 |
|
|
 |
|
| 8/6/2003 |
| Capturing The Friedmans |
A Movie Review
by Wes Bennett
|
“Capturing the Friedmans” is a complex and fascinating documentary that ranks as one of the year’s best. The film works on many levels including narrative documentary, a crime investigation, and an expose of the failings of the United States judicial system. It is also one of the most harrowing and heartbreaking films I’ve seen about the destruction of an American family and is above all a testament to how elusive the nature of truth can be.
The film began as a short about New York City kiddie-party entertainers, of which David Friedman, the eldest son of Arnold and Elaine Friedman, remains the Top Clown. But director Jarecki shifted his focus when David began dropping clues about a tragic family secret, which, from Thanksgiving 1987 through the spring of '88, had actually been inescapable news in the state of New York.
Then-56-year-old Arnold Friedman, a beloved and award-winning schoolteacher, was busted for sending and receiving magazines in which young boys were pictured engaging in sexual acts.
Prosecutors also discovered Arnold was teaching computer classes in the house and began contacting students, some of whom said that Arnold and 18-year-old Jesse, the youngest son, had raped them in Jesse's bedroom and in a bathroom. There was no physical evidence, only the testimony of students, some of whom would later insist they said what they believed the cops wanted to hear, and others who would say they recalled the assaults only when placed under hypnosis.
All of these events and questions are recounted in the film's opening minutes, yet the story continues to develop and deepen in surprising, suspenseful ways.
The cases never went to trial so we are denied an organized and official review of the facts. All we have is the after-the-fact interviews, TV news coverage of the events and the Friedmans' own stash of home movies, videos and audio tapes which Jarecki masterfully combines.
The question of guilt is built around one central question: who is lying? The only thing more unbelievable than the shocking allegations and inflated charges is the “mass Hysteria”/ “community of victims” theory that supposes that kids and the community just made these things up. The film presents a lot of conflicting information.
Subsequent to the arrests, no one questioned the detectives' interviewing methods or the fact that, in at least one case, an adolescent's "hidden memory" was coerced through hypnosis. One father remembers the aggressiveness of the detectives: "They came in and said 'We know something happened.' .
Then there is “Expert” Debbie Nathan’s "culture of victimization" theory. Families who are not involved in the scandal are excluded, and there is competition between impacted families about who was more traumatized. ("My son was sodomized six times. Yours was only sodomized five times.") The social climate, added to the national hysteria about child molestation in the 1980’s, suggests that the charges against Jesse and Arnie were inflated. But just because the charges were inflated and some of the witnesses are not credible doesn’t mean that something didn’t happen.
The “victimization theory” is just ridiculous when you think about it. What kind of a person would want to claim that there son had been sodomized more times than someone else as a means to gain status in the community? Wouldn’t people just say, “I’m left out of the victim community. Whatever. My son wasn’t sodomized at all, we’re gonna go play football now you freaks.” People don’t just fabricate rape charges.
The lawyers, especially Jesse's, show some signs of being incompetent. In the end, while one can reasonably argue that Arnold, the admitted pedophile, got what he deserved, young Jesse may have gotten railroaded into serving time for a crime he did not commit.
But it’s not that simple. His lawyer claimed that he confessed to rape in private. Later Jesse denies this. Then Jessie says that the only way his lawyer would let him plead guilty and avoid what he thought was going to be an inevitable life sentence was by confessing. It just comes down to who you believe.
The way the information is given to us is both frustrating and incredibly entertaining. We want to know the truth but the film doesn’t give it to us. Maybe because it can’t. But we just don’t know.
Jarecki’s narrative structure seems to be almost totally built around willful deception, precisely so he can make it almost impossible to accept anything with certainty. When he temporarily withholds information from the audience such as the sexuality of Arnold’s brother Howard or the profession of Arnold’s son David until it can have maximum shock value, it makes us feel like we are being manipulated.
Once the filmmaker starts playing tricks and withholding information, you just can’t be sure what’s real and what’s not. Are we not shown more credible witness because there are none or because the filmmakers didn’t want us to see them?
Just the facts and the interviews would be fascinating enough, but the vintage home videos really elevate the film to the next level, giving us amazing insight into the character’s of the family while they are under pressure.
David builds up a wall of denial against the outside world, insisting that nothing happened and that anyone who says it did is a traitor. Jesse pleads his innocence with a detached sarcasm and smile that makes it hard to believe he would be capable of such heinous acts. Arnold, the nerdy patriarch, moves through the footage like a ghost, numb and ashamed, admitting guilt through silence.
Elaine’s passive-aggressive rage from a marriage built on lies, is slowly unleashed by the incident. She has resented being the outsider in a house full of men for years, but the revelation of her husband's sins washes away all restraint. She won't say Arnold is innocent because she just doesn't know - this instantly makes her an enemy in David's eyes.
In the end what we experience is a challenge to our sense that the truth is ultimately knowable if you just put in an organized, scientific effort. It also illustrates the flaw of human perception - people are not only capable of seeing what they want to see, but of embracing what they fear. This is evidenced by the fact that so many people believe different things after seeing this film.
No matter what you conclude about the guilt of the Friedman’s, Jarecki has created a riveting, thought-provoking film. It’s content is potent and much, much more dramatic than the recent “SpellBound”. Really this is a unique film, one of a kind that may never be duplicated. Admittedly I do not see that many documentaries but would have to be mention it in the same class as other great documentaries like “Hoop Dreams” and “Bowling For Columbine”.
One of the year’s best: a solid A.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| "We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it." |
- Jack Nicholson
A Few Good Men
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Distributed Beers
|
| 5 |
Sierra Nevada Bigfoot |
| 4 |
Guinness Draught |
| 3 |
Newcastle Brown Ale |
| 2 |
Bass Pale Ale |
| 1 |
Samuel Adams Boston Lager |
|
|
|
|
|
