Capturing the Friedmans

Has anyone else seen this movie? I just finished the DVD and it was absolutely brilliant. It was a terrific documentary that raised more questions about the family than it answered.

To me, the best documentaries simply turn their cameras on the subject and let the subject tell the story. This is done both literally and figuratively in this film, since a lot of the film is made up of home movies created by the oldest son that was shot while the family was disintigrating before our eyes. It's a tragic story, and incredibly well-told.

What do you think?

 

I watched the DVD.

Sick puppy, Mr. Freidman was. Such a tragedy! I just found it very peculiar that a family would tape and videotape all of their drama. I'm surprised someone didn't break that damn camera!

 

The story aside, I thought the documentary was mediocre, at best. Using family footage to tell the story -- not a unique concept at all. In the end I felt the camera was as intrusive as those it was filming. I'm also surprised that some one didn';t smash one of the cameras, at least, before it was all said and done.

FOG OF WAR -- now there's a documentary.

 

What I didn't like about the documentary is it seems a little slanted towards the family by acting like the cops (my Nassau Police) were jumping the gun on this family and railroading them ( I was a rookie in those days and worked that neighborhood).

But in the end Mr. Friedman was a pedophile and an admitted sick puppy (how about the revelation while he was in jail).

I also think the son was in on some of the shenanigans and I wouldn't believe a word from anyone in that family.

Some of the victims (now adults) have come forward recently here on Long Island and have restated their case...they were abused.

Thats that.

 

Talk about a dysfunctional family! I found this movie fascinating. I watched the movie, listened to the commentary and watched the extras. If you watched the discussion with some of the people interviewed in the film after a screening (it was on the 2nd disk) in which they almost started hitting each other, you can tell that there are still strong feelings about the case. It's interesting to see how people remember events and how they view their own family.

 

Although an admitted pedophile, it's not clear that Friedman or his son were guilty of molesting the boys in the computer class. The public hysteria about abuse and molestation in family day care and similar settings is akin to what took place during the Salem witch trials. Please read some of the recent articles and research about recovered memory and testimony that is elicited using hypnosis. The lack of any physical evidence to support the charges and the fact that not one child reported anything unusual for years, as well as the fact that at least one boy said nothing ever happened should create what we call 'reasonable doubt'. Police are people too, and well meaning as they are they aren't right just because they have authority. The only people who really know what happened are the ones who were there.
Incidentally, I got this movie from Netflix and sent it back without watching the extra material. I've heard that there's important material that was not in the theatrical version. Can anyone enlighten me? Gee, maybe they were guilty after all.

 

My review - http://www.dvdmg.com/capturingthefriedmans.shtml - offers some discussion of the extras. Actually, the supplements make it look LESS like they were guilty. I thought they were after I watched the documentary but felt less sure after I watched the extras.

I really liked this doc. I thought it told the story well and made it very intriguing, especially the way it slowly developed...

 

I also rented the movie from Netflix. You had to rent the second disk separately from the movie.
However I did not think the extra material made them seem more guilty. There seemed to be a lot of pressure on the accused to admit guilt because if they lost in a trial, the sentence would be very harsh. One question that I had that wasn't mentioned anywhere was the make up of the town they lived in. Was there any prejudice against them because they were Jewish?

 

The town they lived in (Great Neck) is very Jewish as is most of Nassau County's North Shore.

Since their are large numbers of jewish people in all of Long Island, I don't think that was a factor.

Being charged with child molestation is tough nut to defend. It certainly didn't help that the father had plenty of child porn in his house and mailed to him.
If they didn't take the plea, things would have been much worse for them. The judge was an expert in sex crime cases. She would not have been sympathetic to them.

 

I agree that anti-semitism was not an issue in this case. As for the judge being experienced in sex crime cases, If wouldn't assume that this would make her less impartial, although you could look back at how defendants accused of similar crimes did before her. I'd hope that her knowledge and experience would have increased the chances of getting a fair trial. That's what the courts are there for.

 

She was considered a very fair judge. No problem there.

No doubt the son was screwed when the father admitted to being a pedophile and their are many victims willing to testify against you.

These were very dysfunctional people as the movie shows you. I like the mother who says "Arnold found looking a pictures very relaxing, a sort of meditation." yeah right Nancy!

And how about the other older son...a clown at children's parties...to bizarre for words.

 

I immediately thought of John Wayne Gacy when I saw that.

Very strange family.