Capturing the Friedmans (2003) User Reviews

The outline of Hysteria

[Devizier · 8/10 · 14 June 2003]

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.

9/10

[desperateliving · 9/10 · 22 October 2004]

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

Pro or Con: A brilliant look at a family imploding

[dbborroughs · 9/10 · 8 July 2004]

Knowing some of the parties involved in the actual case I was curious to see the film to see how they came across on the big screen. I was however reluctant to see it since the furor over who did what or who didn't or who's lying or not was clouding my perception of the film from the get go.

I let time pass and finally sat down to watch the film once I thought things had calmed down.

As a document of a family on the path to destruction I am floored by the film. This is a heart breaking exploration of how things are not what we think they are and how character flaws can and will wipe out the ones we love.(Although I think Character flaws is the wrong term)

A great deal of the later half of the film dances around whether Jesse, the son who pleaded guilty to the charges, was really guilty. Its here I found the film to be slightly flawed because to me the film wants to have it both ways, him guilty and innocent. I think the film makers should have picked aside, since what they have done here seems less than subjective and fair (to either side)

This is a tough film. If you can't handle frank sexual talk about child molestation then stay away. However, if you want to see an excellent film about a family in crisis then see this film.

9 out of 10.

Disturbing..

[shrutirattan-72352 · 7/10 · 6 November 2021]

It was a very tough watch considering the details shared throughout the documentary. I usually like watching documentaries and stumbled upon this after watching the jinx, which was amazing btw. But I am not sure about this one. It was made well but honestly I wish I hadn't watched it. I am feeling very disturbed at the moment.

More of a fiction rather than documentary

[sumeraslihan · 1/10 · 12 November 2014]

Nassau County district attorney, Kathleen M. Rice, re-investigated the case of Jesse Friedman in 2013 to determine whether his conviction should be upheld or overturned. Their report, prepared by an independent review panel, demonstrate Capturing the Friedman's is, in the mildest terms 'incomplete, and in some points, even incorrect, either case misleading.

Here are some of the key points taken from the report (which can be found online in District Attorney's web site). With respect to the Jesse Friedman case, the report says:

" None of the five individuals who Friedman advocates suggest "recanted" have, in fact, recanted to any degree of legal certainty. Three have not recanted at all. Reviews of transcripts concerning these individuals reveal that abuse occurred. Another who spoke to the Review Team stood by his account, in contrast to the statement he gave to filmmakers. The subject of the most recent purported recantation has refused to speak to the Review Team or even confirm he wrote the letter outlining the claim, which was provided to the Review Team by Jesse Friedman's lawyer." "Unedited film transcripts of Judge Abbey Boklan and Detective Anthony Squeglia show that each was the subject of selectively edited and misleading film portrayals in Capturing the Friedmans." "The "Meyers Tape" – one of only two pieces of direct evidence of heavy-handed police interviewing techniques cited by Friedman, his advocates and the Court – is, in fact, no tape at all. All that remains of a tape that hasn't existed for more than two decades are notes taken during its screening by a Jesse Friedman attorney. Those notes, presumably limited to information the attorney found helpful to his client's case, were then reduced and curated by filmmakers, and read dramatically by Friedman's attorney in Capturing the Friedmans." "A sworn affidavit from the therapist who treated former student "Computer Student One," stated that she never performed hypnosis on the child. A portion of an unedited transcript of the film's interview with "Computer Student One" contradicted his claim of pre-outcry hypnosis and had been edited out. "Computer Student One" claimed in a 2004 media report that Capturing the Friedmans "twisted" his account. The filmed allegations of "Computer Student One" remain the only direct evidence offered by Friedman or his advocates suggesting that hypnosis was used to induce victims to make accusations in this case."

I also find it difficult to understand how these basic facts are totally omitted in the documentary, such as: "While maintaining his innocence prior to his eventual guilty plea, Friedman commissioned and failed at least two lie-detector tests."

Overall I found the film, especially the narcissism still preserved in Friedmans' character interesting enough to google the case. In this sense, I guess that makes it good fiction movie, but still not a documentary.

Very Shocking Documentary

[travisimo · 10/10 · 20 February 2004]

I'm not really the type of person to jump to one conclusion based on one piece of information. Therefore, I am not going to say whether or not I think Arnold & Jesse Friedman were really guilty of the crimes they were convicted of. However, I will say that this movie raises some reasonable doubt of the allegations and gives a more fair shake to the Friedmans than their case ever did.

