Reviews
Capturing the Friedmans (2003)
Provocative, Compelling and Disturbing
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.
This Is Spinal Tap (1984)
One of the best comedy films (about ANYTHING) ever!
INTRODUCTION: In 1982, an aging (40ish) English band is embarking on its 1st American tour in 6 years to promote a new album, "Smell the Glove," which is not quite ready for distribution due to dispute over its lurid, sexist cover art. Spinal Tap has had its commercial and popularity ups-and-downs since the mid 1960s. Although known as one of England's loudest heavy-metal bands, their catalogue actually includes a wide range of musical styles. The 3 primary musicians include guitarist and lead vocalist David St. Hubbins (Michael McKean), lead guitarist and auxillary vocalist Nigel Tufnel (Christopher Guest), and bass guitarist and background vocalist Derek Smalls (Harry Shearer).
David is a somewhat pompous, pseudo-intellectual who likes ruffles, velvet and satin stage attire and has a rather pushy New-Age girlfriend (Jeanine exerts a major cosmic influence on David's life and creates a wedge between him and childhood friend Nigel). Nigel is a confused chain-smoking, gum-chewing, accomplished guitarist with strong juvenile tendencies, a love of kilts, and a knack for inane invention. Derek prefers a studs-and-leather stage presence but is perhaps the most intelligent of the lot and assumes the role of realist and peacemaker.
Filmmaker and fan Martin DiBergi (Rob Reiner) accompanies them on this tour to create a documentary of the experience, but Spinal Tap will later accuse Marty of making a "hatchet job" by portraying them in an unfavorable and unflattering light. Marty's film does tend to focus on the historic failings of the band, their apparent waning popularity, and the few(?) times on tour when they couldn't find the stage; had cancellations, production failures, embarrassments, and lapses in competence; bickered amongst themselves; acted like prima donnas; sported their cold sores; and couldn't meaningfully or coherently answer his interview questions.
The film is almost entirely improvised from a skeletal plan. The comedy is subtly and richly layered with humorous but realistic character portrayals/development, malapropisms, double entendres, and numerous sight gags. No laugh track needed or wanted here! These guys are not only brilliant improvisors, but they are also fine musicians capable of performing a serious-but-quirky, full-length concert (1993 "Return of Spinal Tap" concert/comedy video). They really have written and performed all the wonderful lyrics and arrangements by themselves. Classics like "Big Bottom" and "Sex Farm."
REVIEWER CONTEXT: 48-year-old female (a scientist and not in the entertainment or music business) who saw the movie for the first time (!) in October 2000 and who loves rock-and-roll (particularly the 1960s and 1970s "British Invasion" bands) but is not attuned to raucous "heavy metal" sounds or to outrageously gross personas. Comedy preferences include the Monty Python features, the Pink Panther series, A Fish Called Wanda, The Birdcage, Best in Show, etc. But, for me, THIS goes to Number 1 (for now anyway).
Yes, it grows on you like an untreated fungus. What I knew in advance of 1st viewing was just that it was supposed to be a funny satire of a "heavy metal" band done by actors. Note that you probably will need several viewings (without interruption) to fully appreciate the humor and to become hooked, but you will love it more and get more out of it with each subsequent viewing.
THE PRODUCT(S): The new VHS tape adds 10 minutes of out-take footage, including the "Bitch School" music video. The new DVD includes an audio overlay for the film itself (ad-libbed, in-character commentary ("defense") by the 3 principle musicians), about 70 minutes of out-take footage (presented sequentially like the film), a DiBergi update, 4 music videos (excluding Bitch School), other promotional clips, film trailers, advertisements and interviews. It caused me to buy a DVD player.
There is also a 1993 VHS "Return of Spinal Tap," which is a real London sell-out concert from July, 1992, interspersed (approximately every 3 songs) with comedy inserts and interviews; a 4.5 hour bootleg tape of the original movie; 2 real CDs (1984 soundtrack and 1992's Break Like the Wind); a recent book (Spinal Tap Companion by Karl French) with transcripts, lyrics, and other delights; and older materials (laserdiscs, CDRoms, DVDs, VHS) that are out-of-print.