Capturing The Friedmans review

Arnold Friedman led a seemingly model existence. A Jewish family man, he had three teenage sons and was a prize-winning teacher at his local high school. He had a middle-class, educated existence and, as an avid fan of personal computing, gave extra-curricular lessons in his home basement. But his family's life was shattered in 1987 when Arthur was charged with possession of child pornography. Local rumours turned into accusation and Arthur was subsequently accused of hundreds of acts of indecency against boys in his care. What's more, his son Jesse was also accused of the same crime. When the case came to court both pled guilty and received hefty sentences.

What makes Andrew Jarecki's compelling documentary unique is the huge range of first-hand evidence he has at his disposal. The Friedmans embraced home cinema recording from an early age and filmed virtually everything they did. So when the book was thrown at them, they continued to film themselves disintegrating from a happy family unit to a group of neurotic borderline lunatics.

Central to the reconstruction is the modern-day talking head evidence from two of the sons (including Jesse who was imprisoned), as well as jarring and uncomfortable testament from the boy's mother and Arthur's brother Howard. All of the law enforcement officials seem happy to have participated in what initially seemed like a hugely obvious case of entrapment (Arthur unwittingly traded magazines with an undercover cop for months), but which turned into something so horrible even they now feel uncomfortable about it.

Even though Capturing the Friedmans goes to a very dark place, it does so with a lightness of touch, largely down to the effusiveness of the family, both in the video and the modern-day excerpts. We see the boys becoming gradually closer and sharing the same poor taste in jokes, while the mother is increasingly distanced. The fact that one of the boys is now New York's leading clown is evidence of the sheer bizarreness of this family.

While Jarecki might be accused of playing with the audience by virtue of his narrative technique (several important facts are revealed over the film's running time that make you re-adjust your opinion), he is at pains to paint both sides of the story with the same brush. Thus an expert in these cases calls it an example of mass hysteria and trial by media, citing the notable absence of physical evidence - none of the boys had any marks - as the most obvious example.

This is thought-provoking stuff, made all the more interesting and surreal by the unwitting leading players.

Paul Hurley