One of the most difficult things to come to terms with in life is the way a seemingly nice, soft-spoken, accomplished person can actually be a monster. Can the alter ego even be likable? Are there good characteristics alongside the evil ones? That said, I came out at the end of the movie not knowing how to feel and not having a gut feeling about the reality either way.For all intents and purposes, this was a model family and every home movie reflects smiles and affection. The inner workings of the relationships are strange to me and the personalities are certainly unusual, but still, there seems to be love. And being unusual isn't indicative of evil doings in and of itself.It's hard to think about but fascinating to imagine the possibility of it all being a planted idea.

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?'

This documentary opens pointedly with a montage of 80s Americana, to the tune of even more nostalgic music. The opening is representative of the mix of familiarity and the forbidden that marks the way the film delves into the private side of a very public scandal - the arrest of the pedophile Arnold Friedman and his son Jesse. As many have said, we are not presented with a clear argument as to the pair's guilt or innocence. Rather, we are shown that what lies on the other side of the unspeakable in many ways is almost shockingly banal. The Friedman's home videos seemed to me at once familiar - their house, the decor, the old computers and camcorders, the intense family dynamics - a lot of it reminded me of my own childhood in the 80s. It is the added element of crime and shame which provokes the Friedmans' spiral from dysfunctional but ordinary suburban family to societal pariahs. At the same time, that very element emerged from all this banalia. This is partly due to the nature of the crime: pedophilia usually occurs within families, in the home. It is committed by people you may know and love. It provokes horror in us because it is a perversion of the places and people with whom we are supposed to feel most safe. And because we are really only shown the Friedman's side of the story, we are forced to identify with them, and wonder if such a catastrophe could befall our own family. It is probably for this reason that I also came away wondering about the nature of memory, especially childhood memories. The only person who really knew 'the truth' about the abuse was probably Arnold. The children who claimed to be victims may or may not have been manipulated by the police, and Jesse, even if he was involved in some sort of inappropriate activity with his father, has definitely convinced himself of his own innocence. Now there seems to be no truth we can really grab ahold of, only obscure memories reflected through years of trauma and denial. At one point in the film, the eldest brother David asks of old photographs, "do you remember being there when the photo was taken, or do you remember seeing the picture hanging on the wall?" Based on the evidence presented in the film, nothing really seems to make too much sense - neither the accusations nor the denials. Whatever did happen back in the 80s is now long buried under mountains of fantastical mental creation. The Friedman's obsessive video recording seems to both anchor the memories in reality, at the same time as it suggests that at some point the images of the past, real or imagined, take on a life of their own.

Even though I have yet to finish watching the whole film I will write a few thoughts on where I am currently.I have tried to convince myself that this is a regular suburban family but based on the evidence and testimony that I have seen so far, I cant help but be led to believe that this may in fact be the most delinquent family I have ever seen. How can Arnies(I believe that is the main characters name) wife, after everything that was uncovered about her husband stick around after Arnie admitted to molesting children? And how can these people admit guilt in court and still try to maintain their innocence? I really cannot wrap my head around this family. The more I see the more disgusted I get. If this was not a class assignment to watch the film I would never have considered to watch it. Perhaps once I finish the movie I will have a different opinion but for right now I am dreading having to watch the rest of it.