Capturing the Friedmans (2003) 9/10
In 1984, Arnold Friedman is arrested for child pornography. While searching his home, the police discover that Friedman is a teacher, and has computer classes at home. Soon he is under suspicion of molesting a large number of students, and suspicion falls upon his youngest son Jesse as well. (Documentary)
Capturing the Friedmans challenges our ideas of what we know, and of what conclusions we can draw. 1984 was the height of the McMartin daycare case, and there was a lot of hysteria about the evils of child care and the dread thing that could happen to children.
But Arnold Friedman was not the innocent victim of a bizarre accusation. He was a pedophile with child pornography hidden in his home. The suspicions cast on him seem to have been based in fact. But were they?
The Friedmans were a family fascinated by videography. The documentarians were blessed with access to a large number of homemade family videos taken before and during the case. We watch as a family disintegrates before our eyes. One brother, Seth, declines to appear in the film. David, the eldest, believes his father is utterly innocent, even of pedophilia, regardless of any evidence. David is furious; with his mother, with the media, with everyone. The youngest, Jesse, is simply resigned and sad.
The film finds a very few of Friedman’s accusers who are willing to talk. Some stand by their stories and some do not. One young adult tells of the enormous pressure put on him as a child to confirm that Arnold molested him, and finally caving in. An investigator speaks, in all seriousness, of how important it is to pressure children and put words in their mouths. He seems sincerely to believe that this is best for the children.
Yet there is something wrong here. There is no way of reading this as tragic victims versus outrageous accusations. The uncomfortable perch is between somewhat guilty parties (at least in Arnold’s case) versus accusations with a grain or more of truth. The accusations are fueled by, but not an invention of, hysteria. They are blown up, expanded upon, and nurtured, until their scope is beyond belief.
While this happens to the community, what happens to the Friedmans? Each deals alone with anger, shock, and terror. They don’t come together as a family; they shatter, and to a great extent, they remain shattered twenty years later.
This isn’t a comfortable film, nor is it a lurid one. It asks us to look at what we see and simply, calmly, think. It is remarkable how difficult that is. For some people in the film (and indeed, for some people who have reviewed it), it remains out of reach.
It was really rough, this film. I understand that if you watch the extras the truth becomes clearer. I find that hard to believe, but I also couldn’t get myself to devote the energy. The feature was draining enough.
I’d be interesting in hearing more about the extras. I Tivo’ed off of Showtime or something, so I didn’t have access. I think I would have watched. The last fifteen minutes, where you start to learn some things, were more “enjoyable” (bad word).
Good review. I saw this on cable, so I didn’t have access to any extras, either, but I’d like to see them at some point. It was a very thoughtful film.
And, leaving aside all the legal issues and the surrounding shitstorm, what an odd family. Obviously, there’s no such thing as a “normal” family, but the interpersonal relationships among the Friedmans seemed especially peculiar. I couldn’t help but wonder, sadly, if that served to enflame suspicions about them.
They didn’t strike me as all that odd. Your basic nebbishy Jewish Long Island family (on the surface; underneath they were a total freak show).
Now that you mention it, I wonder if there wasn’t some low-level anti-Semitism involved. Not in the community, which is itself very Jewish, but perhaps in the media reaction, which might very well have been “look at these weirdoes.”
For example, the reaction to Jesse doing the comedy routine right before sentencing; to me this was a rather typical deflection-through-comedy. And upon examination, that sort of defense is probably much more common in Jewish culture.