Customer Reviews

Capturing the Friedmans

5 star:		(60)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Having being drawn to recent documentary features such as Spellbound, I took a chance on Andrew Jarecki's 'Capturing the Friedmans', having heard and read little about it. It is, without a doubt, one of the most compelling and troubling films I have ever seen. I won't re-hash the story as other reviewers have done that already, but would urge you to buy this film. Once the main feature is over you are desperate for more information, more clues and the second disc in the set goes some way to satiating that need.
The beauty of the film, expressed by Jarecki in both his commentary and in a Charlie Rose interview, is that it finally provides - albeit too late - the fair trial that the Friedmans should have been granted. Whatever the 'truth' of the story is, and we may never really know, the prejudice that was brought to bear on the case by the police, judiciary, the community and the media made it impossible for this most complicated family to be accorded their constitutional rights. We, the audience, are the jury now. Jarecki provides both prosecution and defence cases and we are left to decide the guilt.
Quite apart from the compelling material, which makes this film so much more thrilling than any Hollywood drama of recent memory, the film is beautifully shot. Jarecki exposes evidence carefully so that just when you feel that your mind is made up something is thrown in that broadsides you. Andrea Morricone's beautiful music is the perfect accompaniment to the anguish that the viewer feels throughout this painful quest for the 'truth'. The film's website (capturingthefriedmans.com)is a worthy partner to the film with some unheard audio footage, and is well worth visiting.
This is not quite an enjoyable film - the material too uncomfortable for that - but it is one that should be seen. Make sure you watch it with someone as all you will want to do afterwards is discuss it - and then you'll want to watch it again.

In advance, it is helpful to know that this documentary originally was intended to be a light-hearted piece about professional birthday-party clowns in Manhattan, but the familial heavy baggage of one of its primary subjects, oldest son David Friedman, led to this darker and more compelling story of a family destroyed by human flaws and fate. The viewer can opine whether the cost to these individuals was appropriate and justified. And the viewer also can become emotionally invested in whether any redemption or restitution is still in the future for members of this family.

"Capturing the Friedmans" is a short synthesis of many hours of available documentation from multiple sources, reflecting snowballing events that occurred over months and years during the mid to late 1980s in Long Island, New York. In the shadow of the California "McMartin pre-school" alleged sexual abuse scandal, the somewhat unassuming and admired schoolteacher/musician Arnold Friedman was caught by postal examiners receiving and sending pedophilia pornography.

This aberration evolved during Arnie's childhood, was acted on to at least a limited degree twice in adulthood, and was a source of guilt and worry to him with respect to his own three sons. A subsequent zealous investigation resulted in Arnie and youngest son Jesse, 18, being accused of sexually abusing many young boys during home computer classes. Under conditions interpreted as nearly hopeless for the defense, both ultimately felt forced to plead guilty to hundreds of counts of abuse. Jesse was recently freed after serving 13 years of a 6-18 year sentence. After an insurance provision was satisfied wherein Jesse would be the beneficiary, Arnold committed suicide in 1995 during his 10-30 year prison term.

The film addresses perceptions of reality as related to association, persuasion, selective memory, exaggeration, groupthink, and mass hysteria. It is unforgettable* and provokes strong and contradictory opinions, an indication of the film's strength and balance and of its construction and editing. People will even argue passionately about the "true" meaning of the title without coming to agreement on which is "right."
(* but what each person focuses on and remembers from the film is as variable as the memories of those involved in the original events!)

Apparently the first cut of the film was more than 5 hours in length, and presumably just a portion of such edited material is included on the companion DVD. Understandably, a limited number of principle parties were interested in participating in this documentary - whether anonymously or identified - with personal and professional credibility at stake and with the cushion of time upon which to reflect and reevaluate. Middle son Seth Friedman declined involvement.

Watching the film is a bit like sitting through an abbreviated version of trials that never occurred, with a few needed short breaks thrown in. But less like a courtroom, the film alternately weaves plaintiff and defendant evidence and testimony in a manner that keeps the viewer "jury" both alert and interested. We certainly are influenced by the filmmakers' decisions of what to include in the final edit and the order in which the material is presented, just as we would be with courtroom decisions over what evidence and testimony could even be introduced. We also see background material that we likely would never see in a courtroom setting.

I believe that the director pursued this documentary, a tangent of his original intended subject matter, without prejudice and that he did a good job of presenting a succinct and balanced perspective (a "Cliff's Notes" version of the story). Some of the evidence speaks for itself, and other things are more ambiguous. The demeanor and interview presentation of one anonymous alleged victim, from whom a significant number of the charges originated after his post-hypnotic "recollections," was not staged to influence the viewer. One alleged victim's testimony would require that he had been molested approximately once every thirty minutes during all the time he spent in the Friedman home.

In an included Charlie Rose interview, the director admits that he felt as though all parties he interviewed had a personal "agenda" except perhaps for Jesse himself. We, the viewers, don't really know the significance or importance of material not included in the film and extra disk. Although the director does not admit a personal stand on the total "truth" in this story, he does express affection for this very imperfect family whom he got to know quite well over the 3-year project life. Auxiliary film footage after a Tribeca (NYC) premier showing of the film captures questions and discussion from an audience that included many of the principles interviewed in the documentary. Emotions still run high. Yours probably will, too. I hope the film wins an Oscar.

By the way, if you can't tell, after about 8 hours of watching this material, I did form an opinion. I tend to believe that the particular events for which Arnold and Jesse were arrested and charged never occurred. Beyond that, I'd rather not judge.

Director Andrew Jarecki set out to make the story of birthday party clowns in New York, and ended up finding the story of David Friedman (NYC's top birthday clown) and his family, destroyed by the arrest of his father and youngest brother for sexual molestation of children attending computer classes in their home in the late Eighties.

The late Eighties saw the hysteria of sexual molestation trials such as the McMartins in California and the Amiraults in Massachusetts. In the case of the Friedmans, truth and lies are mixed in the testimony of every participant, in the investigation and arraignment and in the appearances before the judge. In the words of the director "the truth slithers away" in every instance.

I don't want to reveal the outcome of the important events in this film, so I will just recommend you see it for yourself. And Jarecki carefully structures the film to "leave in the brains", assuming that the viewer will make up their own mind on the evidence, making each of us a sort of juror in the case.

The extra features are as important as the film itself, and shed a lot more light on the story. There are interviews with the judge, the detective who broke the case, with Jesse Friedman, the director and there is a fascinating "what happened afterwards" set of FAQ's as well. This documentary is an achievement in filmmaking worthy of every award it received-- possibly one of the best documentaries I have ever seen.

Nominated this year for best documentary at the Oscars, "Capturing the Friedmans" is one of this year's most talked about films that no one seems to know what its about. Well, here you go.

A father of a seemingly normal family is arrested for possessing child pornography, and then further charged with a huge ring of child sexual abuse that had supposedly gone on for four years in his basement where he taught a computer class to neighborhood children. Then, his youngest son was arrested as well for doing it with his father. But all may not be as it seems.

Having read about this, I expected something along the lines of the wonderful documentary "Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills" where a huge legal injustice had happened, and the primary focus characters were clearly innocent and had been railroaded. No. What makes "Capturing the Friedmans" so terrific, is that it provokes all sorts of strong emotional reactions in the viewer along the way, but by the end, we are still unsure how we feel about the guilt or innocence of these people. The family dynamic becomes very strained and there are harsh words and happenings on all sides. It is entirely unclear whether the police actually used unethical practices in getting kids to testify against the family or not. By the end, you are very shaken up and really see the complications inherent in the criminal justice system. Be sure and watch the extra disc, as it has lots of really important extra footage that probes deeper into BIG elements of the case not brought up in the actual film, as well as a premiere screening that everybody in the film attends and tempers flare. I haven't seen anything else nominated for best doc this year, but this has got to be a serious contender. Highly recommended.

An utterly fascinating look at the crash and burn of an American family.
The father, Arnie Friedman, was witness to his mother's inappropriate and self-serving sexual activity; unsurprisingly, he turns out to be a pedophile whose penchant for buying kiddie mags gets him investigaged for child rape. His wife, Elaine, who looks like the years with Arnie has sucked the life out of her, walks around in a fog, totally bewildered that a)she married such a creepy little freak and b)her three boys prefers dad to her. Oldest son Dave is in his own state of denial about his father's problems and blames it all on mom. The most sympathetic figure is youngest boy Jesse, who was imprisoned for 13 years for a most unsympathetic crime.