Overall, I felt Andrew Jarecki's documentary was pretty balanced, but maybe tilting more towards the Friedmans' innocence. This isn't necessarily bad, because if there wasn't any question about the crime, there simply wouldn't be any documentary. That tilt towards the Friedmans becomes more apparent in Disc 2 of the DVD as you see the support the Friedmans give to this "balanced" documentary. But like I said, this is a more fair assessment than what was achieved during the actual trial; so I think the Friedmans welcomed that.

As for the content of this documentary, it's just striking. To say that this family is a little odd would be an understatement. The home movies they shot during this ordeal is absolutely astonishing. I simply don't know how they could videotape all that was going on during such a tumultuous and devastating time in their lives. And Arnold & Jesse's tapes of their last nights before going to prison are almost confounding. I can't imagine being in that position and smiling for the camera. This is just something that you can't see anywhere else. It's truly mind-boggling.

While this documentary is truly groundbreaking, it definitely should not be viewed on a recreational basis. Be prepared for some heavy material that will shock you and make you think long after you watched it.

My IMDb Rating: 10/10. My Yahoo! Grade: A+ (Oscar-Worthy)

Disturbing and thought provoking documentary

[paulef121 · 9/10 · 18 February 2004]

Unable to view this highly regarded film on the big screen, I recently rented the DVD. This was a plus because one comes away from experiencing the movie with a litany of unanswered questions and the bonus disk really clarified many, but not all concerns.

The film tells the tale of the Friedman family and allegations of hundreds of child molestation charges committed by the father and the youngest son. The film makers did a masterful job by interweaving home 8mm and video footage with their own film. For the most part, the story allows the viewer to make up his own mind on guilt or innocence. There are what appear to be some strategic absences of facts and data by the film makers (as pointed out in the bonus DVD by the local police). But this seems to be understandable because the director, by his own admission, ended up caring so much about the family. This viewer certainly felt some empathy after this utterly dysfunctional family displayed levels of pain and despair never captured by the news media.

The bonus DVD is almost as interesting as the movie itself. Don't miss the post-premiere question and answer sessions which were attended by the family, their attorneys, prosecutors, police, social workers and the film makers.

Shockumentary meets Roshamon

[getreel · 10/10 · 7 June 2003]

`There's your version, there's my version and there's the truth,' is at the murky heart of Andrew Jarecki's brilliant and disturbing, `Roshamon-like' Shockumentary, `Capturing the Friedmans.'

I can't stop thinking about this movie, I've seen it 3 times and each time I believe something different. Like some cubistic courtroom nightmare, each character adamantly tells their version of the truth. The masterful way the filmmakers enlist the viewer as juror, carefully revealing the 'evidence', is at once courageous and exasperating, never manipulative. This is what documentary filmmaking is all about.

What phenomenal luck or fate, while making a movie about Magician Clowns who entertain at privileged New Yorkers children's parties (David Friedman did my sons 4th Birthday), Jarecki and his crew wound up capturing the Friedmans in a way they never could have imagined.

The rich film (not video) and lush score, juxtapose the harsh reality and hysterical blindness of justice, making it even more painful to watch. One particularly haunting scene, a tearful David, alone in his underwear, raging at some future viewer, is so visceral and intimate, you almost have to look away.

Perhaps David and Jesse are in some sense relieved that their truth is finally told. How fortunate they are to have stumbled upon such a noble facilitator as Andrew Jarecki. I met Jesse at a screening recently and was moved by his gentle kindness and David's choice to exonerate his brother over a successful career, is the essence of devotion. The courage of these brothers and of the filmmakers, should garner an Oscar and more importantly, set the record straight. This is truly filmmaking as healing art.

Should have dug a little deeper

[tjcclarke · 7/10 · 7 July 2004]

The common trend amongst modern documentary-makers seems to be to step back from the subject matter and let it speak for itself – no voiceovers or preaching – simply fly-on-the-wall stuff. Perhaps the perception is that investigative journalism is too intrusive a medium for the movies and better served on hard-hitting TV shows. But a story such as the Friedmans' needs some further digging despite the impressive raw materials. We have interviews with the major protagonists and oodles of camcorder footage but no incisive questioning or comment from the filmmakers and as compelling and interesting as this film is, the ultimate feeling is one of frustration.

