Capturing the Friedmans (2003) User Reviews

The Friedmans Weren't Captured, They Submitted Entirely

[lawprof · 9/10 · 6 July 2003]

Documentaries that focus on the lives of their subjects are intrinsically voyeuristic. The documentarian must be objective while often prone to being seductively enmeshed in his/her subjects' views of their lives.

"Capturing the Friedmans" takes this reality to a much deeper and excruciatingly raw level. Long before Arnold Friedman, a deeply respected and retired high school teacher who moved on to teaching computer skills when PCs were rare, and one of his son's, Jesse, became defendants in a widely reported and still remembered pedophile case, filming and taping each other was a family staple. What starts as a not uncommon family avocation turns infinitely darker as several of the family members seem compelled to record disturbing intra-family encounters that both enthrall and repel.

Based on a U. S. Post Office investigation leading to a search of the Friedman's Great Neck, N. Y. home it is immediately clear that the pater familias at the least was a dedicated, devoted collector of sickening homosexual kiddie porn. On that charge at the least he was fully eligible for and deserved a long prison sentence.

But the initial investigation yielded verbal complaints by boys that they were sexually abused during the computer training sessions in the Friedman home by both Arnold and his son, Jesse. Also living in the house were his wife, Elaine, and two other boys, David and Seth.

The police investigation led to myriad charges lodged against both Arnold and Jesse and the legal proceedings drew national media attention (which I well remember).

No forensic evidence existed to link either Friedman to the crimes let alone establish that they had occurred. All the evidence, which was never tested in court, came from kids questioned by police and, apparently in many instances, the kids were seriously encouraged by outraged parents who, themselves, had no factual basis on which to proceed.

Both Friedmans eventually and separately pleaded guilty to reduced charges. Arnold went to prison and subsequently committed suicide, leaving Jesse $250,000 in insurance proceeds. Jesse, who maintains his innocence to this day, served thirteen years of a six to eighteen year sentence.

One son, Seth, refused to participate in this project. The other son, David, is a high society children's birthday party clown in New York City known as "Silly Billy." He worries in the film if his career will be affected. How could it not be, especially as he is the angriest speaker on the screen. And not the most rational either.

On many levels this is a deeply disturbing film. First, the family members who cooperated by giving film to the director and allowing very free-wheeling interviews reflect the reality of a hopelessly dysfunctional family, people who had deep troubles long before the postal police showed up with a search warrant. Elaine is alternately revealing and guarded but it's clear that her union with the popular Arnold was disturbed, emotionally, sexually and even in terms of practical matters like childrearing.

The family films show the deterioration of the sons' relationship with their mother whom they hotly blame for supposedly not standing behind their father. She is savagely abused verbally in scene after scene. Arnold remains a very passive, almost detached witness of his family's self-immolation as he and Jesse await possible trials and almost certain imprisonment. At one point Arnold appears to be nothing more than an onlooker as his sons tear into his wife who gives back a spirited defense.

The most sympathetic character is Arnold's brother who can not recall Arnold's admitted and hardly self-serving statement that he engaged in sex with him when they were little kids. The brother's anguish about the dissolution of the family is heartfelt and affecting. He truly is a victim.

Beyond all the family sturm und drang is the legal story and it's troubling. This case took place while accustations of child abuse in daycare facilities flew through the headlines. An expert debunker of many such cases is on screen to offer her views. She resolves nothing but plants a kernel of doubt as to the state's case. It is clear, however, that there were more than a few instances when the rule of law succumbed to a miasmic hysteria.

A greater injection of skepticism comes from the back-to-back explanations by two involved detectives as to how to question juveniles who might have been victimized by sexual predators. One has the right answer, the other a technique proven to lead to false accusations.

What followed the investigation was the loding of so many charges against each defendant as to constitute an extraordinary episode of overcharging. Overcharging - hitting a defendant with every conceivable charge and instance of its commission - is common. It gives police much credit for clearing cases and prosecutors leverage in getting a plea deal. In the case of the Friedmans the plethora of charges, as opposed to whether each or both committed heinous offenses, is simply unbelievable. As even the prosecutor admits, not one child was injured or crying when picked up by parents at the home/computer school yet some claimed to have been anally sodomized dozens of times. That's just not possible.

