matty_b
Posts: 13124
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.
|
Capturing the Friedmans (Andrew Jarecki)
When a respected teacher, Arnold Friedman, is arrested for first possessing child pornography, it's only the start of a slippery slope that soon tears his entire family apart. Next, alongside his eldest son, Jesse, he's charged with raping dozens upon dozens of children that he taught computer classes too in his basement; it's a charge that still splits opinion within the family and the wider community. Arnold's ex-wife claims that he told her that when he was 13, he raped his younger brother - a charge the younger brother denies. Some students say they never saw anything untoward going on in the Friedman house. Some have a story that's very slippery. It's a film where the perspective of who you can and can't trust is constantly changing and Jarecki does an expert job of capturing how elusive the truth is. Is there a sense throughout that Jarecki has an opinion of how guilty Arnold and Jesse are/were? Sure, but his handling of the material is superbly even-handed, plenty of voice is given to those who believe the Friedmans are guilty.
What really makes the documentary exceptional however, is the astonishing home footage that Jarecki draws upon. For some obsessive reason, the middle son, David (there's a youngest son, Seth, who wished not to participate), decided to film everything that was going on in the family home during the trial and sentencing. Everything. Screaming matches between Arnold and his wife, between Jesse and his mother, emotional breakdowns. The meltdown of a family is laid bare and it's horrific, car crash viewing, likely to elicit tears one minute and then gasps of barely comprehending laughter the next (Arnold at one point cheerily jokes what the number across his chest is going to be in prison).
What makes it all the more compulsive though, is how weird the Friedmans are. With the threat of jail for life hanging over them, Arnold and Jesse goof around with the camera, putting on silly amateur dramatics play for the rest of the family. Arnold is an unbelievably passive presence; most of the time just shyly smiling at the camera while his family crumbles around him - there's no way of reading him and his ambiguity is key to the question of how guilty he is. There's no doubting that he owned child pornography, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was guilty of rape, and just being strange is no way to determine the guilt of someone.
This strangeness is clearly genetic, however. We're talking about three boys who thought it would be a good idea to take their camera to court on the morning of sentencing and then approach the victims families for an interview. They're a fascinating, oddball, vaguely disturbing family and the fact that not one of them seems to have any foot in reality goes some way to explaining the trouble they got themselves into and just why the documentary is so arresting. I mean, you're talking about a family who, when the cops first come knocking on their door, one of the sons decides the best way to talk to the media is with a pair of boxer shorts on his head. (5)
< Message edited by matty_b -- 5/2/2013 9:37:53 AM >
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.
|
Printable Version
RE: Top 100 Films I've Watched This Year: 2013 - Discus... - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread