By Chlotrudis Independent Film Society
Rating: 4.25 cats
Director: Andrew Jarecki
Country: united_states
Year: 2003
Running time: 107
IMDB: http://us.imdb.com/Details?0342172
Bob G. says: “The most fascinating thing about this documentary is not only the subject matter, which is about as disturbing as anything you’ll ever see, but how filmmaker Andrew Jarecki maintains almost complete objectivity in his portrayal of the Friedmans. He allows them such complete latitude that they can’t help doing on camera what they do best in real life: self-destruct. Yet he does so without sparing an ounce of humanity or empathy for his subjects. A landmark piece of documentary filmmaking available now as a two-disc DVD set, loaded with extra footage.” 5 cats
Jane says: “I just saw this film yesterday and can’t get it out of my mind. It offers a great opportunity to examine the scary topic of pedophilia/possible
false accusations in depth. Particulary of interest is the home video footage, which gives detailed insight into the dynamics of a family that includes two members who were accused of child abuse.
“The two members, the father and his 18 year old son, are accused after the father is caught sending child pornography through the mail. After the police find more porn they start a quest to interview all the children the father taught (piano lessons in the family home.) The footage of interviews with all the powers that be involved – investigators, judge, attorneys – is simply presented, leaving the audience to come up with their own theory as to whether or not the crimes occurred.
“I would be fascinated to know who believes these two to be guilty. It was quite apparent to me that the children were led by the investigators via the questioning to come up with accusations. One woman interviewed, who has a great deal of experience investigating these events from a journalistic viewpoint, said the families even seemed to consider it a competition (my kid has a story too!!) and that they pressured families who insisted nothing happened. In the meantime, due to the bloodthirsty crowd mentality, the two men felt they had no choice but to plead guilty to avoid life sentences.
“I am so appalled I may write the town of Great Neck and chastise the investigators, judge, and assistant DA. Considering this reaction, I would have to say the film is more than compelling, and I would urge everyone to consider viewing it.” 4 cats
Marilyn responds to Jane: “The pleas did not come about solely from ‘pressure.’ Remember the father did admit to being a pedophile in his past… ‘mistakes, I think he called them’…..and also his desire to protect his youngest, who was also charged. He left him the money to him when he took his own life in prison. The movie does leave many unanswered questions but clearly shows a very disturbed group. I found the anger and hatred directed at the mother quite unsettling simply because she wouldn’t back up her husband. She may have known much more… also, why were the family always video taping themselves even in terrible crisis? Since I do a lot of this stuff every day in my work, I was not as suspicious of the investigators, etc as you were. These types of crimes are hard to prove and children even adults live in denial and loss of memory all the time… remember, one son never participated in the movie and the oldest continues as a clown entertaining children…he is the one with no memory. Consider this… what if David was the first child to be molested and was grateful when the younger boys came of age and Dad lost interest in him… resulting in guilt, loss of memory, complete denial and a life as a single adult, and entertainer of children.? The youngest got the money and the movie ended with his embrace of his mother. One thing we do know, pedophilia is not curable.”
Michael responds to Marilyn and Jane: “CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS was a marvelously complex and frustrating film, and I can see both Jane and Marilyn’s points. I completely agree with Marilyn regarding the matriarch of the Friedman family. The antagonism from the children toward their mother was very upsetting. I found it interesting that the filmmaker chose to end his film with the mother, perhaps validating her point of view?
“I lean more on Jane’s view with regard to the investigation by authorities into the computer lessons. It was rather appalling to hear some of the investigating officers openly admit some of the tactics they used (i.e. leading questions, etc.) when questioning the children and alleged victims. So much of the crime Friedman was accused of was ludicrous from a ‘let’s look at the facts’ angle. Also, the ‘competition’ between parents in the Long Island town was terribly frightening, yet also rang true (as confirmed by Bob, who grew up a couple towns away). The entire, ‘well, if your child was abused, then mine was too… and worse!’ scenario was truly upsetting.
“To look at Marilyn’s point-of-view, however, Friedman was clearly an admitted pedophile, and had been arrested for it quite publicly prior to the computer class allegations. What was so frustrating about the film, and the actual case, was the fact that Friedman was being tried for his pedophilia, NOT the computer class case which he should have been tried for. It seems (to me, at least) that he was clearly innocent of the crimes he was actually accused of, while guilty of the crime of pedophilia in general.