What "Capturing the Friedmans" shows is that when a defendant like Jesse recants after pleading to so many counts it's impossible to ever be sure whether the allocution required at the guilty plea hearing was genuine or, as Jesse later claims, the inevitable needed confession for the best deal he could get to avoid life in prison.

My view as an experienced lawyer is that both were guilty of SOME offenses against young boys. Jesse's protestations of innocence have the scent of the eternally unrepentant malefactor. But I can't prove it and neither could the documentarian. Arnold's starting point as a fervid consumer of kiddie porn magazines makes it easier to believe he graduated to the next step. But, again, whether a jury could have so concluded beyond a reasonable doubt is something we can never know. David's defense of his dad and brother is so emotional and projected with the weight of many repetitions over the years as to be worthless.

We will never know what actually happened. This glimpse into the lives of an affluent family whose home life was rocky before the accusations is haunting, troubling. It demands that we think about what we do in the vital and right but sometimes off-kilter attempts to protect the young and punish their violators.

9/10.

Compelling and frustrating

[FilmOtaku · 8/10 · 1 August 2004]

A few years ago, Andrew Jarecki set out making a documentary about children's party entertainers in New York. After spending a couple of weeks interviewing the city's number one birthday party clown, David Friedman, he realized that there was a more interesting story to tell, and pitched his original idea.

That story is Jarecki's painful and compelling documentary `Capturing the Friedmans', the story of a family that is torn apart by the family patriarch's (Arnold Friedman) penchant for child pornography who is caught receiving pornographic material in the mail. The ensuing investigation (or witch hunt, depending on your perspective) by the Nassau County police leads to two arrests (Arnold Friedman and his youngest son Jesse) for pedophilia, among many other things. The question posed is, based on the evidence presented, and the integrity of the investigation, are the subjects guilty?

The Friedman family are a fascinating study of the American family, and it is painful to watch them fall apart. Due to Arnold Friedman's fascination with film and video, there are an abundance of home movies shot by the family members themselves to assist Jarecki in showing us the `real' family; and what we see is not always pretty – especially once David, in an almost prophetic way, decides to document the family almost continuously after the arrests. In the footage other than the home videos, Jarecki provides us with thorough interviews with members of the investigative team, the judge who oversaw the charges, the family members and some of the alleged victims themselves. The further the investigation digs, the more precarious the evidence becomes, and the result is both frustrating and amazing; a documentary that doesn't give us all of the answers – mainly because the true answers may never be uncovered.

`Capturing the Friedmans' was an Oscar nominated documentary in a year that brought us several strong documentaries such as `Balseros' and `The Fog of War'. Andrew Jarecki provides us with enough food for thought to serve a seven course meal, and while the subject matter isn't pleasant, and is often depressing, it is a very compelling story and well presented film that makes the viewer look beyond the surface to achieve their own conclusion.

--Shelly

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.

An assault on our expectations of truth

[howard.schumann · 18 August 2003]

In 1987, Great Neck, Long Island, a comfortable upper middle class town, was rocked when Arnold Friedman, a respected high school teacher and his 18-year old son, Jessie were arrested on charges of molestation, rape, and sodomy against young boys to whom they taught computer classes in their basement. The documentary Capturing the Friedmans is a dark and disturbing look at the Friedman family (Arnold, sons David, Jessie, Seth and their mother Elaine) that compels us to sift through the ambiguous evidence and determine for ourselves the question of their guilt or innocence. "It's a combination of different versions of different stories", says first-time director Andrew Jarecki, who assembled video footage filmed by eldest son David, news accounts, still photos, and his own original material, and turned it into one of the most powerful films of the year.

The documentary was conceived by Mr. Jarecki after working on a piece about "Silly Billy" (David Friedman), the number one birthday clown in New York City. He found David to be a sad clown underneath the happy face and began to probe deeper, ultimately discovering the arrest, court case, and David's obsessive home videos documenting the family's deterioration. The first glimpse we get is a video of the happy family having fun at the beach. We are soon jolted by the revelation that Arnold collects child pornography magazines. After being alerted by the postal authorities, the police search his house and find a printout of a list of students he taught computer literacy. Former students are tracked down and interviewed, and Arnold and his son Jessie are accused of committing hundreds of acts of sex with their students. Listening to the Police Department, one might conclude that they are guilty, but as the film progresses doubts are raised about the validity of this conclusion.

