User reviews

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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 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.

Wow! I saw this film over the weekend and I completely agree that the reality is much more powerful than fiction. It was one of the few times I was ever in a movie in NYC and when the credits rolled people did not get up and run for the exit -- just sat in their seats, almost stunned, instead. I have not been able to stop thinking about this film since Saturday night. I don't want to say anything about what is IN the film, but if you are wondering whether or not to see this film the answer is, "Don't miss it. You'll never forget this movie, ever."

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.

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.

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.