I haven’t seen it, but it got rave reviews when it came out and I believe it was nominated for Best Documentary last year. It is supposed to be very good, but just a word of warning, I don’t think it is the “feel good film of the year”.
It is on HBO tonight (and repeated a few times over the next few days, as HBO is known to do).
Though Errol Morris was overdue for an Oscar, Friedmans was, I believe, the most deserving of the award last year. A remarkable, creepy film that may be the ultimate cinematic example of how the notion of “truth” is often hopelessly elusive.
A better documentary than F9/11, and a much better documentary than Bowling for Columbine; it definitely should’ve won last year’s Oscar. However, Michael Moore didn’t win for BCF: his win was an apology from the Academy for not even nominating Roger and Me.
Definitely creepy, and as DMark said, it is not a “feel good” movie. I never did decide which side to believe.
lissener, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Capturing the Friedmans was nominated this year, and it lost to The Fog of War; Moore’s Bowling won in 2003.
Wow, thanks for pointing that out, DMark.
A very good film–lots to think about. I’d read about it before, and some of the facets presented seemed less ambiguous then I expected (I think the tactics used by the police were repulsive, and seemingly designed to obscure the truth), but still an awful lot to chew on. I’ll be thinking about this for a while…
Yeah, thanks for the heads-up on this one DMark, it was a very interesting film.
It was a great movie, but by end I didn’t think the truth was still elusive. The saddest part had to be the son in complete denial hiding his anguish in a clown suit.
And yet, I came away from the movie believing one thing with absolute certainty: nothing ever happened in that basement.
Jesse has a website, by the way.
I didn’t come away from it with that impression at all.
I’m convinced that father molested his children and the other children. I also believe a hysteria set in that might have prompted false accusations and exaggerated accusations, but that didn’t make them innocent.
A big part of my feeling was that the Mom didn’t even seem to believe it.
And, I wouldn’t hire that clown if my life depended on it.
Interesting, Trunk.
Personally, I don’t think anything happened in the basement. I don’t think Jesse did anything (in fact, I’m tempted to donate a bit to his appeal fund–he’s trying to get his conviction overturned). I came away outraged out how preposterous the charges are: Kids were being sodomised several times over a one-hour period on a weekly basis, and yet the parents didn’t notice a thing? There was no physical evidence? No mother found blood or semen in her childs clothing when she did the laundry? No kid said anything that alerted their parents, until the police came in and said “We know you were molested. You were molested, right?”? The kids had to be hypnotized before they would remember anything?
My feelings of ambiguity revolve around the father–yes, he was a pedophile. But, at least in my book, there’s nothing wrong with that provided he doesn’t do anything to a real child. The only credible evidence that he actually did molest a kid as an adult was his admission that he molested his best friends kid. But there’s no details on that–if he spent his entire adult life controlling his desires, his definition of “molest” could be relatively innocuous (like, say, “accidently” brushing up against a kid). Creepy and wrong, but on an entirely different level then anal rape.
I think it says something about the film that people come away from it with such completely different opinions. What, I’m not exactly sure. 
This isn’t really a great argument, but I thought that given that the filmmakers point of view was that they were innocent, and I still thought they were a little guilty kind of lent credence to them being a lot guilty.
I maybe did too much reading between the lines but I thought that some of what wasn’t said was danming. . .
For starters, the son living in California. He didn’t have anything to say about his father or brother being wrongly accused of child molesting? Come on. I suspect he believed they did do it but couldn’t condemn them or bring himself to lie on film about it.
I thought the Mom clearly thought they were guilty. Maybe she was just completely whacked-out after learning about her husbands activities but she seemed to have major doubts, too.
And yeah, I just flat out don’t trust a guy that becomes a clown from that background. I think that’s weird.
I personally have no idea what really happened. As skeptical as I am of claims from hypnotism and bad interrogation, that skepticism is kinda is cancelled out by the fact the guy was clearly sexually attracted to children, and admitted to some kind of misconduct at some point.
I’m on the fence with this one. Maybe watching the film one or more times (and more carefully; usually I’m on the PC while wathing the tube) will make me arrive at an opinion in one way or another.
Trunk, Metacom sums up nicely why I think it’s so unlikely anything happened in the basement. There was ZERO evidence other than the children’s clearly manipulated memories, and there certainly must have been physical evidence if anything had really happened.
Furthermore, despite the filmmaker’s bias, we saw right on-screen just how unreliable the authority figures were, like when the butch-looking detective said there were “stacks and stacks” of pedophile literature all over the house, when we knew there was only a single magazine.
And what a poor witness was the former student with the hidden face. “Leapfrogs,” indeed.
I don’t understand how anyone can watch the film and believe anything happened in the basement.
d’OH! you’re right. *BFC * won for *R&M * the year before, and *Fog of War * won because *The Thin Blue Line * hadn’t been nominated. Now someone will tell me it was . . .
FWIW, I’ll chime in with the people saying they were railroaded. Yes, the dad was a pedophile. In fact, be probly got a few jollies hanging out with the boys in his computer class; he probly was tempted mightily. But I think the evidence shows he controlled those urges. There are just so many billions of variables, with that many kids over that many hours and years, for all the little variables to line up in such a way as to conceal ALL evidence that anything happened. It’s preposterous, especially when you look at the relative credibility of which kid says what. And the railroading the son got so far outweighs his dad’s treatment that it nearly brings me to tears of rage.