We are told that there was a complete lack of physical evidence, that witnesses may have been hypnotized, possibly coerced to give information and that some students denied anything ever took place. I began to question. If there was all of this going on, why didn't any child speak up or complain of a stomachache and refuse to go back? Why did they re-enroll for the advanced course? Everyone is convincing on camera but we are left scratching our heads wondering what is fantasy and what is truth. Both Arnold and Jessie maintain their innocence, although Arnold admits to being a pedophile and molesting two boys at the family's summer home as well as his younger brother Howard. Though Arnold received a life sentence and Jessie was released after serving 13 of his 18-year sentence, it is equally plausible that they were completely innocent, somewhat innocent, or completely guilty.

While dissecting the inner workings of the family, Jarecki looks into the nature of memory to such an extent that Capturing the Friedmans is an assault on our expectation of truth. We expect the case to unfold with a clear identification of the perpetrators and victims, that some revelation of intimacy will arise from home videos of the family's unguarded moments, but our desires are never fulfilled. We are tantalized, still seeking the missing piece to the puzzle. Though we may never know about Arnold's or Jessie's guilt or innocence, to me the family was a disaster waiting to happen, having bottled up inside of them years of anguish and guilt. At the end, I felt tremendous sadness that we do not always have the emotional strength to act in our own best interests, to admit our vulnerability to each other, or operate in a way that nurtures our capacity to love. For the Friedmans, the legacy of this failure is a stigmatized life and painful memories that will remain forever.

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.

Unpleasant Theme, Great Documentary

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 9 February 2007]

In the 80's, in the upper-middle-class district of Great Neck, the awarded Professor Arnold Friedman is arrested for possession of some magazines of child pornography. A further investigation of the police discloses that apparently Arnold and his eighteen years old son Jesse molested his young students during their private computer class. Their Jewish family tears apart with the situation and the sentences of Arnold and Jesse.

"Capturing the Friedmans" deals with two very unpleasant themes, pedophilia and destruction of a family, and is a great documentary. The director Andrew Jarecki presents both sides of the contradictory story with a total exemption and neutrality. Arnold had filmed or photographed the major events of his family since he had been dating Elaine. In the 80's, camcorders were very popular and the Friedman's sons followed the costume of their father, recording their meetings and discussions. Andrew Jarecki discloses the privacy of the Friedmans and shows many ambiguous situations through the footages of their homemade videos and interviews. The viewers can witness the process of an apparently normal family being completely shattered. In the end, we see manipulation, ambiguity, contradiction in the case, but never the truth. Therefore it is impossible to judge and have opinion if Arnold and Jesse Friedman were guilty or not. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Na Captura dos Friedmans" ("Capturing the Friedmans")

Provocative, Compelling and Disturbing

[itsonelouder · 10/10 · 31 January 2004]

Based on double DVD. Sort of a SPOILER, although there is no plot or ending to be "spoiled." Of interest here is the journey, not the destination. A "you decide" type of film.

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 the 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.

A brilliant and very intriguing documentary if somewhat biased

[DyanaKap · 7/10 · 16 July 2013]

I watched this documentary a couple of years ago as it was on UK TV, on first viewing I was horrified at the stuff that transpired about this family, in my mind Arnold and son were guilty, end of. But as a big fan of documentaries that deal with the human psyche, I re- watched it a couple of days ago, I probably paid more attention to it this time and by the end of the documentary I felt SO frustrated because I had NO idea who was telling the truth and who wasn't, my opinion changed completely, I did consider the possibility that maybe public hysteria had sent two innocent men to prison, although I absolutely despise paedophiles and abusers, I wasn't certain after my second viewing if these men had indeed committed those heinous crimes. I went to bed that night and was unable to sleep, I was THAT engrossed in the story and THAT curious, I wanted to make my mind up, reach my own verdict, so I did a bit more research the next day and some more reading on the matter and I finally reached my own conclusion. My personal view is now that the film maker was definitely biased, the comments he makes in the documentary and the interviews he presents were carefully selected, he tries to show Jesse as an innocent person trapped in this scandal, paying for his father's ('minor') sins and omits loads of details about the evidence used to incarcerate him AND Arnold. But after reading on the case I think he is as guilty as sin, his personality as described by the psychologist who analysed him trying to work on his defence fits perfectly with the way a person who was abused as a child by a parent and with a distorted view of the world, of what's right or wrong, would be like, once grown up. Obviously, he is a victim too, because his actions as a young man were only the result of his twisted upbringing. For those of you interested in the full picture, Jesse's case was recently reviewed (June 2013) and you can read the full transcript with all the details of this case, evidence and statements provided here: http://www.nassaucountyny.gov/agencies/DA/NewsReleases /2013/documents/Conviction-Integrity-Review-People-v- Jesse-Friedman-FINAL.pdf

