Originally, director Andrew Jarecki planned the movie to be a short film titled 'Just a clown' about clowns in New York. However, when he interviewed popular Long Islander clown David Friedman for the short, Jarecki stumbled upon a darker, yet more interesting story. It was here, that 'Capturing the Friedmans' was created, using talking-head interviews, archive news footage, and a series of home-movie videos, in which the Friedman family shot in the 1970s & 1980s. Without spoiling the movie, too much, the documentary tells the story of what seem like a quiet peaceful American family, the Friedmans, only to find out that, under the public façade of respectability masks the ugly truth that David's father/public school teacher, Arnold was buying and distributing child pornography. What came next, is a series of public allegations of sexual abuse, brought up by former victims of Arnold, saying that, with his son, Jesse Friedman, both men raped or attempted to molest a good number of his own students. It's here, where the film delivers a somewhat open-discussion of what could had happen or what didn't happen. I just wish, they used more evidence in the film. After all, most of the interesting parts of the documentary is in the additional materials for the 2003 DVD release, entitled, "Capturing the Friedmans - Outside the Frame". It's here, we get to see, many of the home videos, unedited and raw. We learn, how these family dynamics influenced the decisions that Arthur and Jesse make while defending themselves in court. He see the self-chronicling yields a layered, complex examination of how the family dealt with a crippling crisis. I was really disappointed, by the fact, that they rarely use David's brother, Seth's views of the trial in the movie. I can understand, why he didn't want to be filmed for the 2003'ss talking head, interview sequence, but at least, showcase him, more on the archive home videos. After all, David supposedly owns, all of them. Another thing, they should had added to the film is the unseen video clip, 'Grandma Speaks'. It really could had add to the backstory of what truly happen to Arnold & his brother, Howard, during their childhood. Another thing, why did they cut the footage of the prosecution's star witness, if Arnold's trial was once a public televised trial? It makes no sense. It does seem like, the film was somewhat ignoring the relevant evidence of Jesse's guilt by pulling things like that out of the film. Another example of that, is the fact, that didn't show, any of the footage of Jesse's appearance on Geraldo Rivera show in Feb 23, 1989, where he admitted his guilt on national television, while in state prison. Why wasn't it, shown in the film? In the director's defense, he says, he couldn't get the rights to it; which I know is a bit misleading, since he got film footage from other ABC news outlets. Another key evidence left out in the film is that, there was a third defendant named Ross Goldstein, who also took part in the abuse of the children at the Friedman's home. It's Goldstein that turn state's evidence about Jesse and Arnold, over to the court, while testify against them. The film also fails in their research. A good example of this, is the interviews with the victims of the Friedmans. Only 5 of the victims, were spoken to, by Jarecki and only 2 out of the 13 victims were featured in this film. That's pretty sad, as he made little attempt to reach out to those people, willing to voice their views on the subject, because of his strong belief that the citizens of Great Neck, were just living up to the mass hysteria and witch-hunt of the Friedmans. Many of those victims, later reported to news outlets, that they did not lie, exaggerate, or were manipulating by others in making those statements. They accused the filmmakers for twisting facts to make the case against the Friedman seem weakly than it's originally was. Anyways, the film somewhat work with the Friendman's favor, as there were enough renewed interest in the case that Jesse Friedman mounted an appeal. While the appeal was denied, the Nassau County District Attorney agreed to re-examine the case and appoint a special review committee to evaluate any impropriety in the original case, including coercion of Friedman's original confession of guilt. I know, a lot of people has bash Jarecki for deliberately choosing not to pursue his firm belief in the Friedmans' innocence, but as a documentary, it's better to let the audience's decide, who is telling the truth, rather than openly forcing or manipulating them into believing one side over the other. I kinda like, how he leaves it, open for the viewers to figure out, on their own, if any of the Friedman's crimes is true or fictional, despite some biased decisions. I know, some people's dislike that, because it caused some theatre patrons to remain in their seats to argue the innocence or guilt of Arnold and Jesse Friedman, but it's what makes a good documentary is the idea of making people think. You know, you made a moving film, when there were public altercations and debate on the subject matter. Overall: It's a thought-provoking film. With that, said, this is documentary filmmaking at its best -- but it's still best watched by those mature enough to handle the very serious subject matter and those with an open-minded. Like the film's tagline, leave some room in your brain to ask yourself, 'Who do you believe?'