#capturingthefriedmans

[a-bigjust]

Capturing the Friedmans (2003) ★★★★★★★★☆☆

[pastfutureforeverclub]

Jesse Friedman

CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS

JESSE FRIEDMAN

Capturing the Friedmans (2003)

            Beliefs in Jesse Friedmans innocence grew when Jesse stated that he only pled guilty in court so he could avoid spending the rest of his life in prison. Jesse was aged 18 when he was imprisoned. He served 13 years and was released in 2001.

            Jesse is now married and wants to have children. Jesse did an interview with ABC News and revisited his former family home where the crimes took place. The house looks different and the brown 1970s look is no more.

            Director Andrew Jarecki purposely left out evidence from the documentary to bring doubt to Jesse’s guilt. In the documentary, he didn’t show any photos that had incriminating evidence.

In 1989 Jesse was interviewed by Geraldo Rivera and admitted that he and his father were guilty he went into great detail. Jesse admitted his father assaulted him and had assaulted children in the computer classes. Jarecki was aware of this interview and purposely left out footage and didn’t mention it in his documentary.

            Ross Goldstein, Jesse’s close friend was arrested for abuse and was Jesse’s accomplice, this also wasn’t mentioned in the documentary.

            During the 2003 Oscars, two victims wrote a public letter maintaining that they were in fact abused. There are still victims who maintain they were assaulted by Arnold and Jesse and these victims were left out of the documentary.

            Arnold’s brother Howard has come out publicly to admit that both Arnold and Jesse were both guilty of sexually assaulting children. Howard said that Arnold told him that Jesse was guilty of the crimes he was convicted of.

#capturingthefriedmans #arnoldfriedman #jessefriedman

[pastfutureforeverclub]

CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS

CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS (2003)

            Capturing the Friedmans is a well-known documentary about an American family, the father Arnold is a paedophile, he is married to Elaine and the couple have three sons David, Seth (who didn’t feature in the documentary) and Jesse. The documentary explores child sex abuse charges against Arnold as well as his son Jesse. It also heavily features home videos. It questions whether Arnold and his son are actually guilty of child abuse charges.

            Arnold Friedman is a convicted paedophile who was arrested when he ordered a paedophile magazine from the Netherlands. It was alleged he owned twenty child abuse magazines. Arnold pled guilty and admitted he has assaulted at least a dozen children.

            Arnold told his lawyer that he had assaulted his brother Howard aged 8, in the documentary Howard says he doesn’t recall it happening.

            Arnold was a teacher who held computer classes for children during the 1980s. His young adult son Jesse also helped with these classes and the two men were both convicted of sexually assaulting young boys in those classes. Jesse’s attorney stated that Jesse told him his father abused him growing up (which Jesse also admitted in court). Arnold and Jesse both pled guilty and were imprisoned.

            Arnold’s son David works as a clown in New York entertaining children when director Andrew Jarecki met him.   Arnold is definitely guilty of being a paedophile but the documentary and viewers question whether Jesse was really guilty of the crimes.

            Arnold’s wife, Elaine, said that Arnold enjoyed looking at pictures of young boys to “meditate” and said that he confessed to her that he had assaulted one boy. His wife Elaine was the only woman he had been with and he didn’t want to marry her and didn’t enjoy being intimate with her. Arnold treated intimacy with his wife as ‘work’. The father and the three sons held a strong disdain for Elaine and she described the group as a gang that she wasn’t part of. She said her sons had an idolized saint-like view of their father. Elaine is not innocent, as she enabled her sons to remain under the same roof as Arnold, knowing that he had a history of child abuse, which put her children and other children in danger. When Arnold was imprisoned, she divorced him and started a new life for herself and remarried.

Arnold took his own life in prison in 1995 so Jesse can receive his insurance money.

#capturingthefriedmans #arnoldfriedman #jessefriedman

[jayeldundasresearch]

