Capturing the Friedmans

Released 2003
Featuring: David Friedman, Arnold Friedman, Jesse Friedman, Elaine Friedman
Directed by Andrew Jarecki

Various articles have labeled Capturing the Friedmans as a narrative documentary, a crime investigation, a meditation upon the nature of truth, and an expose of the failings of the United States judicial system. First and foremost, however, it is an American tragedy – a look inside a criminal case that shines a light into the dark, ugly corners of suburbia, then turns that same light on various other aspects of crime & punishment. Like the unforgettable Paradise Lost, this movie shows that the legal system is often cruelly unconcerned about the concept of justice, and that a plea of "guilty" or "not guilty" doesn't necessarily reflect whether the defendant did or didn't commit the crime.

The facts, as laid out by the media when the case broke in 1987, were apparently straightforward. A respected Long Island teacher, Arnold Friedman, was arrested on charges of child molestation when investigators learned that participants in a computer class he conducted in his home claimed to have been sexually abused. The shadow of doubt spread, falling on Arnold's youngest son, 18-year old Jesse, who was ultimately accused of more than 200 criminal counts ranging from sodomy to child endangerment. Both men pled guilty and were sentenced to prison. Arnold died behind bars. Jesse was released after 13 years.

Summary by James Berardinelli

When I sat down to watch this movie, I had no idea what it was about. I knew was it was a documentary that used home video, but I thought it was going to be an inside portrait of a typical American family. Boy, was I wrong. Instead of writing a book on this subject, I'm just going to throw out some thoughts. First, it's obvious the police created a state of hysteria in the neighborhood that led to the ridiculous stories of gang rape. C'mon, leapfrogging?? These young boys were anally raped by both Arnold and Jesse Friedman weekly for years in groups, but none of the kids mentioned this to anyone? None of them ever cried when their parents picked them up? There was never any blood or stains in their little underoos? None of the kids even knew these events took place until the police essentially forced them to "admit" it? It was another example of American hysteria. Secondly, it's obvious Jesse Friedman was innocent. He lost 13 years of his life in prison and was branded a sex criminal. As far as I could tell, the only reason he was accused was because he helped teach the computer classes. If he didn't take part in the crimes, they couldn't have happened. It's important to remember this whole investigation started when Arnold ordered his hardcore, gay pedophilia magazine, for which he deserved punishment/counseling. It didn't start with a complaint from any of the kids. None of the kids said they were molested until the police conducted exactly the type of investigation we now know you cannot conduct with children.

Those things seem obvious to me, so here are some speculations. I'm not sure Arnold had a grip on reality. He later claimed that he molested his brother for years when they both were kids, but his brother still doesn't remember any of it. His brother could be lying, but it could also be Arnold only believed he did that due to some kind of guilt he harbored for his attraction to young boys. One of the strengths of the movie is it doesn't try to take a stand on the truth, because the truth died with Arnold. The kids' memories can't really be trusted anymore, and I think Arnold lost himself in some fantasy world after this investigation started.

The home videos were very interesting, but Arnold was a clam. He didn't react like we would expect an innocent person to react, but he didn't act like a guilty person either. It seemed to me he felt guilty for his impulses, and some people like that feel they deserve to be punished regardless of what they've actually done. I could be way off base, but that was my impression of Arnold. Although I believed him when he said he didn't molest any of his students, I'm not sure I believed him when he wrote the one sentence that he molested two boys on vacation. Again, that seemed like a guilt-fueled fantasy. When his son David ranted about what the hell that sentence meant, I thought he was in denial, but then I got to thinking David may have been right. Arnold may have touched the boys on the back or legs and considered that molestation. The boys didn't complain about it then or anytime in the past 20 years (despite the publicity of this case), so it may have been innocent from anyone else's standpoint, but then again, it may not have been. --Bill Alward, February 5, 2004