The story of the Friedmans is murky and disturbing and needs poking around with a big stick before the truth can begin to emerge. The family is superficially ordinary: Jewish, middle-class and pillar-of-the-community. Patriarch Arnold is a well- respected and award-winning teacher; wife Elaine is typically supportive and subordinate and their three boys have a touching and incredibly close bond neatly recorded for posterity in hours of home-video footage. But all is not well in sunny suburbia. The police intercept a package intended for Arnold that contains a magazine of child pornography and dirty secrets and wild accusations are soon sullying the family name.

Former pupils come out of the woodwork and accuse Friedman of abusing them in the computer classes he ran out of his own home. His youngest son Jesse is also implicated. In all, over 200 separate charges of rape and child molestation are brought against the two despite no complaints being made by pupils at the time of the alleged assaults and not a shred of physical evidence. An intriguing tale, undoubtedly, but what makes this film unique among all the other tepid yarns about serious crime is that the Friedmans kept the camera rolling.

After Arnold and Jesse are bailed, the family closes ranks and plots their defence. It is fascinating stuff. Arnold retreats into a mumbling, guilt-ridden shell while the rest of the family is split asunder by Elaine's scepticism and despair and the boys' fierce defence of their father. Eldest son David is the most bitter. He is incredulous that such absurd charges have been brought against his father and brother and is determined to clear their names. His video diaries and monologues are insightful as are the family arguments he faithfully films. He emerges as the least stable of the lot of them: A confused, angry, indignant voice petulantly and blindly mitigating his father's flaws; devastated and helpless as his cherished family idyll crashes down around him.

I will not detail events of the trial suffice it to say that the outcome asks more questions than this film can answer. Arnold's history of sexually abusing his own children is hinted at but never fully broached despite long and otherwise candid interviews with both David and Jesse and Arnold's younger brother. All are steadfast and confident in Arnold and Jesse's innocence.

It is difficult to say whether the film sides with the Friedmans or not. Certainly it does not hold back in detailing the hideous crimes that are alleged: Prosecutors, frustrated defence lawyers and victims are all wheeled out but are not truly convincing in their condemnation of Arnold. He actually emerges as a meek, dignified martyr who, at his death, leaves a string of embittered, broken people still adamant that the whole affair was one hideous misunderstanding. This is not your standard paedophile. The true extent of his crimes may never be known and the footage of his loving family make the allegations against him all the more unpalatable and grisly.

As an interesting footnote, eldest Friedman son David (the wrathful, resentful brother) is also the premier children's entertainer in New York. While there is no suggestion he has any history of sexual crime himself, one would have thought his family name may be something of a hindrance in his line of work. But he is still clowning away merrily and the mud doesn't seem to have stuck – America is a strange place.

7/10

Decent Doc

[erniecalderon · 7/10 · 8 December 2011]

I'm still not entirely sure whom to believe. This is a testament as to how good this documentary is on denial, family, lies, love, and horror. I would certainly recommend it to whomever wishes to feel real badly about human nature and the evil ways that it manifests itself. Belief in WHATEVER is so powerful and it never ceases to amaze me how we are able to convince ourselves of ANYTHING. I say this only because this family is in absolute denial and they have genuinely convinced themselves that there father is innocent of all charges. With so much damning evidence, it is hard to believe that anyone, with any sense, would not prematurely convict this man of the horrors he committed.

This one stays with you.

[iulibarri · 8/10 · 8 December 2011]

A remarkably well crafted documentary takes us straight to Creepytown USA, and we can't wait to ask the tour guide questions.

Capturing the Friedmans is not so much a search for truth, as it is a portrait of illness itself, and how it transmits through individual to family and on to the community at Large.

The family's ordeal was recorded by both the lenses of the media and their own movie cameras. Building with this footage, director Andrew Jarecki shows us the Friedmans.

Arnold, uses his home video as a document of his progress beyond dysfunction. At times, the home video footage almost seems like amateur propaganda. Almost as if the Friedmans were trying to manufacture their own evidence. Creating the facade of a whole family.

Most of the people interviewed seem to have their own agendas as well. Especially the police.

Evidence and opinion layers, it fascinates and frustrates. frustratingly — inconclusive ways. The only clear answer in "Friedmans" was that they collapsed under decades of secrets and dysfunction.

This film also glimpses the effects social pressure, mob mentality and stigma have on truth. We must also question the reliability of the human memory as evidence.

