Simply A Masterpiece

Highly Overrated But Still Good

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

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?'

Even though I have yet to finish watching the whole film I will write a few thoughts on where I am currently.I have tried to convince myself that this is a regular suburban family but based on the evidence and testimony that I have seen so far, I cant help but be led to believe that this may in fact be the most delinquent family I have ever seen. How can Arnies(I believe that is the main characters name) wife, after everything that was uncovered about her husband stick around after Arnie admitted to molesting children? And how can these people admit guilt in court and still try to maintain their innocence? I really cannot wrap my head around this family. The more I see the more disgusted I get. If this was not a class assignment to watch the film I would never have considered to watch it. Perhaps once I finish the movie I will have a different opinion but for right now I am dreading having to watch the rest of it.

Entertaining story, and even good film making. However, Andrew Jarecki should be ashamed of the biased point of view he MANIPULATED in this film. Is this a case of one Jewish person (Jarecki) defending a Jewish family (Friedmans)? As a new yorker myself who is not Jewish, I understand how Jewish folks stick together...But this is crossing the line and is an absolute disgrace! Jarecki left out ABSOLUTELY INCRIMINATING evidence, footage, and persons involved in this. Jesse and Arnold are without a shadow of a doubt GUILTY, and this film makes an unethical attempt to raise that doubt and draw sympathy for these predators and monsters.How dare you defend these two individuals!!! Jarecki is a FRAUD for this. There was a 3rd predator who was to testify against Jesse & Arnold about the abuse, there was an overwhelming amount of child pornography that was found (NOT A STACK OF MAGAZINES THAT JARECKI DOWNPLAYED THIS INTO). Jarecki talked to 3-5 victims out of 17 (admitted by Jesse Friedman). Jarecki left out Jesse Friedmans total admission to everything in an interview from jail with Geraldo Rivera as well. You can check it out for yourself, but don't for a minute let Jarecki fool you that these monsters are anything but sick, sick individuals who destroyed dozens of lives. Here is a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjYWOZgMbHQ&feature=related

This startling documentary is disturbing in about 50 different ways, from the subject matter, the fractured personalities on show, the emotional numbness, delusion, ability to argue and defame, mass hysteria, media hysteria, an actual Jewish witch hunt, horror revelations and the fact that there is a camera rolling through the whole catastrophe. And then there is the parents, so peculiar and almost bewilderingly icy to each other, or reacting with either fury or affection, pleasant then heartless.... as this horror story unfolded, it became obvious that there was nothing obvious... such is the dilemma and enigma of this knotted family and the avalanche of scrutiny that befalls them... oh and some sort of hypnosis that each participant or even town official seems to fall into. People invent things and regale them like facts, a son is jailed for crimes he did not do, the father admits the worst... it is a maze of shocking revelations. And so sad. Poignant photos and home movies of their seemingly idyllic 1950s and 60s, then hideous sexual molestation and intellectual brainwashing. How the hell did this film ever get made let alone this story evolve? You must see this film and even at the credits you are not sure what you just saw and heard. And one son becomes a party clown. Yes fact is stranger than fiction because if this was just a movie it would be unbelievable. As fact is is even more so.