Capturing the Friedmans 2003 123movies

Watch: Capturing the Friedmans 2003 123movies, Full Movie Online – In the late 1980’s, the Friedmans – father and respected computer and music teacher Arnold Friedman, mother and housewife Elaine Friedman, and their three grown sons, David Friedman, Seth Friedman and Jesse Friedman – of Great Neck, Long Island, are seemingly your typical middle class American family. They all admit that the marriage was by no means close to being harmonious – Arnold and Elaine eventually got divorced – but the sons talk of their father, while also not being always there for them, as being a good man. This façade of respectability masks the fact that Arnold was buying and distributing child pornography. Following a sting operation to confirm this fact, the authorities began to investigate Arnold for sexual abuse of the minor-aged male students of his computer classes, which he held in the basement of the family home. Based on interviews with the students, not only was Arnold charged with and ultimately convicted of multiple counts of sodomy and sexual abuse of these boys but so was eighteen year old Jesse, who was mentioned by many as the aggressor of the two in the acts. Arnold admitted that he is a pedophile, but that he did not abuse the boys in his class as charged and convicted. The trial process brought out the dysfunction that previously existed within the family. But the issue of Arnold and Jesse’s guilt of these acts is hotly debated among the family, among the authorities, among the media and among the students of the computer classes..
Plot: An Oscar nominated documentary about a middle-class American family who is torn apart when the father Arnold and son Jesse are accused of sexually abusing numerous children. Director Jarecki interviews people from different sides of this tragic story and raises the question of whether they were rightfully tried when they claim they were innocent and there was never any evidence against them.
Smart Tags: #interview #long_island_new_york #pianist #new_york_city #police_officer #crime_documentary #biographical_documentary #computer #jewish #boy #child_pornography #tears #teacher #sodomy #middle_class #investigation #guilt #computer_class #trial #pedophile #marriage

Find Alternative – Capturing the Friedmans 2003, Streaming Links:

123movies | FMmovies | Putlocker | GoMovies | SolarMovie | Soap2day

Ratings:

	7.7/10 Votes: 25,903
	97% | RottenTomatoes
	90/100 | MetaCritic
	N/A Votes: 272 Popularity: 8.896 | TMDB

Reviews:

9/10
You really have to be open-minded watching this, because it deals with subject matter that’s so easy for us to condemn without the will to examine. We have a man, Arnold, who is accused of child molestation after porn magazines are found in his possession. We have his son, Jesse, who is accused of being his accessory in the molestations. Jesse says that he was abused by his father at a young age and that he enjoyed the attention. Then Jesse says his lawyer made that up. A man slouched on a couch, inarticulate and seemingly placing himself in a sexual position while being interviewed for the film, gives testimony against the Friedmans that led to 35 criminal counts. Jesse claims he is innocent. Someone is lying.

This is rich, complex stuff, and the filmmaker doesn’t put his own views into the film. He doesn’t question the interviewees outright — although he does “catch” one guy, and contrast different remembrances, some of which indict the Friedmans, others that wave away all accusations. The story gets told to us largely through Arnold’s home videos, and so we’re witness to the family’s self-destruction. This is Shakespeare, and there’s a shattering moment when Arnold’s wife, Elaine, asks, “Where did this come from?”

The film is craftily put-together — there’s a shock left until the end, the kind of thing that calls into question what we’ve just seen — and the filmmaker looks at the situation as a family drama, with the backdrop of the trial, where understandably furious parents try and attack Arnold (“You raped my son!”). But the film also has this sense of sleaze — or, at least, the sense of something iffy: the sex is inherently “dirty” — Arnold bought gay-related magazines, and the film has mentions of incest. There’s a kind of public hysteria that exists, where people throw their hands up into the air when anything deviating from the sexual norm is mentioned, and refuse to even listen to an argument that suggests there might not actually be anything wrong. But I think it’s important to stand back and analyze the situation before we make our decision about Arnold. He does, in fact, eventually admit to abusing one child, a son of a friend, so he is a molester; whether or not he abused the children that he taught and that is the subject of the documentary is another matter; my own feeling is that the evidence is pretty sketchy, and that he was made an example out of for possessing magazines. (And he does openly admit to having experimented sexually with his brother — whose admission at the end of the film is revelatory — and his lawyer says that Arnold expressed arousal at one young boy bouncing on his father’s lap when the lawyer visited Arnold in jail.) It’s my belief that there’s nothing wrong with Arnold’s pedophiliac desire and owning of child pornography. (Although obviously the purchasing of pornography fuels the industry which in turn exploits and abuses more children, but I’m talking specifically about his mental state.) If he didn’t act on his desires, then he does not deserve to have his life and his family’s life torn to shreds.

As the film goes on, it becomes clear that Arnold, this somewhat meek, nebbish figure, probably isn’t the monster he’s made out to be. One student made claims against him, we learn, to “get them off my back,” meaning the investigators. That claim led to 16 criminal counts. Some of the charges against Arnold sound horrific, but are pretty unbelievable, like the idea he lined the children up naked in a leap frog position, and then proceeded to penetrate them one by one. (The simple mechanics of male-male intercourse don’t make it that easy.) The police claimed that Arnold had stacks upon stacks of child (or, really, adolescent teen) pornography; yet his wife never managed to see them, and the photos of the house taken during the investigation show nothing. These are the reasons that prove Arnold’s innocence, not the comments made, like the one by Jesse’s friend, who says that he couldn’t be a violent molester because he was so quiet in everyday life. (We all know how wrong-headed that idea is.) This is a terrific documentary; the investigation and the children’s memories all swirling together, but what makes it so crushing is how it affects the family. The looks and the words and the shadows of doubt they cast on one another is far worse than any jail sentence. 9/10

