Capturing the Friedmans - Essay Example

Capturing the Friedman Capturing the Friedman Introduction Capturing the Friedmans is a documentary made by Andrew Jarecki, which is a powerfully and artistically directed documentary; depicting the disintegration of the family of Friedman after being charged with a sex crime against children. The documentary presents a multifaceted approach where it presents in the movie the videos made by the older Friedman brother, along with the interviews; it is imperative to highlight here that the truth remains hard to pin down after watching the documentary. Perhaps due to the fact that the documentary does not give any answers rather it brings to its audience varied perspectives that are suggestive yet do not give clear cut answers. It is a fact to state that the material of the movie is the major cause for the division of the audience. There may be slight connection to the subject matter but if the documentary had revealed the facts in accord with truth without tempering with it than the audience may have not been divided themselves in to two different perspectives (Leadership Council, 2002). However, before the paper matures in to an argument it is essential to be familiar with all details of the case. The following paper is weaved using authentic websites, documents, books, and journal articles in order to present an argument which is solid in its essence and is impressionable. However, the use of websites is in excess in order to gain insight into the minds of its audience, who holds a conflicting view either with the documentary or a conflict of view among themselves. The conflict in my opinion after extensive research, occurs due to the material of the documentary, otherwise the case stands clear (Richard Webster, 2004). From today, 25 years ago the police officials came to the doorstep of the Friedmans to arrest Arnold Friedman for sexually abusing children. Arnold was soon exposed to the charges that were levied on him due to rapping dozens of boys inside his house form his computer class that he conducted at home. Although, the police was able to find the pornographic magazines there were no other such as physical evidence, found that would stand as a solid proof of the crimes that Arnold was convicted. Moreover, the movie did not show that there were any complaints before Arnold was convicted with the crime (Leadership Council, 2002). Before the giving a verdict it is imperative to take in to consideration the way the truth was moulded and fashioned and also to consider the arguments presented by the director in order to provide a statement to the critics. It is essential to state here that the movie was nominated for Oscar award before the critics provided a critique to the content of the film and hence labelled it with certain charges. One of which is that the director told half the truth. Half-Told Truth Jarecki initially set out to direct a documentary on children’s best-known clown, ‘silly billy’. Although the movie was to depict a clown, nevertheless Jarecki came across an entirely new concept with the help of rigorous research. While researching he came across certain information that revealed, that in 1986 David, his father, and brothers were caught and trialled for sexual abuse of children. The case presented to the U.S. courts was one of the most horrific cases in the history of trials. The authorities revealed that the father, Arnold was a pianist and a loved high school teacher was found to have a possession of child pornographic magazine collection. Eventually the authorities grew suspicious of the Arnold and his son Jesse to have used after school computer classes as a medium to abuse young boys who attended it; interviews were conducted and some children revealed being abused sexually in a violent manner, however some entirely refused any such incidents. Nevertheless, the documentary leaves the audiences with innumerable question marks. There are instances in the documentary that are confusing and leave one questioning if the events in reality occurred or perhaps it is the exaggerated version of the reality (Richard Webster, 2004). The major questionable element in the movie is where the homemade videos made by David Friedman are used to reveal that the family was not a happy one. Jarecki’s documentary uses the videos in the documentary interchangeably in order to add spice to the documentary along with creating a drama. Moreover, another setback in the reality of the events is that somehow Jarecki convinced the family to act in his movie. Furthermore, Jarecki’s purpose was to present a disturbing family drama; in doing so his documentary reveals a string of contradictory points of view between the police officers, prosecutors, and the judge. Although, such series of events in the film provides gripping twists and creates a dramatic tension with the introduction of the essential character yet it leaves the audience to question the entire documentary in terms of the quantity of the reality showed in the documentary (Richard Webster, 2004). It is essential to mention here that those who are familiar with the case of McMartin may doubt the reality of the Freidman’s case altogether. The audience may concluded after viewing the documentary that the entire case was a fruit of delusion that the officers and the prosecutors fell in to and convicted the Friedman’s wrongly for sexual abuse charges. Although the movie may be called a piece of art, often times the audience believe that the Arnold was wrongly convicted. Despite the fact that Arnold admitted to his crimes and accepted that he has always tried to suppress his sexual attraction to young boys ended up seducing to young boys that led to the later encounters. Nevertheless, the documentary shows his circumstances that Jarecki believes can lead to such sexual abuse hysteria. The documentary reveals that Arnold’s wife and sons refused to provide and support to him for his convictions. This may imply that the director is trying to gain sympathy of the audience for the convict, perhaps in order to add tragic resonance to the documentary (Richard Webster, 2004). Nevertheless, if the film is to triumph over as a movie than undoubtedly it is a piece of art. Unfortunately, the movie is not a piece of art, rather a movie that portrays the facts and recollection of the events that took place in reality. Therefore the problem with the film is that in order to keep the audience certain events are chosen and shown in the movie rather than revealing the truth altogether and to depict what happened in reality (Richard Webster, 2004). The audience who are not aware of the events in America at the time of Friedman’s case may get confused easily due to the artful dilemmas and imitated even-handedness of the film. This implies that the film fails to clarify the truth which was that the Friedman’s were incorrectly accused of the sexual charges. The fact was that both the father and the son were pressured to plead guilty; the allegations pinned to them were false in its essence. Nevertheless, it is this falsity that the film fails to reveal hence, it leaves the audience wondering what exactly the truth was; for which reasons it is not incorrect in saying that the film did not portray the falsity of the events. This leaves the audience with a belief that Friedman’s were convicted for the crime that they pled guilty for and the reality is that the supposed victims of sexual abuse were brought to justice (Richard Webster, 2004). Debbie Nathan in her book The Satan’s Silence vastly discusses the case revealing that the Friedman’s were innocent and Jarecki’s movie fails to reveal the truth. She also wrote in the Voice of Village: “…Jarecki, the multi millionaire founder of Moviefone… has shrewd business sense. While the film was in production, Jarecki told the Friedman family he thought that the two were innocent of the charges. Polling viewers at Sundance in January, he was struck by how they were split over Arnold and Jesses guilt. Since then, he’s crafted a marketing strategy based on ambiguity, and during Q&As and interviews, he has studiously avoided taking a stand. Teaser ads pitch the film as a Long Island Rashomon: “who do you believe?” for Jarecki and his PR people, the question is rhetorical” (Nathan, 2003). This implies that the artistically presented facts in the movie spreads immense confusion among the audiences, although the confusion caused in the documentary is not intentional perhaps it is the Jarecki’s own confusion reflected in the movie. However, it is often believed that the confusion caused was generated in the movie as a marketing tool which Nathan finds disturbing to accept. Nevertheless, Nathan condemns the film for not portraying the facts correctly, by recollecting a conversation with Arnold who called her from the prison phone. He told her: “Since Childhood I’ve been tortured by this problem. You have to remember those magazines used to be perfectly legal. I was trying to hard to control my urges. To not touch a child. My therapist told me to go to Times Square and buy porn. To subliminate with. He called it a prescription”. A per the conversation revealed by Nathan it can be analyzed Arnold was following a prescription by his doctor which is nowhere shown in the film. The human factor that may have been an essential tool to prove the innocence of the Friedman’s is has no hint altogether in the documentary; which further confuses the audience and demarcate a line between them where one lot thinks that the punishment should have been severe and the other thinks that the Friedman’s were accused unjustly. It is true that Arnold had become addicted to child pornography but it was a prescribed medication by his doctor just like any other patient would be addicted to medication of some sort Arnold was addicted to child pornography (Richard Webster, 2004; Nathan, 2003). A lawyer in Boston, Harvey Silverglate provides a critique to the documentary of Jareki by penning in his article that although, he has no good eye for providing a critique yet he was able to pin point in the movie certain elements that he felt were not close to truth. Furthermore, he says that the material presented by Jarecki in the movie is a chosen material that does not provide a clear-cut picture. He further says that in accord to his knowledge of the documentary’s purpose is to reveal the truth which ‘Capturing the Friedman’s’ lack. Since the documentary does not give a true picture of the material audiences cannot be blamed for drawing meaning that are distanced far away from the truth. Therefore, as per the analyses of Silverglate it is the material of the film and not the subject matter that creates the confusion and divides the audiences in to holding two different perspectives about the Friedman’s family (Silverglate, 2003). The Omitted Facts Mark Gimpel in his article that was printed in New York Times in 2004 claimed that the movie did not depict the way his clients were railroaded. He mentions in the article that his clients were not only wrongly accused of the crime that they did not commit but also had to face hostility from the judge and the officials. This he elaborates was only on the bases of suspicion against the convicts. Furthermore, he says that although the movie creatively unfolds the complexities of the case it does not show the extent to which his clients were manhandled (Gimpel, 2004). Nevertheless, it is also argued often that Jarecki for reasons unknown hid the facts; specifically the ones that could have been used to paint the true picture of the Friedman’s. One of the victim’s mother told the New York Times highlighted that Jesse was guilty of the act that he had accepted. Moreover, she said that the actual victims were not brought to a lime light in the documentary; hence putting a veil on the hideous act of father and son. The woman stated her concerns in the following words: “ignored and hid evidence that Jesse was guilty and didn’t reach out to actual victims, because I never heard from him” (New York Times) (Waxman, 2004). However, Mr. Jarecki said in an E-mail interview that he exerted an immense effort to reach all of the victims who accused Jesse Friedman for molestation. He said that he had done so by using registered mail and Federal Express, he mentions in the interview that he may not have had the correct addresses to victims residency; however he included two of the victims addresses in the documentary. Nevertheless, in the documentary