Capturing the Friedmans (2003)

User Rating:

8.0/10   

Director:

Andrew Jarecki

Release Date:

28 August 2003 (Israel)

Genre:

Documentary | Biography | Crime

Tagline:

Who do you believe?

Plot:

Documentary on the Friedmans, a seemingly typical, upper-middleclass Jewish family whose world is instantly transformed when the father and his youngest son are arrested and charged with shocking and horrible crimes.

Plot Keywords:

Child Pornography | Epilogue | Marriage | Homosexuality | 1980s

Awards:

Nominated for Oscar. Another 20 wins & 8 nominations

Cast

Arnold Friedman	...	Himself (archive footage)
Elaine Friedman	...	Herself (also archive footage)
David Friedman	...	Himself (also archive footage)
Seth Friedman	...	Himself (archive footage)
Jesse Friedman	...	Himself (also archive footage)
John McDermott	...	Himself
Frances Galasso	...	Herself (as Det. Frances Galasso)
Anthony Sgeugloi	...	Himself
Chuck Scarborough	...	Himself (archive footage)
Joseph Onorato	...	Himself
Judd Maltin	...	Himself
Howard Friedman	...	Himself
Abbey Boklan	...	Herself (as Judge Abbey Boklan)
Ron Georgalis	...	Himself
Scott Banks	...	Himself

Runtime:

107 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.85 : 1

Sound Mix:

Stereo

Certification:

Argentina:16 | Portugal:M/16 | Australia:MA | Brazil:14 | Finland:K-15 | Hong Kong:IIB | Netherlands:AL | Norway:11 | Singapore:NC-16 | Switzerland:14 (canton of Geneva) | Switzerland:14 (canton of Vaud) | UK:15 | USA:Not Rated | Switzerland:16 (canton of Zurich)

Filming Locations:

Dannemora, New York, USA

Company:

HBO Documentary

Trivia:

When videotaped in the park, Jesse is seen playing out the "Mr. Gumby Brain Specialist" sketch from episode 32 of "Monty Python's Flying Circus" (1969).

Movie Connections:

Referenced in The 50 Greatest Documentaries (2005) (TV)

Soundtrack:

Let Me Entertain You

9/10

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