All in all, I found this documentary thrilling, the only people I felt for were Arnold's wife, Elaine who had to endure the bullying behaviour from her husband and sons most of her life and Arnold's brother, Howard, who seemed sincere and well meaning and who was a victim too. David, the older brother was extremely irritating in his blind loyalty towards his father and brother, I kept shaking my head at how intense and stubborn he was in denying anything inappropriate at all ever happened, even when Arnold himself had already confessed, putting full blame on to his long suffering mother. I guess you can understand his upset, but I wonder if anyone at all, after watching this documentary, would really hire him as a clown for their children's parties. Who would want him around their kids?! Even if HE himself didn't commit a crime, with his family history who would want to take the risk? Why did he choose that specific profession? It is unfortunate that he would choose to work around little kids. Another thing that I was left wondering was... Why did Arnold apparently only abuse the youngest son? Did he ever try it with Seth or David? If so, could they have blocked it out of their minds too like Howard did? This documentary definitely makes you think and for that I give it 7 stars, I would have given it more if the maker had not been SO biased in favour of Jesse, and Arnold to some extent. A must see!

A remarkable film

[relwes · 10/10 · 3 February 2005]

Capturing the Friedmans is an extraordinary documentary about a family collapsing, when the otherwise respectable Arnold Friedman is discovered in possession of child-pornography. Subsequently he and his son Jesse are charged with hundreds and hundreds of counts of child-molestation. This is a fascinating, tragic, and complex subject for a documentary, and this film is brilliantly made.

It contains no narrative voice, nor does is seek to come to any firm conclusions. The story is developed through interviews with the people involved (members of the family, lawyers, police, the judge, former victims and their families, relevant experts,...) and these various characters often give sharply conflicting versions of events, so much so that the viewer is left seriously wondering how much truth there ever was in the charges against Arnold and Jesse. At the very least the police investigation seems to have been conducted with disastrous ineptitude. But if this is a miscarriage of justice, it's not a clear-cut one: Arnold really was a paedophile, albeit a very likable one, and he may, or he may not have abused Jesse as a child, (subject to whether you believe Jesse or his lawyer). It's the desire to know the truth (which we never can), and to separate out these tortuous issues, which really sucks the viewer in.

However what makes Capturing the Friedmans so remarkable and unique is that long before director Andrew Jarecki took an interest in the case, David Friedman (another of Arnold's sons) was already there in the thick of it, filming everything. Through his camcorder we intrude on the privacy of a family in crisis: for instance we really see the unbearable strain it has to endure as Arnold prepares for his trial. Later we see him bravely enjoying his last night of freedom. The family is blown apart in front of our eyes, you won't have seen anything like it.

Throughout the film I had the feeling that even without the child-abuse charges, a film about the Friedmans would still have been worth watching. Certainly they were a interestingly dysfunctional group anyway: take the unsatisfactory relationship Elaine (Arnold's wife) had towards her husband and sons. All the characters are lively and charismatic individuals, and in happier circumstances you feel this could have been a funny and charming film: this adds to the sense of loss though, because this film is neither funny nor charming. Whatever the truth about the allegations of abuse, this film is the uncompromising and riveting human story of a family being dragged through a living hell.

Didn't hold my attention

[slevine292 · 6/10 · 12 April 2022]

The story is sad and very tragic for all those involved, but it was very slow moving, very hard to stay engrossed in, but I did it because I had to see how it ended.

The way it ended was with David living in pure denial, even after reading his dad's transcript. He treated his mom like shit and never seemed to be able to grasp that it was possible his father wasn't sexually interested in his mother because he was more interested in young boys. To which his father freely admitted. David couldn't see anything good in his mom and while she wasn't mother of the year, she still deserved respect because after all, she was married to Arnold and had much more knowledge than her children will ever know.

My respect goes to Seth for not being interviewed and keeping his life private. David however, he will never rest believing his father could be guilty. Jesse will forever live with the guilty heart he carried because of his father. I'm grateful he was able to see his mother after he was released from prison.