While, this movie didn’t really capture all of the Friedmans; it did capture the intensity of their criminal case. What a disturbing captivating watch!
Originally, director Andrew Jarecki planned the movie to be a short film titled ‘Just a clown’ about clowns in New York. However, when he interviewed popular Long Islander clown David Friedman for the short, Jarecki stumbled upon a darker, yet more interesting story. It was here, that ‘Capturing the Friedmans’ was created, using talking-head interviews, archive news footage, and a series of home-movie videos, in which the Friedman family shot in the 1970s & 1980s. Without spoiling the movie, too much, the documentary tells the story of what seem like a quiet peaceful American family, the Friedmans, only to find out that, under the public façade of respectability masks the ugly truth that David’s father/public school teacher, Arnold was buying and distributing child pornography. What came next, is a series of public allegations of sexual abuse, brought up by former victims of Arnold, saying that, with his son, Jesse Friedman, both men raped or attempted to molest a good number of his own students. It’s here, where the film delivers a somewhat open-discussion of what could had happen or what didn’t happen. I just wish, they used more evidence in the film. After all, most of the interesting parts of the documentary is in the additional materials for the 2003 DVD release, entitled, “Capturing the Friedmans – Outside the Frame”. It’s here, we get to see, many of the home videos, unedited and raw. We learn, how these family dynamics influenced the decisions that Arthur and Jesse make while defending themselves in court. He see the self-chronicling yields a layered, complex examination of how the family dealt with a crippling crisis. I was really disappointed, by the fact, that they rarely use David’s brother, Seth’s views of the trial in the movie. I can understand, why he didn’t want to be filmed for the 2003’ss talking head, interview sequence, but at least, showcase him, more on the archive home videos. After all, David supposedly owns, all of them. Another thing, they should had added to the film is the unseen video clip, ‘Grandma Speaks’. It really could had add to the backstory of what truly happen to Arnold & his brother, Howard, during their childhood. Another thing, why did they cut the footage of the prosecution’s star witness, if Arnold’s trial was once a public televised trial? It makes no sense. It does seem like, the film was somewhat ignoring the relevant evidence of Jesse’s guilt by pulling things like that out of the film. Another example of that, is the fact, that didn’t show, any of the footage of Jesse’s appearance on Geraldo Rivera show in Feb 23, 1989, where he admitted his guilt on national television, while in state prison. Why wasn’t it, shown in the film? In the director’s defense, he says, he couldn’t get the rights to it; which I know is a bit misleading, since he got film footage from other ABC news outlets. Another key evidence left out in the film is that, there was a third defendant named Ross Goldstein, who also took part in the abuse of the children at the Friedman’s home. It’s Goldstein that turn state’s evidence about Jesse and Arnold, over to the court, while testify against them. The film also fails in their research. A good example of this, is the interviews with the victims of the Friedmans. Only 5 of the victims, were spoken to, by Jarecki and only 2 out of the 13 victims were featured in this film. That’s pretty sad, as he made little attempt to reach out to those people, willing to voice their views on the subject, because of his strong belief that the citizens of Great Neck, were just living up to the mass hysteria and witch-hunt of the Friedmans. Many of those victims, later reported to news outlets, that they did not lie, exaggerate, or were manipulating by others in making those statements. They accused the filmmakers for twisting facts to make the case against the Friedman seem weakly than it’s originally was. Anyways, the film somewhat work with the Friendman’s favor, as there were enough renewed interest in the case that Jesse Friedman mounted an appeal. While the appeal was denied, the Nassau County District Attorney agreed to re-examine the case and appoint a special review committee to evaluate any impropriety in the original case, including coercion of Friedman’s original confession of guilt. I know, a lot of people has bash Jarecki for deliberately choosing not to pursue his firm belief in the Friedmans’ innocence, but as a documentary, it’s better to let the audience’s decide, who is telling the truth, rather than openly forcing or manipulating them into believing one side over the other. I kinda like, how he leaves it, open for the viewers to figure out, on their own, if any of the Friedman’s crimes is true or fictional, despite some biased decisions. I know, some people’s dislike that, because it caused some theatre patrons to remain in their seats to argue the innocence or guilt of Arnold and Jesse Friedman, but it’s what makes a good documentary is the idea of making people think. You know, you made a moving film, when there were public altercations and debate on the subject matter. Overall: It’s a thought-provoking film. With that, said, this is documentary filmmaking at its best — but it’s still best watched by those mature enough to handle the very serious subject matter and those with an open-minded. Like the film’s tagline, leave some room in your brain to ask yourself, ‘Who do you believe?’

Other Information:

Original Language en
Runtime 1 hr 47 min (107 min)
Budget 0
Revenue 4076990
Status Released
Rated Not Rated
Genre Documentary, Biography, Crime
Director Andrew Jarecki
Writer N/A
Actors Arnold Friedman, Jesse Friedman, David Friedman
Country United States
Awards Nominated for 1 Oscar. 25 wins & 16 nominations total
Production Company N/A
Website N/A

Technical Information:

Sound Mix Stereo, Dolby (in selected theatres)
Aspect Ratio 1.85 : 1
Camera N/A
Laboratory N/A
Film Length N/A
Negative Format 16 mm (interview segments), Video
Cinematographic Process Super 16 (interview segments), Video
Printed Film Format 35 mm