X
- 2003
- Not Rated
- Magnolia Pictures
- 1 h 47 m
- 2003
- Not Rated
- Magnolia Pictures
- 1 h 47 m
Summary The Friedmans are a seemingly typical, upper-middle-class Jewish family whose world is instantly transformed when the father and his youngest son are arrested and charged with shocking and horrible crimes.
Directed By: Andrew Jarecki
- 2003
- Not Rated
- Magnolia Pictures
- 1 h 47 m
- 2003
- Not Rated
- Magnolia Pictures
- 1 h 47 m
Capturing the Friedmans
7.3
Where to Watch
Summary The Friedmans are a seemingly typical, upper-middle-class Jewish family whose world is instantly transformed when the father and his youngest son are arrested and charged with shocking and horrible crimes.
Directed By: Andrew Jarecki
Where to Watch
Top Cast
Metascore
Universal Acclaim
Based on 39 Critic Reviews
90
97% Positive
38 Reviews
38 Reviews
3% Mixed
1 Review
1 Review
0% Negative
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
Metascore
Universal Acclaim
Based on 39 Critic Reviews
90
97% Positive
38 Reviews
38 Reviews
3% Mixed
1 Review
1 Review
0% Negative
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
Jarecki's film brilliantly illustrates the fallibility of memory, the slippery nature of 'facts' and even people's invention of events that may never have taken place.
Jarecki has created a tour de force of narrative ambiguity, and in doing so has made one of the most honest reality shows ever.
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 36 User Ratings
7.3
81% Positive
29 Ratings
29 Ratings
8% Mixed
3 Ratings
3 Ratings
11% Negative
4 Ratings
4 Ratings
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 36 User Ratings
7.3
81% Positive
29 Ratings
29 Ratings
8% Mixed
3 Ratings
3 Ratings
11% Negative
4 Ratings
4 Ratings
Bottom-line: Capturing the Friedmans is, simple put, an amazing documentary.
Capturing the Friedmans is about the Friedmans; an upper-middle class Jewish family in upstate New York. One day, the police come to the home of the Friedmans and search for child pornography. The police uncover a number of magazines belonging to Arnold Friedman. A retired high school teacher, he, with the help of his son Jesse, hold computer classes and piano lessons for young children. Once the police realize this, they start investigating Arnold for child abuse. Before long, he and his son are charged with around a hundred counts of sexual assault.
I have a lot of fun watching documentaries; I can spend roughly two hours watching a movie on the grounds that I am learning something. Over time I’ve come to realize that it isn’t just what the documentary is saying but how. Sometimes documentaries are clearly biased.
If you are a fan of documentaries, there is a website called Documentary Heaven which has lots of documentaries you can watch for free. I remember one that was about secret government cloud seeding experiments. Cloud seeding is, more or less, controlling rainfall and weather patterns. For that documentary, there was just the director, one person that was interviewed, and only about a dozen pictures that faded in and out of the frame. Towards the end of the hour and forty-five minute snoozefest, the director comes out from behind the camera and shouts to the camera, “If he has had so much success cloud seeding, why isn’t the government spending millions doing further testing!?” It detracts from the feeling that you are learning something. Instead it feels like you are spending time hearing propaganda.
The only other documentary I’ve seen more than once was Werner Herzog’s Grizzly Man (2005) and that was because I saw it for a film class. I watched it once at home and once in the class. I don’t usually watch documentaries more than once because, well, hearing it once is usually enough. It’s like attending a lecture more than once. You don't unless you have to. I saw Capturing the Friedmans twice so far because, again, I saw it for a class. But I will, however, most certainly be seeing it again. Capturing the Friedmans is an example of amazing storytelling.
The plot thickens at every turn. With documentaries about crimes, I read them like a detective novel. You decipher the film maker’s bias and then anticipate the details of the crime to make up your mind. In this case, whenever I solved the mystery, if you will, the movie would cut to another interview that threw me off.
Jarecki juxtaposes interviews to create fascinating dialogues. For example, we hear from the District Attorney about the process for conducting interviews with children. He explains that the children may be frightened so one doesn't want to put words in their mouths. Instead of saying “we know he assaulted you,” one should say, “what happened next?” The movie then cuts over to one of the detectives who conducted many of the interviews for the Friedman case: “We went through the whole line of questions...’We know you were in these computer classes and we know that there was a good chance he sexually assaulted you...” the camera then fades out. It's an example of how the movie can steer us toward reaching a particular conclusion. Better still, the movie can make us realize how we could never know the truth of the Friedman case. Towards the end of the movie, Jesse and his attorney provide radically different accounts of the same event. Who can we trust?
A major source of information comes from the Friedman’s home movies. The family shot a lot of home movies particularly around the time of the investigations. The footage provides a great balance to the interviews. Some shots from their ordinary cameras are eerily good too which add to the experience. At one point, Arnold is playing the piano and his son moves in for a close up. We listen to upbeat music (though it is made darker given the circumstance) and watch his glasses which reflect his hands on the piano keys.
I highly recommend you see Capturing the Friedmans. The subject matter is solidly depressing but it is a really well done documentary.
Report
Not since "Memento" has a movie served up such a provocative mind-bender, and the Sundance winner by first-time filmmaker Andrew Jarecki has the advantage of being true.
By the end of Capturing the Friedmans, we have more information, from both inside and outside the family, than we dreamed would be possible. We have many people telling us exactly what happened. And we have no idea of the truth. None.
A prime candidate for a time capsule, to disclose a century hence the current state of some of our civilization's discontents, including the ability to be convinced that one is telling the truth even when one is lying.
Jarecki shows off this footage as evidence of a truly dysfunctional family in various stages of denial. What it reveals at least as much is the modern phenomenon of reality-TV self-exposure carried to such lengths that, by comparison, the Osbournes look like the Cleavers.
It works, works, and works. What? You expect some originality there? I know, I know, but let's not get all rowdy over a review, okay? Capturing the Friedmans is a perfect experience.
Report
[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]
Report
I felt that the directer had a clear agenda. After looking into the case - he left out numerous important facts that would have made the world of difference. He apparantly only interviewed a small number of victims and left out and/or minimized facts that would have contradicted an apparant agenda. If it was done on purpose or because of lack of research - shame on him
Report
Production Company
HBO Documentary,
Hit The Ground Running Films,
Notorious Pictures
Release Date May 30, 2003
Duration 1 h 47 m
Rating Not Rated
Genres
Tagline Who do you believe?
Awards
Academy Awards, USA
• 1 Nomination
DVD Exclusive Awards
• 1 Win & 3 Nominations
Village Voice Film Poll
• 3 Nominations