While, this movie didn't really capture all of the Friedmans; it did capture the intensity of their criminal case. What a disturbing captivating watch!

[ironhorse_iv · 8/10 · 5 June 2016]

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?'

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

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.

gripping but frustrating documentary

[Buddy-51 · 3 April 2004]

Just one of the many outstanding documentaries of 2003, 'Capturing the Friedmans' is a riveting, depressing and ultimately quite frustrating account of a pedophile and the effect he has on his community and family.

In 1984, Arnold Friedman, a highly respected husband, parent and teacher living with his wife and three sons in an affluent suburb of northern Long Island, was arrested on more than a hundred charges of child molestation, purportedly committed while he and his youngest son, Jesse, were running a computer class (for boys only apparently) out of the family's home. Jesse, 18 at the time, was arrested and charged with multiple counts of sodomy as well. 'Capturing the Friedmans' looks back not only at the trial and the circumstances surrounding it, but attempts to come to grips with how all of this affected each of the family members and the community at large. By combining present day interviews featuring several of the family members as well as some of the law enforcement officials involved in the case with glimpses of the family's life caught on film and videotape both before and after the arrest, director Andrew Jarecki creates a fascinating view of a family and a community torn asunder by crisis. We witness how each member of the family reacts to the situation. The older sons close ranks and remain faithful to their father while the mother attempts to distance herself from the crisis at hand. We see the denial and the enabling that are common in situations such as this one, as well as the way in which deep-seated and hitherto hidden feelings of anger and resentment can suddenly break forth and rise to the surface. Because the Friedmans' sons were obsessed with videotaping the events of their lives, the filmmakers had a plethora of highly revealing clips to choose from in weaving their grim but insightful tapestry.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of 'Capturing the Friedmans' is that, even though the filmmakers acknowledge Arnold to be a pedophile, they obviously have grave doubts that the crimes for which he and his son were ultimately convicted ever really occurred. And, indeed, the scope, elaborateness and longevity of the alleged sexual abuse and the lack of prior reporting by any of the children who were the alleged victims do raise some troubling questions of credibility and plausibility in the viewer's mind. In fact, this whole case has eerie and disturbing echoes of the highly publicized McMartin Preschool trial, which was happening at roughly the same time. Even the people the filmmakers interview often contradict one another, leaving the audience not knowing who is telling the truth and who is lying - either deliberately or, perhaps, subconsciously. It is this air of inconclusiveness that accounts for the viewer's feeling of frustration at the end. Although the moviemakers' sympathies seem to lie more with the family than with the court, we can't help thinking that maybe no one is really telling the whole truth and that perhaps the reality, as is so often the case in life, lies somewhere in between.

If nothing else, 'Capturing the Friedmans' serves as a reminder of just how messy and complicated an issue child molestation can be. With emotions running so high on both sides of the issue and the consequences so devastating for all the parties involved, the film at least shows that convictions in such cases must be pursued with the utmost rationality, rigor and care.

Whatever the truth in this case may be, the fact remains, though, that Arnold Friedman's actions led to the disintegration of a family and an undeniable human tragedy.

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)

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I don't know what to think

[ladysamfox · 9/10 · 9 March 2006]

This film has been stuck in my head for days. I feel so confronted and exposed-I am forced to realize how much I am brainwashed by media. See, I wanted the end to be like an episode of NYPD blue or something. All solved. I wanted a clear answer to what happened. I wanted to be led to some sort of conclusion.

But the greatness of this film is that it does not do your thinking for you. You sit there, uncomfortable-watching a sad and painful and dark dark dark situation play out...and you are left wondering.

What really happened? I want to say that i know the three friedman boys were abused by their father-based on what? instinct? intuition? or am I just a thoughtless lemming, carried on a wave of hysteria? child abuse? or witch hunt?

An understanding

[samanthaniedospial · 6/10 · 7 December 2011]

The story of the Friedmans is one that requires an understanding of the people involved. They are the ones who drive the story till the end. The way in which their confusion and deception of the situation, seeming to belong to the eye view only, is in any case a he said she said tale. The facts on both sides pulls you back and forth unaware of where you stand. When the Friedman family, with their crazy antics, believes what they think is to be right and to hold no other truth to the facts of the case, it makes you wonder who are these people? Where did they come from? It is a surprise until the end. A moderate and frustrating tale, Capturing the Friedmans requires much attention with little thought.

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.