Blakespot Reviews: Capturing the Friedmans

[TimeForChillie · 6/10 · 15 July 2006]

Capturing the Friedmans, 2003 Very good documentary studying something as simple and complex as an average American family. Of chorse this particular American family has 2 men accused of raping dozens of boys over a period of several years. This movie does a great job of jerking you back and forth. At first you'll be positive they're guilty, than positive they're innocent, than positive that the dad is guilty but the son is innocent, than you'll think they're both guilty but the charges are exaggerated. And in the end you have no more of an idea of the truth than you did when you started. This is a very interesting way to do a documentary, but it leaves you feeling stragely unsatisfied. Documentaries usually have an assertion about something, and try to prove that assurtion. I don't think the film makers have any more of an idea about the truth in this case than I do. And while I hate to say that I like to be told what to think, when I'm watching a documentary, I kind of like to be told what to think... and than decide later if I want to think that way or not. This was just barrels full of contradicting information from many different sources. Thus the movie was innovative, fascinating, but slightly less enjoyable than it could have been. 6/10, 32nd out of 71 movies for 2003, 461st overall

Strongly biased

[strongfox2000 · 1/10 · 17 May 2005]

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.

Who knows if they're guilty?

[kris-langley · 8/10 · 28 April 2006]

This was a terrific documentary. The facts of the case are slightly obscured by the filmmakers' willingness to exonerate the defendants in the trial, but the viewer is still able to make their own decision (or indecision) about the case.

Whether or not you believe that Arnold and Jesse Friedman are indeed guilty of the crimes they went to prison (and, in the case of Arnold, subsequently DIED for), it is very clear who the victims are. You have children who were either actually molested or railroaded by a corrupt justice system--as well as parents who refused to believe anything other than the beliefs of their children. The fact that some of the accusers came forward years later to recant anything they said about molestation leads one to believe there were false accusations made. You have the defendants as well as the other Friedman children, who--if they indeed were not guilty--have spent their entire lives trying to end their own personal victimization from their father's twisted idea of sexuality.

Above all, you have the mother. This was a woman caught in between the world and her family, of which NEITHER had sympathy or love for her. The manner in which her children ruthlessly attack her--while Arnold sits at the dinner table passively--is shameful and despicable. Throughout the entire film, she is pummeled for not being a proper matriarch as well as being associated with a pedophile she had to make an effort to love and care for, even when she didn't know he was a sick bastard. The behavior of the Friedman children amounts to the actions of spoiled brats who didn't get the toys they wanted for Christmas. It's easy to understand their frustration; they are also caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the (possible) actions of their father. But for them to continually berate their mother for having any doubt is childish and cruel.

The final scene, with the kids at the courthouse with video camera in tow, made me rethink my entire summation of the case and the film. I believe that Arnold and Jesse COULD have done this. The lack of respect they showed anyone but themselves--through self-pity and outright meanness--is the same behavior that serial rapists and murderers show their victims' families. So yes, they COULD have.

But DID they? Who knows?

unsettling

[meganchoritz · 8/10 · 26 December 2004]

I am still a bit shaken from the emotional roller-coaster ride that Capturing the Friedmans takes you on. Mostly I found the absence of a strong director "voice" or opinion so exciting. You never forget, even though the events are so sensational, that the Friedmans are real, in pain and unheroic. The film is a must see for documentary fans. Child abuse and molestation is a terrifying subject, particularly in the hands of the media.The film manages to make the family and the conflict and relationships the central theme. One of the interesting aspects of the film is that because of the 'home movies' the story unravels in past tense. An extraordinary moment for me was to see Elaine remarried and happy towards the end of the movie.

Nothing we shouldn't already know

[fineanimal · 6/10 · 8 February 2004]

As a sociological case study, Capturing the Friedmans is a competent and disturbing film. Andrew Jarecki has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of here. But I do not think it deserves the high honors it has received because, in the end, the film doesn't tell us anything we shouldn't already know. More than anything else, it is 109 minutes of voyeurism that appeals to a Reality TV culture which is no less perverse than the Friedman family.

Unfortunately, the typical American, at least, does not already know the most important and relevant themes in this film, and that is why it is considered so "thought provoking" on matters we should already be thinking about daily: the slippery nature of "truth", the unreliability of witness testimony, the lunacy and injustice of our law enforcement and legal system, the phenomenon of mass hysteria, trial and conviction in the news media, the enormous tragedy of false imprisonment (if Jesse was indeed falsely accused), and the fact that there are a lot of weird--very weird--people living amongst us.