“And, since this is really a film about points of view, first and foremost, what we are viewing is one filmmaker’s point of view. How much are we swayed by the way the facts are presented in this film? An intriguing and again, frustrating thought.”
Laura says: “Jarecki’s title carries multiple meanings. There’s capturing in the senses of police arrest, capturing via the many cameras pointed over generations and capturing as in finding the essence of truth. The filmmakers have artfully constructed a disturbing family history from present day interviews and copious family archival footage, often disturbing by its very existence. People provide us with their truth only to have the next person make us question what we’ve been told so far.
“The David Friedman of today sits on a city stoop and professes his great admiration for his father, a man who was also an entertainer in his youth who became a respected teacher and inventor. Colorful home movies show a typical family frolicking about on the beach and in their yard. David then begins
to talk about how his father ran a computer class in the basement of the family home in order to avoid spending time with his wife. The first crack has appeared.
“Elaine Friedman seems fragile and sad about the family that has apparently splintered around her. Then we’re presented with a much younger David, speaking directly to a video camera and admonishing us that if we are not him, we should not be watching this video. He begins to speak about horrible accusations that are ripping his family apart, while making some of his own.
“A postal inspector describes finding child pornography addressed to Andrew Friedman. A sting operation is set up with a police detective masquerading as a postman. A search warrant helps police uncover a stack of similar magazines hidden in Andrew Friedman’s basement. As Chief Detective Frances Galasso describes the ‘piles of pornography’ strewn about the Friedman home, police photos of the time show nothing of the sort. Police begin questioning students of Friedman’s computer classes and suddenly accusations of rape and heinous abuse begin to pile up. Jesse Friedman discusses a youngster who filed multiple charges of sodomy as having occurred during a beginners class who re-upped for an advanced class. Former student accusers insist the crimes happened and admit to lying while a non-accuser describes Friedman as a nebbish and the police as bullying.
“Just as Jarecki has his audience convinced that a man with pedophilic desires has become the focus of a witch hunt, the screws are turned again, doubts cast. Andrew’s brother Howard professes horror and denial at all the accusations, but Jarecki changes our perspective once again by widening his frame on the younger brother. Jesse makes a compelling case as to why both he and his father finally plead guilty, then our skin crawls at the ease with which he lies to the judge while doing so. Throughout, we must wonder at just why David Friedman documented his family going through this horrific period. David explains that at the time, he thought if he caught these moments on video, he wouldn’t have to remember them himself, yet he seems to be on a witch hunt of his own – for his mother. Could he be in denial over his father?
“The film ends with the ghostly black and white images of Arnold and Howard’s baby sister, dancing innocently before her untimely death, two generations earlier. This family that was so intent on documenting itself through images leaves us with more questions than fact.
“CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS may present the American family as seen by David Lynch when he looks beyond the white picket fence. It’s a uniquely compelling, darkly disturbing American drama.” 4 1/2 cats
Michael says: “In a year where outstanding feature films have been few and far between (and slow to emerge) documentaries have been consistently challenging and entertaining. The latest in this string of successful docs is CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS, and disturbing look at a family in crisis in Great Neck, Long Island during the 70’s and 80’s.
“The Friedmans seemed the ideal family: upper middle-class, Jewish, happy parents, three talented and intelligent sons. Arnold Friedman, the family
patriarch was a well-respected teacher who taught the neighborhood kids piano and computers. When investigators uncover a startling and potentially
destructive dirty-little-secret of Arnold’s the family descends into a long, slow, tailspin into community hysteria. Director Andrew Jarecki began this film as a look at eldest son David Friedman and his career as a clown for children’s entertainment. As he was interviewing David, he began to sense there was a greater story being unsaid when they were talking about his family. Ultimately, the movie Jarecki made was much different than the one he had intended to make. This is part of what thrills me about documentary filmmaking.
“Jarecki paints a complex, frustrating portrait of a family on trail, not for the crimes members allegedly committed, but for perceived wrong-doings inflated by mass hysteria. This is a tough movie to watch, but definitely worthwhile. As Clinton sarcastically informed us pre-show, ‘It’s the feel good movie of the year!'” 4 cats