Review

Review Date: 20-July-03
Spoiler Rating: High
Juju Judgment: Just OK

Capturing the Friedmans (2003)

The ties that bind.

This phrase is usually used in a positive way to denote the relationships that define us, protect us, and guide us along the paths of life, but while watching "Capturing the Friedmans" I painfully felt the negative side of this concept. Like Humbert Humbert with his spider web of sensation or that hypothetical mosquito whose flapping wings send a ripple effect throughout the world, we are all connected in varying degrees to each other, and our actions are almost never our business alone. When you think of all the sickness and cruelty, confusion and pain, ignorance and delusion of which people are capable, this is a very scary thing. "Capturing the Friedmans" is an intimate and troubling documentary about a close family whose ties to each other brought them both sustaining happiness and indelible sorrow.

Filmmaker Andrew Jarecki uses old home movies and recent interviews to paint a portrait of the Friedman family of Great Neck, New York, particularly the events surrounding its demise in 1987, when the father and youngest son were arrested and convicted of numerous counts of child molestation. According to police reports, Arnold Friedman and 18-year-old Jesse repeatedly abused a large number of male students in Mr. Friedman's in-home computer classes over the course of four years. The movie, while avoiding lurid images and details, takes a frank look at all sides of the story, including Arnie's admitted, lifelong pedophilia and the struggles between the three Friedman boys and their mother, Elaine, who was always the odd woman out in the family. Among the many people interviewed for the documentary are Elaine; David Friedman, the oldest son; Jesse Friedman and his lawyer; Arnie's brother Howard; the officers who investigated the case; the parent of an alleged victim; and a few students who offer differing accounts of what went on in Mr. Friedman's classes. (The middle son, Seth, refused to participate.)

Although Arnie and Jesse pleaded guilty and were sentenced to prison in separate trials, both claimed that this was the only viable option open to them, and they repeatedly protested their innocence in relation to the gruesome crimes with which they were charged. Because of this, and some arguments that the Friedmans' arrest ignited mass hysteria in their affluent hometown, the movie proffers the notion that injustice may have been done, as reflected in the tag line "Who do you believe?" However, because of the apparent thoroughness with which Jarecki investigates the case and the surprising level of access to its dirty laundry which the family gives him, it is hard not to conclude that Arnie Friedman was, in many respects, the monster he was made out to be. The uncomfortable fact that the movie doesn't allow you to escape is that he was a very human monster who damaged his family and other families due to a compulsion dating back to disturbing incidents from his own childhood. Such are the inescapable and never-ending consequences of family ties.

The very actions that one would generally view as good, healthy, and decent are perverted throughout the Friedmans' history. As Elaine, David, and Jesse attest, the boys were always extremely fond of each other and their father, both before and after the trial and the revelations that came out of it. But judging from their own documentation, their closeness had a tinge of desperation; their need to maintain an enduring fraternity, of which a main characteristic was hatred of their mother and worship of their father, seems to mask some fear or guilt that goes beyond affection. As for Elaine, her 30-year devotion to upholding the image of a normal, happy family and dutiful wife also comes across as evidence of a deeper doubt or failing. The Friedmans' obsession with recording both their good and bad times on video and audio tape suggests a need to pin down their problems so that they can either be expunged from their minds (as David suggests), or saved for the day when they can be screamed, cried, or explained away. Indeed, a warped version of admirable behavior is also seen outside of the Friedman family, in the testimony of those who believe that the outrage of the community over the threat to their children led to exaggerated and even fabricated allegations of hideous abuse that might not have occurred. Nothing is as damnable or laudable as it ought to be in this movie; Arnie Friedman's defect brought his sons together for him and his community together against him, and nobody came out looking good.

"Capturing the Friedmans" is well done in the sense that it is deftly edited, makes excellent use of material provided by the subjects, and doesn't settle for finger pointing or easy answers. (The only stone left unturned is the question of whether their being Jewish factored into the hysteria that may have influenced the Friedmans' case.) But as a movie meant to enlighten and impress, it is almost too harsh and unresolved to succeed fully. I experienced a gag reflex about halfway through because I didn't want to continue thinking about what I was seeing. It wasn't my revulsion at the thought of pedophilia and child abuse that prompted this response so much as the sense of desperation that the Friedmans' story evokes. There is a grey area between love and hate, weakness and evil, attachment and imposition, even guilt and innocence that isn't pleasant — and may not be profitable — to recognize, and this movie never leaves that area.

Copyright © 2003 The Jujube (M. I. Kim). All rights reserved.