Capturing The Friedmans

What is the truth? According to the Oxford dictionary the truth is defined as 'that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality'. Documentaries are a genre of of film and television that Rae dedicated to providing their audience with the truth. Except it's not always as black and white as that. Many filmmakers set out to record a film about a certain topic, thinking that by using primary sources and doing their research thoroughly they will be able to establish the facts about the particular topic. Unfortunately, they often end up being confronted with various problems which make the 'truth' much more difficult to establish. The biggest problem is that people perceive reality differently meaning that a filmmaker could have five completely different versions of one story, and each of those versions will be true to each source. By considering each version thoroughly, a filmmaker may be able to piece together something that is close to what the real truth is but its not always the case. The filmmaker then has a choice to make regarding their film: how do they present each version in an objective manner without causing mayhem between the sources? It's no easy feat. Secondly, there is the issue of people lying. What possesses people to lie is something that will never be uncovered but they do, especially if they have something to hide. In films such as Capturing the Friedmans and The Imposter, lying is a central element as in both films, the truth is impossible to establish as every person involved seems to be withholding key information, sabotaging their version of what really took place, or lying about what they know. Another problem that can confront filmmakers is the lack of hard evidence. In most scenarios all a filmmaker has to work with is information they are given by their sources and through their own research. Without evidence the truth can never be discovered. In fact, rarely is there any footage from the time of the event that is being documented, so a filmmaker can't even turn to that to look for missing information. But it is this very problem that makes Capturing the Friedmans so interesting. Capturing the Friedmans is 2003 documentary from filmmaker Andrew Jarecki. It began as a simple film about the profession of clowns, but after meeting clown David Friedman, Jarecki stumbled upon a remarkable story about paedophila. During the 1980's David Friedman's younger brother, Jesse, and his father, Arnold, were arrested and investigated for paedophila. After many years Arnold Friedman admitted to being guilty and subsequently sentenced to imprisonment. It was after Arnold's confession that the court also found Jesse guilty and he spent thirteen years in prison, eventually being let out on the impression that he was innocent and wrongfully imprisoned. However, even to this day the inquiry into Jesse's innocence continues. The question being asked is how close do I think this film came to uncovering the truth? Honestly, I don't believe it came close to truth at all, but rather made the case more complicated and suspicious than ever. I mentioned before about lack of evidence and a lack of footage being a problem that can confront filmmakers when looking for the truth, but this film strangely had no issue with lack of footage, quite the opposite. Over the years, the Friedman family had recorded countless home videos of themselves as the boys grew up, and the amount of footage from the time of the alleged sexual perversion of young boys is astonishing. Yet, still the truth cannot be found. It's hardly surprising that there is no footage or evidence of any assaults, but you would imagine that in hours worth of video footage there would be some indication of what might have went on behind closed doors. In regard to this situation, I don't think the truth will ever be wholly uncovered. As well as the footage, there are so many lies being strung throughout this film. No one ever offers the whole truth, every individual is holding back something, lying about what really went on. Nothing that is said seems to add up, and subsequently it makes every family member involved look shifty. I actually believe that this includes the director. I think he knows more than he shares in the film, after all the time he spent interviewing the family members, watching the endless footage, and researching the allegations, I honestly believe that he found out more than the film lets on. Whatever that is however, I can't say but it wouldn't be the only time that Jarecki has produced a false/deceiving documentary having been the producer of the controversial 2012 film, Catfish. When Capturing the Friedmans first debuted, the response was extremely positive. The audiences seemed to be enchanted by this extraordinary tale and the way it was told, so much so that it was ranked the seventh best film of 2003 on the rottentomatoes.com website, and was voted fifth most popular film on the Channel 4 programme The 50 Greatest Documentaries of All Time in 2005. When it premiered in 2003 it won the Grand Jury award at the Sundance Film Festival. All in all, audiences and critics loved this film. "an extraordinary new documentary... a meditation on perversion and truth and one of the most heartbreaking films ever made about an American family." David Denby, The New Yorker, 2003 "A vividly personal, devastating story of a family hopelessly compromised years before it was scapegoated for crimes that it may or may not have have committed... Watching it, one hardly knows whether to apologise for barging in or beg for more details. I suspect Jarecki felt the same way and his ambivalence makes the film all the more compelling for mirroring one of the central problems of a media-saturated, voyeuristic public culture - too much information, not enough truth." Ella Taylor, Los Angeles Weekly, 2003 "Watch it if you get a chance, its a powerful documentary" Forum member earsnot, Digital Spy, 2007 "Just one of the many outstanding documentaries of 2003, `Capturing the Friedmans' is a riveting, depressing and ultimately quite frustrating account of a pedophile and the effect he has on his community and family." Roland E. Zwik, IMDb, 2004 However, not everyone was quite so impressed. Writing a review for the LA times back in 2003, Kenneth Turan doesn't hold back his dislike of the film saying, "'Capturing the Friedmans' a frustrating and unhappy new documentary... this unfortunate film ends up both more disingenuous than it wants to admit and more awkward than it can easily acknowledge." That is only a snippet of his review, but it continues much in the same manner. Overall, most people love the film despite its content. As for what is the truth about the Friedmans? No one seems decided. "This access should answer most of our questions but does not. It particularly clouds the issue of Jesse's defense. It would appear--but we cannot be sure--that he was innocent but pleaded guilty under pressure from the police and his own lawyer, who threaten him with dire consequences and urge him to make a deal. Given the hysteria of the community at the time, it seems possible he was an innocent bystander caught up in the moment." Forum member earsnot, Digital Spy, 2007 "... during the course if the film you sway many times from thinking the father is innocent to guilty." Forum member jackisback, Digital Spy 2005 "All the way through I was saying he did it, then he didn't then he did, then he didn't..." Forum member DaisyBumbleroot, Digital Spy, 2003 David Denby of The New Yorker says it best perhaps, "In the end, the filmmakers capture the Friedmans but not, alas, the truth, which keeps slipping into the distance like a silvery fish, it quivers and flashes, but we can't quite see it in its entirety." There is one point on which most people seem to agree on, and that is the disintegration of the Friedman family unit. Described as "haunting, troubling", "an undeniable tragedy", "a fascinating character story and a devastating one to watch", and "the true destruction of the Friedman family", everyone seems to believe that watching this family fall apart is the possibly the saddest story of all in the film. Whatever the truth may be this is still a fascinating film to watch. The subject may be a tough one but sometimes the hardest topics bring the most powerful stories, and Capturing the Friedmans is no exception. The Guardian (2003) When the family snaps [Online] Available from www.theguardian.com/film/2003/jun/15/edinburghfilmfestival2003.edinburghfilmfestival Accessed March 5, 2015 The New Yorker (2003) In the basement [Online] Available from www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/06/02/in-the-basement Accessed March 5, 2015 LA Weekly (2003) Decapitating the Friedmans [Online] Available from www.laweekly.com/film/decapitating-the-friedmans-2136550 Accessed March 5, 2015 LA Times (2003) Cameras on, judgements off [Online] Available from articles.latimes.com/2003/jun/13/entertainment/et-turan13 Accessed March 5, 2015 Digital Spy (2007) Capturing the Friedmans [Online] Available from forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=679476 Accessed March 5, 2015 IMDb (2003-2005) Reviews and ratings for Capturing the Friedmans [Online] Available from www.imdb.com/title/tt0342172/reviews Accessed March 5, 2015

[erinmayeresearch]

Capturing the Friedmans

This documentary gave me chills. There are still statements and part of this story I cannot forget and I don't think I ever will. This documentary is full of pure disturbance. The story which unfolded throughout the documentary just kept getting more disturbing and surprising. As this is such a delicate subject and isn't talked about or shown much in the media to see a movie such as this was just shocking. Straight away I thought this whole family was strange, I still don't think in my opinion one of them apart from the mother was mentally stable. The issues someone must have going on in there head to do such things or think of such disgusting things is just unthinkable. For a father to be caught out with child pornography and still have his son's stick up for him, you just know there is something strange going on here. I 100% agree that Arnold Friedman was a pedophile as letters to a journalist confirmed however I am still undecided as to what happened in his computer class when many children said they were molested and others said nothing of the sort happened. It does not make sense when some of the children have some graphic and very specific stories about what went on which would make anyone sick to their stomach, but, how could this all be happening and then other children having absolutely no recollection of anything in this sort happening at all? Surely this cannot be right. Some say you would need to have a sick mind of your own to come up with the kind of stories which some of the children told. However some reports claim that when the police came to question the children they didn't give the children much choice in what there answer would be, nearly telling them what to say for example 'this man did this to you didn't he, we know he did' and so on. When a child is pressured like this is it just easier to tell the police what they want to hear even if it is not the truth? If then one child says this do the rest then just want to follow the crowd and agree even though it may not be the truth as well? Nobody will ever know. After some of the brutal and vile stories from the children how is it possible that when the parents picked them up there would be absolutely nothing wrong and all would appear fine? It seems even a bit too far fetched. On the other hand this could maybe be absolutely true and to tell the truth I personally don't want to believe that any of this is true because I find it unbearable to believe there are people like this in the world. As it stands at the moment I think that Arnold was very influential on his children and that he may have molested them as children as Jesse Friedman claimed in his court case however says now that it was untrue and only said it as he thought that the judge would be more lenient and understanding towards him. I think this is absolutely true and this led Jesse to become like his father and that something did go on in that computer class to an extent but maybe not the extent that was originally stated. It also makes me angry to think that this story could be very well true down to every last detail and that Jesse is now out of prison and a free man. Part of me wishes that I could unsee this documentary purely for the absolute horror of some of the stories told and the thought people like this exist, but also I understand that there is a reason in hearing stories like this one and learning about what kind of people there are out there so that we can try and prevent such awful things like this happening and understand that you never know what kind of people the strangers around you are and hopefully we can protect people and ourselves in such a sometimes sick and twisted world.