when Jarecki is asked about the number of victims he has included he says: “I don’t know how many I spoke to. It was more than three.” However, Mr. Jarecki said that he made numerous attempts to reach at least 100 of the victims from the computer class. However, on the contrary, the woman also stated that Mr. Jarecki did not mention the third co-defendant who was also charged for molestation of children. Moreover, she said that Jesse Friedman has confessed on a talk show in 1989 that his father molested him as a child; nevertheless in the interviews Jesse changed his statement saying that he confessed to the crime because he was aware of the fact that he will not be given justice. His two statements stand in contradiction to one another (Waxman, 2004). Furthermore, the accuser’s mother said that what could be the underlying reason for the director to make a film on a paedophile other than fame. She further says that regardless of the twist given in the documentary the truth will remain a truth. The ambiguity in the movie can never wash the crimes of the Friedman family for molesting children. In accord to her statement, Jesse was not innocent and she firmly believes that Jarecki had all the evidence to prove that Jesse and his father were guilty of the crime and for some reasons Mr. Jarecki hid the truth and left the audiences with a distorted reality which divides the audiences in to distinct groups (Waxman, 2004). However, Mr. Jarecki responded to the accusations by e-mail saying that he had no intentions whatsoever to hide any facts. He said I had to take a multifaceted approach in order to reveal the complexities of the case. He condemns the accusation of the woman that he used ambiguity as a tool, he says that ambiguity was natural outcome of a three an half year research that procedure. He says that he did not in any way tried to cover the paedophilia of Arnold Fried, in fact he says while he showed the crimes of Arnold he also showed the failures in the process of police investigation. He further, said that he did omit Mr. Goldstein’s case because he felt that the case had nothing to do with the Friedman (Waxman, 2004). The Elements that Lead to Confusion With the development in the ideas of portraying media communication a number of methods have been used to portray the subject matter in the documentaries. From a simple Voice-of-God style documentaries to a more complex propagandistic style such as direct address. Although, documentaries contain biases, the introduction of contemporary styles of documentary has lead to the distortion of the perception of audiences (Bruzzi, 2006). Jarecki has used the personal videos of the Friedman family in order to make the documentary. One of the critics Kenneth Turan questions that who shoulders the responsibility of representing the Friedmans in the film. Moreover, he answers his own question by stating an argument that implies that it was a collaborative effort on the part of the director and the Friedman; he bases this argument of the fact that Jarecki has used intimate videos in his documentary that were retrieved from the Friedman family. Hence the question remains that the there was some relationship or perhaps a cooperative element that the family allowed the videos to go public. Although, the Friedman family has a minute control over the content of the documentary yet they rely on the depiction of the videos presented in the documentary for a more humane view of themselves to the audience. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that it entirely relies upon the viewer as to what perception do they develop after they view the movie (Zhang, 2011-2002). The videos used in the documentary clearly portrays that the family was not a well knitted one. It also depicts the mother as a traitor who refuses to provide any help and acts as a sacrificial character. As per the content of the movie and the literature available it can be questioned that what implications does the intimate videos had in order to portray the Friedman family’s crime? (Zhang, 2011-2002). Moreover, the documentary also tries to gain sympathy by depicting the character of David as the one who himself is a victim of a scandal. This is portrayed through the bedroom testimonials, where David talks to the camera revealing the how he feels about the entire scenario. Soon the testimonials become a form of therapy for David and he mentions in the video tapes that the testimonials will remain private and confidential. Nevertheless the critics argue that the David has been given quite a control in order to shape his image in front of the audience through the depiction of such testimonials. The portrayal of these videos also implies that David is in other words trying to shape the perception of the audience by mentioning that there were certain biases in reality. Hence gaining the sympathy of the audience and deviating the audience from the reality (Zhang, 2011-2002). Nevertheless, the Capturing the Friedmans has use multiple interviews in order to provide various prospects; for this purpose Jarecki has used the interviews with the mother, Elaine, audiences find her self-victimizing and a bit of a nag. However some find her character as that of someone who is trapped in a male dominated family. Alex Gerbaz expresses that the depiction of the Friedman family in the documentary provides the audience with a level of empathy and respect for the lives of others; which he terms as humanization. Therefore, the audience is forced to think beyond the picture presented in the new paper of Friedman family and if empathize with the family than at least try to understand the circumstances and then form the perception about the Friedman Family. Nevertheless, it is not incorrect in saying that the interviews in the documentary may not divert the attention of the audience or forces them to accept the Freidman family convicts as criminals, but it does to some extent make the audience question if they justly accused. It may also be believed that the audiences left in the illusion to consider the stresses that may have led to the paedophilia among the male members of the family (Zhang, 2011-2002). However, on the contrary Calvin Pryluck asserts that the process of film making