There is simply no way to determine the truth of what really happened in the Friedman basement from the evidence presented here, and we are given no compelling reason to believe that court trials would have provided any more certainty. This lack of certainty is the entire basis of so much debate over the film. If this isn't reasonable doubt, I don't know what is, and for that reason alone Jesse should never have gone to prison. Only the emotions stirred by the heinous nature of the alleged crimes drove law enforcement, the courts, the news media, and the community to rob a young man of the best years of his life. If Jessie had been charged with murder of a "nobody" on such flimsy evidence, I find it hard to believe it would ever even come to trial. If he were charged with murdering someone popular on the same evidence, however, he might well be on death row today. As it happens, he was charged with molesting children, the moral equivalent of murdering somebody who "matters". Emotions. Such is the absurdity of American Justice.

In fact, there is no definitive answer on ANYTHING in this film, except for the undeniable proof of human degeneracy provided by community cretins who left violent, stupid messages on the Friedmans' answering machine immediately after Arnold and Jesse were arrested. The only "evidence" these fools had to go on was brief television news reports, and this is the pool of peers from which juries would have been selected (for those who wonder why an innocent man would ever confess to child molestation even to get a reduced sentence). I fear those telephone terrorists, who probably still walk the streets, more than I fear any member of the Friedman household (with the possible exception of David--a very angry and irrational character).

The DVD special features are enlightening, in the sense that they present evidence not seen in the film. This new evidence doesn't clarify the truth, but at least it makes us feel we are not missing important facts. Or are we? Again, there's no way to know.

Particularly interesting on the DVD is an extended interview with the supposed victim who was responsible for the majority of charges against Arnold and Jesse. Laying casually across a sofa-chair while discussing his horrific experience, this young man doesn't seem half as traumatized by the Friedmans as he was by his own family. One gets the impression he enjoys the attention he receives as a "victim" of child molestation. In fact, he seems to enjoy it a little too much.

As I said, a very disturbing film.

I was captured

[camsean · 9/10 · 25 March 2004]

This is a very good documentary. I've the postings on the various message boards about it and am a little suprised that so many people have a concrete view as the innocence or guilt of Arnold and Jessie. The main thing I was left with was a sense of doubt - I doubt they did all the things they were convicted of and I doubt they were totally innocent.

The interviews with the police,prosecutors and victims clearly show major flaws in the way evidence was gathered and presented whilst Arnold's stash of child porn and Jessie's statement when he is on his way to the court house for sentencing that nothing happened "only that one person, and they did not complain anyway" is telling. The best thing about this doco is the way that is suspenseful like a good piece of fiction and all the more horrible because it is true (No matter what the guilt or innocence of Arnold and Jessie).

Interesting, disturbing and frustrating

[rckscarter · 6/10 · 10 January 2019]

Disturbing subject matter, disturbed family. The film certainly keeps one's attention, but is reduced by a rather slanted narrative being woven by the filmmaker. Facts that indicate one thing are glossed over while facts that indicate another are harped on repeatedly. All in all, a compelling non fiction film is dampened by filmmaker bias.

The Friedmans

[roymosl3 · 8/10 · 6 December 2011]

This is a good documentary that captures the mind state of a pedophile and the the stress that is put on the pedophiles family. The documentary provides viewers with an inside look by showing, actual, home videos of a family that is put through a stressful trial and we are able to see tempers flare. And we get to see this family unravel on home video footage. By watching the home videos people are able to dissect the characters and the family seems to show their true feelings on camera, because I do not think they knew that there would be a documentary about their life. The father is the one that is accused of being a pedophile and his sons are dragged through the mud with him and the mother has to make the best decisions for her self and family. There are a lot of witnesses and there is so many different stories of what happens and different stories of who the father really is, but this documentary keeps you watching because you know someone is lying. The subject is a hard one to bare, but the documentary sheds the light on the psychology of a society on a touchy subject such as this.

What Is The Point???

[conwu1 · 6/10 · 6 December 2011]

Not sure if it is worse watching this movie or watching Nancy Grace on CNN. I am not sure if I have stomach for any more contents like this.

I have no interest in giving my attention to a family that craves for attention in such a degree they videotape each other on a regular basis. Its like, "hey, look at me. I am on the camera." Why the family even want to air it's dirty laundry. Just disturbing.

The filmmaker tries to create suspension by presenting contradicting of memories on incidences. I wonder how many interviews the filmmakers have to do before they can get the two interviews that are actually contradicting each other.

