31 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Haunting and Powerful, March 9, 2004
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
15 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Uncomfortable, Provocative, Compelling, January 31, 2004
By A Customer
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
"What is Truth?" --sad story of an American family, February 14, 2004
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
