Pluskylang Great Film overall

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Indigirlproductions "Capturing the Friedmans", directed by Andrew Jarecki, connects to the human condition by first presenting us with a picture of what we've come, as a society, to believe an upper-middle class family looks like, then it turns that ideal over, to view the underbelly and inner-workings of the family unit. The fact that a large part of the footage was shot by David Friedman, eldest son of convicted pedophile Arnold Friedman, gives the footage an essence of raw truth. We see the happy family in candid clips of their birthdays, celebrations and road trips. And we watch, helpless as their family unravels. Jarecki navigates the audience through interviews, changing testimonies, and conflicting memories that inform us; the perception of truth is mutable.David Friedman filmed the drama of his family falling apart as if it were a soap opera. The facade of the ideal family crumbles as Jarecki compiles newsreels, photographs, and interviews with family, friends, student's parents and the authorities that force us to consider an awful truth. Despite education, money, respect in the community, and an overall stable appearance, Arnold Friedman and Jesse Friedman were convicted of horrendous crimes that were reportedly committed in their home. The Plot Arnold Friedman is a family man, respected in the community. He teaches computer classes to children ages 8 – 11. His life begins a downward spiral when it's discovered that he's been purchasing kiddie porn from the Netherlands. An investigation is opened, his house is searched and his collection of magazines is confiscated. When the police find a list of his young students, they become suspicious about Friedman's intentions and begin an investigation.Witnesses start coming forward after initial questioning begins. The allegations of sexual abuse by Arnold Friedman and his youngest son Jesse Friedman seem to be endless. Father and son are ultimately convicted and sentenced. In the end, Arnold Friedman confesses that he is a pedophile and he molested his son Jesse. He kills himself with an overdose of anxiety medication while serving his sentence. After his father goes to prison, Jesse Friedman pleads guilty and is convicted of sexual molestation and sodomy. Once the judge sentences him, Jesse Friedman emphatically denies his guilt and states that he was coached by his lawyer who advised him to plead guilty. He also disputes his father's claim, that he was one of his father's victims. However, under oath he alleged that his father had, in fact, molested him. After recanting this statement, Jesse Friedman remained steadfast in his claim that he was not guilty and was released in 2001, after serving only thirteen years of his sentence. Theme: The perception of truth is mutable.Subtext: We are presented with disparaging facts and testimony throughout the film. It seems as if everyone is trying to convince us (or maybe themselves) of either the Friedman's guilt, or their innocence. According to noted author Vikki Bell, "The film itself problematizes the notion of 'reviewing' and especially the nature of 'evidence' where that evidence relies upon memory." (Theory, Culture and Society. P. 91). In the case of the Friedmans, the review is most decidedly problematic. Many of the 'players' in this drama change their testimonies. Their memories are informed by the passage of time and the events that have taken place since the incidents. Jesse Friedman admitted that he lied in his testimony at his trial, albeit because he was supposedly instructed to do so by his attorney. He stated that his father had molested him. But his testimony changed when it appeared that the confession would do nothing to aid his cause. Many of the children that came forward during the trial repudiated the charges as adults, claiming no memory of the incidents.Aesthetics: The subtext that review is problematic, and becomes more so when that review is based upon memory, illustrates that presentation informs the perception of truth, making it mutable. We see this message throughout the film. In one clip, Elaine Friedman talks about her memories of being presented with the porn her husband had been purchasing. She says ". . . you know, I didn't see it. My eyes were in the right direction but my brain saw nothing. Because when it was all over the lawyers showed me the magazine and then I saw it for the first time, I really saw it." Her statement says everything about how we perceive information and about how truly mutable the perception of truth can be, when it's based on recollection. It also speaks to the fact that the perception of truth is mutable based upon what someone desires to see or remember. The intersection of plot, theme and editing: Jarecki pulls together the plot and the theme that the perception of truth is mutable, and proves it by using editing to create dramatic impact and influence judgment. According to research done by The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, there was substantial evidence that was left out of the film (through editing). This "leaving out" of information creates an environment aimed at questioning the outcome of the trials.

samanthaniedospial The story of the Friedmans is one that requires an understanding of the people involved. They are the ones who drive the story till the end. The way in which their confusion and deception of the situation, seeming to belong to the eye view only, is in any case a he said she said tale. The facts on both sides pulls you back and forth unaware of where you stand. When the Friedman family, with their crazy antics, believes what they think is to be right and to hold no other truth to the facts of the case, it makes you wonder who are these people? Where did they come from? It is a surprise until the end. A moderate and frustrating tale, Capturing the Friedmans requires much attention with little thought.

moonspinner55 Seemingly ordinary family in the Great Neck suburb of Long Island, New York are torn apart by child molestation allegations, which may or may not have been fabricated by underage witnesses coerced by the authorities. A retired teacher-turned-computer instructor is put in the legal hot-spot after a underage pornographic magazine is delivered to him undercover; his students are then interviewed for any possible misconduct, and soon the married father of three and his youngest son are arrested on sex abuse charges. Quietly devastating documentary from Andrew Jarecki weaves both vintage and recent home movie footage of the family with revealing interviews of the former Friedman matriarch (who had fallen out of love with her accused husband and failed to stand by him) and two of her sons. Jarecki is very careful not to paint the 'victims' as villains but, in trying to be somewhat non-subjective, he clouds some of the legal ramifications in mystery (why is the son's attorney completely contradicting his client's statements? Is the attorney lying--and if so, what did he have to gain?). Eldest son David tries so hard to be the voice of reason--while feeling victimized himself--that he inadvertently becomes the star of the movie, the glue which is barely holding the family together. It's a portrait of lives destroyed by contagious hysteria...and by personal demons and repressed sexuality. The film is by turns tragic, unfair, rueful, frustrating, incredibly human, and incredibly moving. *** from ****

ptb-8 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.