|
Directed by: Andrew Jarecki Starring: The Friedman family Capturing the Friedmans sounded like a potentially brilliant documentary -- a director, originally doing a documentary about New York clowns, lucks into hours of footage of a family's internal drama as they cope with molestation charges pressed against the father. Unfortunately, the resulting documentary rarely goes beyond a nicely cut slideshow of the existing footage. Perhaps the knowledge of the documentary's origin clouds my opinion, but the film relies far too heavily on the "gimmick" of having a camera running during private family arguments and discussions. At first these moments propel the movie entirely by themselves: the fact that the camera is capturing these moments is interesting all on its own. However, as the movie reaches its final half hour, the impact and appeal of the homeshot footage has largely warn off. For every moment of juicy family drama there are 3 or 4 of mundane family events that are on the screen far too long. The director stumbled upon a documentary filmmaker's dream (actually having a fly on the wall during crucial moments of a story) and ends up over-using it. Combine this with a lack of an interesting narrator and the film ends up feeling rather disjointed. There's no real flow, since the reliance on homemade movies creates an unstable timeline (the son who shot the home movies didn't do so regularly). The film crawls in between the gripping home movie moments. One major complaint I have is that for the majority of the movie, we are presented with a heavy dose of doubt in the charges (and lead in a way that most people will likely conclude he's innocent, or at least guilty of much lesser charges). This is a result of the reliance on family footage which is understandably one-sided. However, the director never really takes on the responsibility of painting a strong argument for the other side, which seems all the more ridiculous when we learn at the end of the movie that the father, although denying most of the claims, admits to having molested before. I can appreciate spending the majority of the movie trying to ask the question "Did he really do it?", but the importance of that question is squashed in light of his admissions of being a child molestor. Not to mention that I felt somewhat lied to, as the director tried to portray the father as a potentially innocent man. Regardless, this is a unique and first-ever look at the real internal drama of a family in this situation. There is a lot of fascinating stuff here, and it does force the viewer to ask questions about their own family: How would I react if my father was charged with crimes like these? Would I stand by him? Even in the face of multiple accusations? How would I treat my mother if she failed to support my father? And so on. RATING: 2.5 PROS: Fascinating subject, unique CONS: Disjointed, drags at times, lacks a strong narration, lopsided ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342172/
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2004 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
I actually thought this was one of the more fascinating documentaries I've seen. The footage of the family interaction was very interesting and I didn't think it was dull myself. As for the point olhado brought up, I think that I got the impression (I saw this a long time ago in the theater) that he confessed to having molested before to end all the stress the family was under but he didn't actually mean it. I still think the ending leaves it open to interpretation and discussion. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2004 04:15
|
|
|
Now this is a documentary done right. Full of interesting characters and amazing stories and shocking surprises. And it leaves you thinking a lot about it and the questions it raises. Although ultimately the film is more about family and memory than it is about making a case for either side, one can't help but try to piece together the truth. Certainly some of the (alleged) victims were lying, but I just think that Arnold did something to some of them. I don't know if Jesse was involved. I can't decide. It seems unlikely, but he also comes off as a liar a lot of the time. There's so many conflicting arguments, in the film and in my mind. It's a lot to digest. Rating: 5
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2005 21:47
|
|