Huh? Maybe I missed that part, but I remember seeing the detective reading off the titles of the various magazines that were found and seeing video of a stack of mags. Was this debunked while I was on a bathroom break?
I’m with Trunk. Unfortunately, I’ve had a lot of experience with liars in my business, and you get to be pretty good at spotting them. There are “tells.” I thought the younger Friedman was lying. When he was asked by his brother in the car whether he did it (on the way to the plea hearing) he made a very unconvincing denial, with his eyes darting around, and then changed the subject.
Moreover, his entire demeanor was wrong for someone who was innocent but was nevertheless pleading guilty. He didn’t seem nearly as upset about it as you would expect him to be.
His lawyer didn’t believe he was innocent. His own mother didn’t seem to believe he was innocent. His brothers were in denial about the whole thing. They couldn’t even admit to themselves that their dad was a pedophile.
Fiver, what do you mean there is “zero evidence?” Bear in mind that we saw only what the filmmaker showed us. We did not see the prosecution’s entire case. WE DON"T KNOW what additional evidence is out there. The case never went to trial. We just heard from a couple of the eyewitnesses, cherrypicked by the filmmaker to present his point of view.
Were claims exaggerated? Possibly? Details misremembered? Undoubtedly. But that is not the same as showing that nothing happened.
Pedophilia, by the way, can be a very subtle crime. The victims sometimes assist the abuser in covering it up, either through shame, or frankly, because they have enjoyed the contact themselves. It is not surprising or inappropriate for a detective to draw out their testimony. I’m sure there were tapes of the interviews. Why, do you suppose, didn’t the filmmaker play any of those for us? (With the sound distorted to protect identities, of course.)
And I would also be awfully careful about hiring that clown, bearing in mind that:
a) victims of molestation have a tendency to become molesters themselves; and
b) molesters tend to seek out jobs that will put them in contact with children.
No, it wasn’t debunked: the investigator grossly exagerrated when she said there were “stacks lying around,” but there was more then just the one magazine. From what I understand, he had a stash hidden in his office.
The ability of people to detect deception, even those who think that they’re good at it, is very unreliable. This has been and continues to be studied–basically, the same reactions that people associate with deceptions are also associated with stress, and there’s a broad spectrum of reactions to stress and deceitful behaviour.
I believe he ment “zero physical evidence,” and the detectives admitted that there was none–the case was based entirely on the testimony of the children. I don’t see a reason why the detective would lie about that.
Given that it’s been demonstrated that “drawing out testimony” is likely to lead to false information, I think it’s innaproriate…
Other then the fathers pedophillia and Jesse’s coerced confession, is there ANY evidence to suggest that the sons were molested?
I didn’t watch this last night – I saw it when it came out on DVD – but I thought it came out that Jesse (or one of the other sons) was molested. Didn’t the lawyer bring that up?
that would have
implicated the father more.
put more doubt about Jesse’s denials in my mind.
As I recall, WHILE I was watching, I was pissed. I was on board. But then certain things came out at the end that made me think otherwise.
Maybe it was some subtle things. I just left it with the impression that even though (I thought) the filmmaker was trying to show otherwise, they were guilty.
This certainly isn’t something we can convince each other of in a thread about the movie.
Still, regardless of guilt/innocence still a VERY compelling documentary about truth/the police/family/etc.
I again point out that his lawyer didn’t believe he was innocent. (And he’s had much more contact with the defendant than have we). Moreover, his own mother didn’t seem to believe he was innocent. Would any mother who believed her son innocent of such a charge advise him to plead guilty? Let me answer my own question: HELL NO. She would fight tooth and nail to clear her son’s name.
The mother’s demeanor through this whole thing seemed very damning to father and son. If the computer sessions were innocent, wouldn’t she know that? If not, why not? Was she barred from the sessions? If so, why?
Circumstantial, only:
Would you let any of these sons babysit your children? If not, why not?
Ah, but can the lawyer admit that he thinks his client is innocent, but let him plead guilty anyways?
I came away thinking the mother was one of the most dysfunctional members of the family–not as bad as the kids made her out to be, but still pretty whacked. And are you sure she advised him to plead guilty? I remember her asking her husband to plead guilty to save her son (remember her explaining the whole “If a rock is sinking a boat, cut the rock away” analogy?), but I don’t recall her every advising her son to plead guilty–I thought that was his decision only, and it surprised people. I don’t have a problem believing an innocent man would plea-bargain and admit guilt: If you’re being railroaded, I think it’s a rational decision to make.
If she knew stuff was happening, then why was she surprised when they found more then one magazine? She seemed to be genuinely hurt by that lie of Arnold’s.
Hmm.
I’ll take the middle road: If I had kids, I wouldn’t let the Freidman’s babysit but I would hire the clown. 
Jesse claimed that his father molested him in order to try and get a more lenient sentence as part of his plea, but IIRC denies that his father did previously and currently. I have no trouble believing that he’d lie to try and get a lighter sentence. In the environment he was tried in, I don’t think he had any better options.
Amen–I’m gonna pull out real soon now before this turns in to a GD or Pit trainwreck. 
Agreed!