What is the point in making this movie?

Riveting and skin-crawling every time I watch it.

[matthewssilverhammer · 10/10 · 17 July 2021]

I can never decide where the entire truth lies; the men in this family undeniably weird, but "weird" alone isn't illegal. Regardless, all empathy sits with Elaine; that poor woman with her lovely accent deserves her new life.

On film, in life, out of focus

[dfranzen70 · 7/10 · 16 November 2017]

In the late 1980s, the Long Island town of Great Neck was rocked by multiple allegations of child molestation on the part of a well-liked pillar of the community, Arnold Friedman, and his son Jesse. This retelling of the events proved to be equal parts cringe-inducing and unsatisfying, although the use of home footage shot by the Friedman family itself is put to terrific use.

Arnold Friedman taught a computer class to local kids in his basement. He also taught piano and was considered a really good guy. He was married to Elaine Friedman, and they had three boys: David, Seth, and Jesse. At the time of the allegations, each son was a young adult. Jesse often assisted his father during the computer classes. But what tipped authorities off was that a magazine containing underage porn and addressed to Arnold Friedman, was intercepted as part of an ongoing operation. Investigators then delivered the magazine themselves (posing as postal employees) and showed up later in the day with a search warrant. Friedman thought they were after only the magazine, but the search warrant was for the entire house – and lo and behold, a huge trove of underage porn was discovered. This discovery led to officials interviewing various students from Arthur Friedman's computer classes, and their answers – and eventual testimony – led to charges being filed.

The film itself interviews the three sons and Elaine Friedman; Arnold Friedman died in prison. Other participants include psychologists, detectives, and even former students of Arnold Friedman. But what's most interesting is the interplay among the Friedman family members. While Arnold's (and Jesse's, as he too was swept up in the charges) court case was being played out and he was out on bail, his sons would argue at the dinner table about how best to combat the obviously false charges. But just as obvious was Elaine's silence – or at least the absence of her offering her own full-throated support. This was something that none of the sons appreciated, of course.

I found the documentary to be fascinating but still troubling. We are presented with a lot of evidence that Arnold was a pedophile. We are presented with conflicting evidence that the kids in the computer class were molested by Arnold and/or Jesse. Huge questions are raised regarding the guilt borne by the Friedmans. I wanted to know more. Documentaries don't need to show bias in order to present a possible outcome. In other words, if the makers of this film felt that it was pretty clear that the crimes had been committed, then that would be the thesis of the movie; conversely, if they felt that either Jesse or Arnold didn't get a fair shake, that would also be a thesis.

But the film takes no stance either way, and we're left with a lot of maybes that don't add up to much. Only the home video shot by the family is compelling, showing as it does the internal struggles between full support of a family member despite the accusation of a vile crime and the withholding of that support because of that accusation. It's just not clear who to believe; the movie just presents details, and not enough for anyone to come down strongly on one side or the other of the issue.

Thought-provoking, sad, and compelling

[bondgirl6781 · 2 October 2004]

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 porn 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.

Happy home movies belying a stark reality...

[moonspinner55 · 7/10 · 14 December 2010]

Seemingly ordinary family in the Great Neck suburb of Long Island, New York are torn apart by child molestation allegations, which may or may not have been fabricated by underage witnesses coerced by the authorities. A retired teacher-turned-computer instructor is put in the legal hot-spot after a underage pornographic magazine is delivered to him undercover; his students are then interviewed for any possible misconduct, and soon the married father of three and his youngest son are arrested on sex abuse charges. Quietly devastating documentary from Andrew Jarecki weaves both vintage and recent home movie footage of the family with revealing interviews of the former Friedman matriarch (who had fallen out of love with her accused husband and failed to stand by him) and two of her sons. Jarecki is very careful not to paint the 'victims' as villains but, in trying to be somewhat non-subjective, he clouds some of the legal ramifications in mystery (why is the son's attorney completely contradicting his client's statements? Is the attorney lying--and if so, what did he have to gain?). Eldest son David tries so hard to be the voice of reason--while feeling victimized himself--that he inadvertently becomes the star of the movie, the glue which is barely holding the family together. It's a portrait of lives destroyed by contagious hysteria...and by personal demons and repressed sexuality. The film is by turns tragic, unfair, rueful, frustrating, incredibly human, and incredibly moving. *** from ****

We'll never know the truth!

[CuriosityKilledShawn · 8/10 · 12 February 2006]

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.