Did Arnie and Jesse rape those little boys? The interviewed accuser comes across as less than credible - he contradicts himself, can't remember the first episode of molestation (though remembers plenty else) and when asked to explain an important detail, hesitates as though he were thinking "what the heck do I say now?" The Feds appear to have been caught up in the same hysteria that got a bunch of innocent day care providers tossed in prison in the 1980s - they used interview techniques that were more like criminal interrogations and hypnosis (reknown for inducing false memories.) Way to manipulate and damage little kids, you dumb cops.

In any case, Arnie is a self-admitted pedophile and his taste for child porn victimizes his whole family, especially Jesse (possibly in more ways than one.) Despite this, his boys absolutely adore him. It's hard to understand why - on their home movies, dad comes across as an emotional dud, with a flat affect and a distant stare. The most animated he gets is when he pounds out "I'm In Heaven" on the piano the night before he goes to prison. The oldest son David is especially an apologist for Arnie. He implies that if Elaine had not been such a cold fish Arnie wouldn't have been in the predicament he ended up in. You just want to slap Dave around with the facts of life: "David! Wake up! Your parents didn't have sex because DADDY likes LITTLE BOYS!"

Watch this movie. At the very least, it'll make you feel better about your own screwed up family.

There's not enough good I can say about this film. It is fascinating on so many levels.

Filmmaker Andrew Jarecki's original idea -- to film New York City birthday clowns -- took a new tack when he met #1 clown David Friedman, who had a family secret infinitely more intriguing than his birthday work. It turns out that David's father was an infamous Long Island pedophile whose story had rocked the small town of Great Neck in the late 1980s.

The film is a chronicle of the Friedman's story, from the days before the scandal until the present. Father Arnold Friedman is a beloved high school teacher who teaches piano and computer skills at his home. After police catch him with a few kiddie porn magazines, they start interviewing Friedman's students. Suddenly, Friedman and his teenage son Jesse are being charged with hundreds of incidents of sodomy and assault, and their lives are turned upside down. Luckily (from the point of view of the filmmakers) the family had always loved taking films of themselves and did not stop during the family crisis. Much of the family's film and video footage appears in the movie, either reinforcing or acting as counterpoint to the interviews they accompany.

But "Capturing the Friedmans" is about much more than a pedophilia scandal. It is also about the way that the structure of the justice system -- police, lawyers, judges and legal procedures -- can sometimes generate convictions from nothing. The film is also about memory, specifically the way our memories are reshaped by the passing years. Research is now demonstrating that memories -- rather than being videotapes of the past -- are strongly colored by the way we see ourselves in the present. In the film, the juxtaposition of present day "recollections" with the written and filmed record is staggering.

The filmmakers are not trying to exonerate the Friedmans or to indict those who brought them to justice. The facts are laid out with all their gaps and contradictions; the characters are allowed to tell their own stories with all their factual and self-serving facets. And we are asked to respond. Are the Friedmans victims, merely odd or truly evil? How did a community come to believe what seems to be a bizarre story? How did the legal system reach a verdict without adequate investigation by skeptical police or a trial before the peers of the accused? Was justice served -- or merely the justice system?

The 2-disk DVD includes Jarecki's interview on the Charlie Rose Show as well as interesting material taken during Q&A sessions at the film's premiers. The film's participants react to the way they are depicted -- usually continuing to make the case for decisions made 15 years in the past -- sometimes escalating into confrontations and raw anger.

In short, "Capturing the Friedmans" is a movie that I cannot stop talking about and recommending to everyone I meet.

What I love about watching a (good) documentary film is that in real life there are no heroes or villains or stock characters, just complicated real people who have complicated relationships and do things for reasons sometimes even they don't understand. "Capturing the Friedmans" is an engrossing film with a dual motive: it explores both the lynch-mob justice in a child molestation case, and also the affects such allegations have on a family that, on the surface, seems incredibly ordinary.

In "Capturing the Friedmans" we are introduced to Arnold Friedman, convicted child molester, and he comes across as a nebbish, congenial, albeit self-loathing man who seems to love his children as much as he hates himself for his pedophile tendencies. His three sons, who adore him, defend their father, who they believe without a shadow of a doubt is innocent (even when faced with his own admissions that he has, in fact, molested boys before) to the bitter end. Mrs. Friedman, who I think I'm in the minority for feeling sympathy for, is a dutiful, if somewhat cold, wife and mother who either had no idea her husband was a pedophile or was in extreme denial about it. Tragically, she finds herself the pariah of the family after her husband's arrest, due to her ambivalence about his guilt.

I love it when a film leaves you with more questions than answers, and "Capturing the Friedmans" does just that. By the end of the film, you're left with absolutely no clear answers about exactly how much child abuse Arnold Friedman (or his son Jesse) actually perpetrated. All you're left with is profound sympathy for a family completely shattered.

Because there is no evidence to prove either way. The fact that 2 long prison sentences were still the result of all this is shocking. If I were innocent of a crime I did not commit (especially one as horrible as this), I would NEVER give in and plead guilty just to bargain with the judge. I have no respect for Jesse Friedman in this regard.

Let me make it clearer. Andrew Jarecki was just making a documentary about New York Clowns when he met David Friedman, the best party clown in New York. David told him of his past and provided Jarecki with hundreds of reels of family home-movie footage. The Friedmans captured every moment of their lives on film it would seem. The story that unfolded in these films was something Jarecki could never even dream of.

Arnold Friedman was a troubled man. After the death of his 9-year-old big sister his father left and the family was torn apart. His mother moved into a tiny apartment with him and his brother and all three of them shared a room. The mother would bring back male partners and shag them in full view/earshot of her sons. Wouldn't that disturb you? But it gets even worse. He was a merry man, slightly camp and married a woman who was as about as sexually responsive to him as a blow-up doll. They may have had three sons and lived a 'happy' existence as an upper-middle class Jewish family in a well-to-do part of the state, but underneath it all Arnold was hiding a secret. He was a huge paedophile and he liked really young boys.

He would order kiddie fiddling mags from Europe, but one of them was seized by customs and he was investigated. Arnold also taught computer class and the cops made a list of all the names of the kids he taught and made a point of interviewing them with some truly dodgy, unclear, unprofessional techniques.

Many of the kids said that Arnold and his oldest son Jesse had been sexually abusing them. And not a simple one-at-a-time deal either. Apparently they had made them all strip naked in class and play a horrible game called 'leap frog' in which each and everyone of them would quickly and systematically be anally raped. Is this disgusting? Of course it is? Do I believe it? No! There is no way that this could have continued for as long as it did without someone noticing. Other kids in the same class said nothing like it ever occurred. And if it did then where is the evidence? Without meaning to sound crude, anal sex is a pretty difficult thing to get right as an adult. For terrified, unwilling children who are being mass-raped where was the tissue damage, the blood, the tears, the agony and the reluctance to ever go back to Mr Friedman's class? Even for adults it's not simply like sticking a hot dog through a donut. This whole allegation that they did anal-rape as a game of leap frog is absurd and totally far-fetched.

Did Arnold Friedman have wicked thoughts about his students? Probably. Did he involve his then 18-year-old son? Hmmm, I'm not sure about that one. Let me just say that the Friedman household is one I am glad I am not part of. There always seems to be an atmosphere of unnaturalness or 'something ain't quite right here' about it. Jesse Friedman says that his dad never hurt him. Jesse Friedman's Defence Attoney says otherwise.

This is a particular trick Jarecki uses to show the conflicting sides of the story. One person says black and immediately another person says white. The documentary is nothing but contradicting stories and polar opposites. While I do not believe the entire innocence of Arnold Friedman (the man clearly WAS a paedophile), I do NOT believe the word of the Cops, the FBI or any other authority interviewed.

The Judge, one Abbey Boklan, said she was sure of Arnold Friedman's guilt the second she saw him. In my view, she's openly admitting to Gross Professional Misconuct. How dare she, a judge, a stern, responsible authority figure, make such an outrageous, unfounded remark without hearing ANY kind of evidence first.

And like I said, there IS no evidence. Only the claims of the children. Nothing in this case was based on evidence because evidence didn't exist. Doesn't that strike you as being really, really odd? The Cops claimed that hypnosis was used to get answers out of the kids. As well as pressure from the parents (oblivious to the fact that their kids are undamaged physically) to tell the proverbial awful truth and encouraging embellishment of perhaps slight truths and instances to the point where this whole ridiculous leap frog game is created.

The trial is not the only focus of the film. The complete and utter breakdown of the family is also caught on camera. The sons hate their mother with a passion at her refusal to stand by her man. I can understand their anger, but what woman would? She had no evidence to persuade her either way, but she always found an unnaturalness to Arnold and the allegations probably confirmed her fears I guess.

Arnold killed himself in prison in 1995 so Jesse, also imprisoned for 13 years despite no evidence, could benefit from the $250, 000 insurance policy. Mrs Friedman re-married but the family name is stained forever in my opinion. So too should be the word of all the unprofessional authorities and lawyers involved.

No one in this documentary comes away without tarnish. It's a sick, sad and sorry story that will confuse as much as it enlightens. Make up your own mind.

This compelling documentary about the Friedman family and a child sexual abuse court case that turned their lives upside down is a heartbreaking peek into the lives of one very disfunctional family. Like most families who have painful secrets they want to suppress, the Friedmans (except for the mother), act as if absolutely nothing is wrong, that the charges are silly and that everything will be cleared up as quickly as a parking ticket. On the evening before the family patriarch, Arnold Friedman, is to begin serving his prison sentence, the family is partying like it's New Year's Eve. And the same holds true for the day on which the son charged as an accomplice, Jesse Friedman, plans to plead guilty in court. The brothers are goofing off on the courthouse lawn!!

Of course we, as objective viewers, realize that all of this behavior is a desperate attempt to avoid dealing with some serious tears in the family fabric. Arnold pleads innocent to molesting boys to whom he had been providing computer classes in his basement, but is it a coincidence that he seems to go to prison with a substantial sense of relief? The boys paint their mother as a demon intent on destroying the family, but it's the mother who comes across as being the most grounded in reality and the only one (besides Arnold himself) who understands the gravity of the family's circumstances. No, these certainly are not the Waltons.

The documentary does a very compelling job of casting doubt on the fact that Arnold and his son were guilty of molesting boys in that computer class. Our sympathies definitely lie with them, until we find out late in the film that they were probably lying to the authorities and, because we as viewers have become so vested in their story, to us. We probably will never know exactly what happened during those classes. Arnold asserts to his dying day that he never molested any of those students, but he does admit to molesting other boys. So how are we supposed to feel? Glad that he receives punishment for past crimes, or angry at the judicial system for fabricating a crime where one didn't exist? It's a complicated set of emotions the film maker leads his audience through, and it makes for a superb documentary.

Grade: A

This documentary is several things at once. First and foremost, it's the story of a family. Using the Friedmans' video and photo archives (before the arrests for child pornography, and after), the director has edited together a dramatic picture of an almost-typical suburban American family. They are fun-loving but they betray each other, they look up to their parents but they also despise them in subtle ways, and they struggle with faith and forgiveness when they are under pressure. If there were no arrests and no charges of child molesting, this would still be a compelling story because the Friedmans' emotional ties are so complex.

Second, there's the child molesting charges. This topic is long and detailed. The key to it is the hysteria of the police, the sex crime experts, the judge, the lawyers, and the neighbors. It is very instructive to see the woman in charge of the sex crime unit claiming that "child porn was in stacks, out in the open, all over the house." Everyone watching the documentary knows that this is false. The judge then says that she knew Arnold and Jesse Friedman were guilty before she even heard the case. It's a special kind of hysteria that grips the community. People are scared, they want relief, and the Friedmans are given a choice between a long jail term and a very long jail term. Although Arnold Friedman is clearly a pedophile, the people who want him in jail don't bother to assemble a real case against him. (The director makes this point well in the Charlie Rose interview on the second disc.)

Finally, the documentary shows you something about the life of an admitted pedophile. Obviously, this isn't to anyone's taste, but it is worthwhile to learn why Arnold Friedman was attracted to children, how he dealt with it, and the consequences he faced. Rather than depict him as a depraved monster, the director shows Arnold Friedman for what he was --- a very troubled man who is (figuratively) the guy next door.

This DVD comes with a lot of extra material on the second disc. Almost every frame of it should have been in the original film --- but if it was all in there, the movie would have been four hours long. Two moments on the second disc stand out. They are both impromptu discussions by people involved in the case, talking in a theater after the film has been screened. Those moments add a lot more crucial information.

I highly recommend this DVD. The material may be a bit shocking, but it's something anyone can handle. It will spark a long night of discussion, which may be the best thing any documentary can do