the family almost continuously after the arrests. In the footage other than the home videos, Jarecki provides us with thorough interviews with members of the investigative team, the judge who oversaw the charges, the family members and some of the alleged victims themselves. The further the investigation digs, the more precarious the evidence becomes, and the result is both frustrating and amazing; a documentary that doesn't give us all of the answers – mainly because the true answers may never be uncovered. `Capturing the Friedmans' was an Oscar nominated documentary in a year that brought us several strong documentaries such as `Balseros' and `The Fog of War'. Andrew Jarecki provides us with enough food for thought to serve a seven course meal, and while the subject matter isn't pleasant, and is often depressing, it is a very compelling story and well presented film that makes the viewer look beyond the surface to achieve their own conclusion. --Shelly

Outstanding documentary, which demonstrates how quickly life can fall apart for anyone. The center of attention, of course, is Arnold Friedman, a pedophile whose personal issues create a firestorm that destroys his own life, but more tragically, the lives of his children. There are so many facets to this documentary that it amazes me that they could all be captured in the film's running time. Several important issues are highlighted; front and center is the hysteria surrounding pedophilia that emerged in the late eighties. Amidst the background of the McMartin and "Little Rascals" trials and the culture of quack psychology (repressed memories, hypnotic suggestion) emerged the case of Arnold Friedman. The most interesting aspect of this case was that Friedman was a pedophile - there is no doubt about that. The question is whether he was guilty of the crimes charged, more than 300 charges of child abuse. Furthermore, could his son and assistant, Jesse, also be guilty? The filmmaker does not force out any answers to that question, but the testimonies of his accusers and the incompetent buffoonery of the police involved in the case lead one to conclude that the answer is a resounding "No." The crimes are only part of the story. The true story lies in the destruction of the Friedman family. Arnold, the eccentric intellectual and apparently loving father turns out to be feeble and a pedohpile, a man crippled by guilt. Elaine, the "loving wife and mother" who is frozen out by her family turns out to be a weaker human being than her husband, bowing under pressure to administer horrifying "advice" to her youngest son. The brothers, lead by the eldest, fight a losing battle to save their family. One of the most tragic and moving pictures I have seen in ages.

Entertaining story, and even good film making. However, Andrew Jarecki should be ashamed of the biased point of view he MANIPULATED in this film. Is this a case of one Jewish person (Jarecki) defending a Jewish family (Friedmans)? As a new yorker myself who is not Jewish, I understand how Jewish folks stick together...But this is crossing the line and is an absolute disgrace! Jarecki left out ABSOLUTELY INCRIMINATING evidence, footage, and persons involved in this. Jesse and Arnold are without a shadow of a doubt GUILTY, and this film makes an unethical attempt to raise that doubt and draw sympathy for these predators and monsters. How dare you defend these two individuals!!! Jarecki is a FRAUD for this. There was a 3rd predator who was to testify against Jesse & Arnold about the abuse, there was an overwhelming amount of child * that was found (NOT A STACK OF MAGAZINES THAT JARECKI DOWNPLAYED THIS INTO). Jarecki talked to 3-5 victims out of 17 (admitted by Jesse Friedman). Jarecki left out Jesse Friedmans total admission to everything in an interview from jail with Geraldo Rivera as well. You can check it out for yourself, but don't for a minute let Jarecki fool you that these monsters are anything but sick, sick individuals who destroyed dozens of lives. Here is a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjYWOZgMbHQ&feature=related

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 * 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.

In 1984 a seemingly normal, middleclass Jewish family is ripped apart by allegations of child abuse. Arnold Friedman comes to the attention of the authorities when child * is found in his post, however this soon opens up to dozens of charges that state Arnold and his 18 year old son systematically abused the children in their computer club. This documentary follows the story using interviews and home movie footage from the time. I came to this film as a fan of documentary features, despite not really knowing anything about it; the trailers had been careful to be very coy about the nature of the event that ripped the family apart - a coyness that was not carried into the film. As such I found it very difficult viewing, and many others may wish to avoid this as it is not a fun way to spend 90 or so minutes as descriptions are a bit too graphic at times and some may find the allegations upsetting. The film follows the allegations though to the very end and it is almost consistently engaging - only near the end did I start to feel fatigue; given the subject matter this film is heavy going and could have lost some running time. The film is difficult to describe and, after seeing it, I'm not sure why anyone would really want to see it. It is not as simple as exposing the truth. If anything the film seems to be pointing out how truth is actually a very easy thing to control - it highlights bad practice by the authorities, weaknesses in the testimonies and areas where mistakes (or lies) had been made. This makes it more difficult - it basically requires us to care about the injustice done to Arnold but at the same time telling us he is a paedophile. To many of us this is an abhoration and it is easy to confuse a paedophile with a child abuser, however many of the things he confesses to in his past are horrid and it made him very hard to get behind. This is a big problem as the film is complex both subject wise and morally, again making it very hard work. However unpleasant the subject matter, the film is worth seeing to see how one family is destroyed by a witch-hunt that would happen just the same today as it did then. As one of the police officers comments - even being accused of this crime basically means that the accused's life is over. The home movie footage is well used and puts us in a situation where we don't have to rely on the interviews to tell us how things went. Overall this is a gripping film but one that deals with a morally complex subject that makes it very hard work to watch and is certainly not going to fill a cinema on a Saturday night! Several times I thought about leaving the film as I was simply bewildered by it, not knowing what it was saying, what I was mean to be feeling or even why I had come to see a film about a paedophile who had been accused of multiple counts of child abuse. For that reason I wondered why this film had proved so popular - who, upon hearing the subject matter, thinks that this is the film for them? Certainly the handful of people in the cinema with me (on the opening weekend) seemed to contest to the limited 'appeal' of this feature. It is a gripping and interesting film, but I have no intention of seeing it again and doubt I could.