Capturing the Friedmans: Ambiguity unbound

I think that great documentarians pick challenging subjects and aren't afraid of exploring the uncomfortable territory they lead to. And Capturing the Friedmans is filled to the brim with uncomfortable territory. It tells the story of Arnold Friedman who pleaded guilty to sexually
abusing and sodomizing the children that took his computer classes.

This case is especially complicated because the police failed to uncover any physical evidence and used questionable methods while interrogating the children. On the other hand, Arnold had a decent sized stack of kiddie porn hidden behind his piano and he admitted to molesting a minor on a previous occasion. It's quite possible that he is a pedophile who was wrongly convicted of child molestation.

The film consists almost entirely of gray areas and neither the Friedman family nor the police/prosecutors come off as very credible. The director, Andrew Jarecki, gives both sides enough rope to hang themselves. That the facts of what actually occurred remain so illusive is especially surprising considering that Arnold's son (and professional clown), David, made extensive recordings of the family as it went through this crisis. These home movies contain footage of incredibly personal moments of the family discussing the case, their legal options, the turmoil they're all going through and, most disturbingly, them just goofing around and having a good time.

It would have been easy for Jarecki to pick a side and make a film about how Arnold sexually abused entire classes of children or how a community fell victim to paranoia and began a witch-hunt that resulted with an innocent man in prison. But the director chose a more difficult path by presenting all of the confusing and contradictory evidence, trusting the audience to find their own answers to this mystery . . . or not, in my case.


So, who's the black sheep of the family? The admitted child molester or the professional clown?