Review of Capturing the Friedmans (2003) by Jim G — 28 Dec 2007

Director Andrew Jarecki was filming a documentary about birthday party clowns when he discovered one of his subjects was part of an extraordinary family and a more extraordinary story. He has crafted a remarkable film about innocence, guilt and a guilty conscience.

Arnold Friedman was a high school science teacher who gave computer lessons in his basement. He was also a paedophile whose stash of child pornography was seized during a raid and sparked charges of serial sexual abuse - with his youngest son, Jesse, as accomplice. The Friedman family had a habit of recording themselves on videotape, even through this ordeal, and we see the family destroy itself as the trial approaches and its aftermath hits. This would be enough to make an interesting documentary, but Jarecki adds a crucial detail to make a fascinating film: doubt.

It was a messy case, and Jarecki makes no attempt to clear it up. What conclusions can we reach? That Arnold had child porn. That the family had lousy lawyers. That the police did a bad job and framed a guilty man. That the media and the community created a hysteria that blurred the truth. That some of the victims were lying. That Arnold and Jesse were lying. We become equally convinced that Arnold is innocent and framed and guilty as charged. And we see three versions of Jesse in one afternoon: a detached kid who clowns around outside the courthouse, entertaining his brothers with Monty Python routines as he's about to be sentenced; a shit-stirrer antagonising his alleged victims' families; a broken soul, crying as he confesses to the court that he, too, is his father's victim and became an abuser because he was too scared to refuse. Which Jesse should we believe? Whichever we choose, how do we reconcile it with the other two?

Arnold's wife says he had "a need to confess and a need to go to prison." That we can believe. But why?