Capturing the Friedmans (2003)
Few films are as complex and as darkly
mystifying as "Capturing the Friedmans." This is a
film that will leave your stomach in knots. This is
a film that will leave you will your head in a vice.
This is a film that deconstructs one of the last remaining
taboos, pedophilia, in a disturbing, perplexing and
nauseating way. In many ways, because it is a documentary
rather than a narrative drama, it is even more repulsive
and disturbing than Todd Solondz' Happiness." One
thought that such a suggestion would be preposterous
just a few short years ago and yet, with this film,
the content has yet again changed.
I walked into "Capturing the Friedmans"
knowing little to nothing about it. I knew it was
the story of a family that videotaped themselves and
made home movies. I also knew there was something
troubling on the horizon in the events that the film
covered. From the first frames of the film, from the
initial discussions with the subjects, it is clear
that this is so. Something dark is clearly on the
horizon. This is not a normal family. This is not
a story that can be told easily.
For those who may not be familiar
with the plot, I will try to explain it (i.e.
spoilers are coming). The Friedmans were a
seemingly typical New Jersey family. The father is
a respected school teacher who teaches piano, and
then computer, classes in his family home. The mother
is a typical Jersey Jewish housewife (with nasal whine
and all - as stereotypical as that sounds). The three
boys are as All- American as one could imagine. But
the father had a secret. He liked child pornography,
particularly those that depicted men with young boys.
When he is arrested in a sting operation by the police,
the notion that perhaps some of his computer classes
aren't as innocent as one would like to believe is
suggested. Before long hundreds of children who have
taken the class are interviewed and horrific stories
of rape, sodomy and indecencies are told. The community
is outraged and the father and the youngest son are
arrested and charged with numerous counts of sexual
misconduct against the children. They are both convicted
and sent to jail
What's so disturbing and so compelling
is that after 20 years, there is a nagging doubt that
any of this actually occurred. With modern psychology
and the benefit of hindsight revealing numerous flaws
in the story, one might conclude that mass community
hysteria, inept police investigations and ridiculous
tactics may have cause children to "lie" in order
to endure and indeed survive the ordeal of the investigation.
Filmmaker Andrew Jarecki interviews
two of the sons, the mother, and a relative of the
family who tell the story distinctly from their side.
He also interviews the police, the lawyers and the
judge of the cases to get as close to the state's
evidence as possible. And he interviews one of the
supposed "victims" of the abuse. But while this one
interviewee is set-up to appear to be a liar, and
while several friends of the Friedman children also
relate an eye- witness account of seeing or experiencing
absolutely nothing out of the normal at the Friedman
household, one must also note that no real credible,
identifiable witness comes forward to admit that they
lied when interviewed by the police. There are inconsistencies
and questionable ideas put forth by both sides here
and the filmmaker presents both as non-judgemental
and as unbiased as one could expect.
The idea that these children were
brainwashed into lying about being abused is almost
as absurd as the notion that they were victimized
in the graphic, horrific ways suggested. And, as the
police admit, there is no physical evidence anywhere
to support their prosecution of the two Friedmans.
One female police investigator recollects that the
home contained stacks and stacks of child pornography
strewn about the place yet the police photographs
of the house used for evidence show only one such
stack. (The Friedmans own home videos and home movies
also show the home to feature no such debauchery).
One must be logical. Even though
the film takes great pains to make us understand that
the father was indeed a pedophile and an unsavory
person, there is nothing but the word of the children
to support the stories of mass abuse and rape. On
of the most ludicrous suggestions is made by the unidentified
interviewee who is shown to be a liar. He says that
the two men played a sort of naked "leapfrog" with
young children where they jumped over the children
in a manner similar to the children's game of leapfrog
and then engaged in anal intercourse with the children
in the process. (How do you describe this nicely?).
Anyone who has EVER attempted anal intercourse with
anyone, of any age, of any sexual persuasion, and
regardless of the amount of sexual experiences that
person has, knows that anal intercourse is not something
you can engage in "on the fly," so to speak. There
would have to be massive amounts of lubrication, to
be blunt and basic about it. It just seems such an
absurd suggestion. It's seems more like the kind of
thing that sick little police officers in the Sexual
Crimes Unit come up with than a pedophile and his
son. The film makes this notion clear.
Another man interviewed in modern
day tells a story of "borrowing" a computer disc featuring
an adult sex game from the computer class only to
be threatened by the father, in a rage, with a knife
in order to get it back. Watching the father in the
home videos presented here makes this story seem highly
unlikely. Even in the most heated arguments and family
fights shown in the videos, and there are many, the
father remains docile and nearly unflappable.
We live in a world where one wants
to respect the police and figures of authority and
we increasingly come to see that most of these people
are, at the very best human, at the very worst, sick
and corrupt. We live in a world where we want to believe
that the constitution and the notion of innocent until
proven guilty are sanctified ideals to which we continually
live up. Sadly, "Capturing the Friedmans" proves this
to be a faltering ideal as well.
In 1988, a man and his son were
convicted of horrific sexual crimes against children.
In 2003, they finally got their appeal. It came not
from the government nor the courts. It came in the
form of the cinema. It came from the citizens of a
country with a judicial system in shambles. Even after
watching "Capturing the Friedmans" one is still not
100% sure that the father and the son were completely
innocent. But one is most definitely sure that the
police and the court system are guilty - guilty of
false accusations, faulty interview tactics and inept
investigation. They, we can be sure, are as guilty
as hell.
Like "Happiness" and a handful of
other films, "Capturing the Friedmans" is fascinating
and disturbing on many levels - amd in the same breath.
Note:
Premiered at Sundance in January
2003 (where it won the Grand Jury Prize for Best Documentary)
before a theatrical release was begun in May.
The film began when Jarecki was
making a short film about New Your City's number one
birthday clown, David Friedman, and discovered this
incredible backstory. The elder Friedman's son is
featured prominently in the film including his work
as a birthday clown. Selections from his many videotapes
and home movies of the family are also shown in the
film.
The father was in a band in the
40's called Arlito Rey and some of their recordings
are used in the film's soundtrack.
Jesse has a website about his continuing
litigation and struggle to establish his innocence
at http://www.freejesse.net
Viewed in Austin in July 2003 at
the Westgate theater.