specifically in the making of a documentary the work must be collaborative in order to provide an impartial finished product. Nevertheless, Jarecki did not involve the Freidman family in the process of editing. Hence, it provides the opportunity to the Friedman family to provide the public with a statement in order to rebuild their image, but the complexity of the movie and the approach that it has taken, leaves the audience with an open-ended story where the audience is led to question who should they believe? Another element that causes the divide among the audience is where the Arnold and Jesse are pigeonholed molesters for child abuse the entire family had to face the brunt of the scandal. Therefore, Jarecki states that he believed that the audiences needed to accept that on the bases of the two members of the family the entire family does not deserve to be labelled as molester and must be given equal respect in the society (Zhang, 2011-2002). Although, the mitigating factors in the movie do not entirely remove the label from the family but provides them with a platform that humanizes them in the society. However the audience do not entirely form a single perception but it is led to wonder as and to accept the family. However, some audiences due to the interviews and the new paper, and news portrayals continue to believe that the Friedman family, regardless of the innocence of few members of the family, was justly punished for the hideous act (Zhang, 2011-2002). It is important to mention here that in one of his interviews Andrew Jarecki mentions that filming Capturing the Friedmans was not a brainstormed movie; in fact it was a story that he stumbled over while trying to make a documentary on the birthday party clowns and coincidently one of the famous clowns was David Friedman. He further mentions that while making this movie was not to portray who is right and who is wrong rather it was directed to reveal the story of a family with a deeper perspective. It was projected at re-evaluating the human obligations to one another and to feed the audience with a certain view point. This implies that the movie was aimed at developing a debate among the audience and to speak their minds after considering the depth of a certain act whether hideous or appropriate (Jarecki, 2004). Nevertheless, another element that caused confusion among the audience is the mention of the victims. The victims are depicted as being cross-questioned about being molested. The investigators in the film also provide a confusing constituent where the victim can be brought to the extent where they will start accusing the convicts without any bases. They also reveal the techniques that could be used to make false accusations in the process of investigation. Moreover, the material of the film is suggestive in terms of that the lack of evidence that could prove the Friedman members, Arnold and Jesse guilty of such a heinous crime. Many argue that the movie surfaces the fact that the police never found any solid evidence such as videos of children being molested, physical abuse etc. This could be taken as an implication by the audience that the family was judged without any solid evidence; which could also be a matter of debate. Furthermore, the audience may also question the credibility of the investigators who were part of the investigation team. This leaves the audience with an open ended perspective. Whereas, few, who are familiar with child abuse, have already formed their opinion half way during the documentary. Regardless of the way the material is presented in the movie they firmly believe that Arnold and Jesse confessed to their hideous crimes; which leaves no room for any further questioning. Therefore, the over look the scenes were investigators have revealed techniques for accusing someone wrongly (Jarecki, 2004). As per the above-mentioned research it can be analyzed that the subject matter is apparently a sensitive topic to be displayed without any providing a certain view. Despite the sensitivity of the subject matter the director has presented the material in the film in such a manner that leaves the audiences confused and divided. Therefore, pin pointing the any one element will not be appropriate. However, it is not in correct in saying that there is a correlation between the subject matter and its portrayal that has led to the divide in the perception of the audience causing half the audience to express that the director, Andrew Jarecki hid certain facts in order to present the family. Which leads to the perception that Jareki was only trying to earn money and the movie was a perfect strategy in order to achieve a bigger digit bank account; however, on the contrary the other half of the audience does believe that Arnold and Jesse were paedophiles. Nevertheless, they are left questioning and understanding the circumstances of the family as a whole and on individual bases as well. They are also to express and consider that the Arnold was a patient that he was seeking help for his problems. This particular fact has provided the audience with the understanding that he was a patient. Reference List Bruzzi, S., 2006. The Performative Documentary’ chapter 6 of New Documentary (2nd Edition), New York: Routledge, pp.185-218 Gimpel, M., 2004. Capturing the Friedmans. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 9 April 2013]. Jarecki, A., 2004. Secrets and lies. [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2004/mar/19/1 [Accessed 13 April 2013]. Leadership Council, 2002. Capturing the Friedmans: annotated Bibliography. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 9 April 2013]. Nathan, D., 2003. Complex Persecution. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 9 April 2013]. Richard Webster, 2004. ‘Capturing the Friedmans’: art, truth and marketing. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 9 April 2013]. Silverglate, H., 2003. Picture of Injustice. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 9 April 2013]. Waxman, S., 2004. Victims Say Film on Molesters Distorts Facts. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 13 April 2013]. Zhang, Y., 2011-2002. An Unanswerable Dilemma. Journal of the CAS Writing Program, Issue 4, pp. 14-22. Read More