Capturing the Friedmans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Capturing the Friedmans
Capturing the Friedmans poster.jpg
Theatrical release poster
Directed byAndrew Jarecki
Produced byAndrew Jarecki
Marc Smerling
StarringArnold Friedman
Elaine Friedman
David Friedman
Jesse Friedman
CinematographyAdolfo Doring
Edited byRichard Hankin
Music byBill Harrington
Andrea Morricone
Distributed byMagnolia Pictures
Release date
  • January 17, 2003 (2003-01-17) (Sundance)
  • May 30, 2003 (2003-05-30) (United States)
Running time
107 minutes
CountryUnited States

Capturing the Friedmans is a 2003 HBO documentary film directed by Andrew Jarecki. It focuses on the 1980s investigation of Arnold and Jesse Friedman for child molestation. It was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature in 2003.[1]

Some of the Friedmans' alleged victims and family members wrote to the Awards Committee protesting the nomination, their identities confirmed but protected by the judge who presided over the court case.[2]


Jarecki initially was making a short film, Just a Clown, which he completed, about children's birthday party entertainers in New York, including the popular clown David Friedman ("Silly Billy"). During his research, Jarecki learned that David Friedman's brother, Jesse, and his father, Arnold, had pleaded guilty to child sexual abuse, and the family had an archive of home movies. Jarecki interviewed some of the children involved and ended up making a film focusing on the Friedmans.[3]


The investigation into Arnold Friedman's life started in 1987 after the U.S. Postal Service intercepted a magazine of child pornography received from the Netherlands. In searching his Great Neck, New York, home, investigators found a collection of child pornography. After learning that Friedman taught children computer classes from his home, local police began to suspect him of abusing his students.

The Friedmans were allowed to stay at home in order to prepare for court and took numerous home videos while Arnold Friedman (and, later, his son Jesse) awaited trial. The videos were not made with publishing in mind, but rather as a way to record what was happening in their lives. The movie shows much of this footage: family dinners, conversations and arguments. Arnold's wife, Elaine, was unsure of her husband's guilt and advised him to confess in order to protect their son; she soon divorced him.

Arnold Friedman pleaded guilty to multiple charges of sodomy and sexual abuse. According to the Friedman family, he confessed in the hopes that his son would be spared prison time. Jesse Friedman later confessed as well but later claimed he did so to avoid being sent to prison for life. He said in mitigation that his father had molested him. According to Jesse's lawyer Peter Panaro, who visited Arnold in a Wisconsin federal prison, Arnold admitted to molesting two boys, but not those who attended his computer classes. He is also quoted as claiming that, when he was 13, he sexually abused his younger brother, Howard, who was eight years old at the time; Howard Friedman, interviewed in the movie, says he does not recall this. Jesse Friedman, in a subsequent statement, said that his father told him and his brothers that he sexually abused Howard.[4]

Arnold Friedman died by suicide in prison in 1995, leaving a $250,000 life insurance benefit to Jesse. Jesse Friedman was released from New York's Clinton Correctional Facility in 2001 after serving 13 years of his sentence. Currently, he is running an online book-selling business.[5]


The film received predominantly positive reviews. Review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported an approval rating of 97% based on 153 reviews, with an average rating of 8.46/10. The website's critical consensus states, "A haunting depiction of a disintegrating family, and a powerful argument on the elusiveness of truth".[6] The film was ranked as the 7th best-reviewed movie of 2003 on the website's best of the year list.[7] It also has a score of 90 out of 100 on Metacritic, based on 39 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".[8] The low-budget documentary was a success with audiences as well, grossing over $3 million in theaters and making it a surprise hit.[9]

Elvis Mitchell of The New York Times wrote, "Mr. Jarecki so recognizes the archetypal figures in the Friedman home that he knows to push things any further through heavy-handed assessment would be redundant." He praised Jarecki for operating under the premise "that first impressions can't be trusted and that truth rests with each person telling the story."[10]

The Washington Post columnist Desson Howe offered similar praise, writing, "It's testament to Jarecki's superbly wrought film that everyone seems to be, simultaneously, morally suspect and strikingly innocent as they relate their stories and assertions...This is a film about the quagmire of mystery in every human soul."[11] Similarly, Roger Ebert wrote, "The film is an instructive lesson about the elusiveness of facts, especially in a legal context. Sometimes guilt and innocence are discovered in court, but sometimes, we gather, only truths about the law are demonstrated."[12]

The film won the Grand Jury prize at the Sundance Film Festival for 2003.[12] Capturing the Friedmans was voted the fifth film in the 2005 Channel 4 programme The 50 Greatest Documentaries.

In one of the few negative reviews, Los Angeles Times writer Kenneth Turan wrote a critique of both the film and Jarecki, stating, "Jarecki's pose of impartiality gets especially troublesome for audiences when it enables him to evade responsibility for dealing with the complexities of his material."[13]

Criticism intensified as Jarecki's choice not to pursue his firm belief in the Friedmans' innocence became publicly known. In his review, Ebert had recounted Jarecki's statement at the Sundance Film Festival that he did not know whether Arnold and Jesse Friedman were guilty of child molestation. Ebert roundly praised Jarecki for communicating this ambiguity.[12] It has since emerged that Jarecki funded Jesse Friedman's appeal.[14] Writing for The Village Voice, Debbie Nathan – who was hired by Jarecki as a consultant after having been interviewed for the film – wrote of Jarecki, "Polling viewers at Sundance in January, he was struck by how they were split over Arnold and Jesse's guilt. Since then, he's crafted a marketing strategy based on ambiguity, and during Q&As and interviews, he has studiously avoided taking a stand.".[15] There was a critical blacklash due to footage the director left out on purpose.[citation needed] Jarecki's film omitted a third co-defendant, Ross Goldstein, a teenage neighbor who also pleaded guilty to charges of child molestation and who corroborated some of the children's accusations at the time and went to prison. [16] Jarecki also omitted a tearful confession of guilt by Jesse Friedman in prison on Geraldo Rivera’s talk show in 1989. Jesse Friedman detailed how his father had molested him as a child. [17]

Additional materials[edit]

The 2003 DVD release included a second DVD: "Capturing the Friedmans - Outside the Frame". It included:

  • Unseen home movies ("Passover Seder", "Grandma Speaks", "Jesse's Last Night")
  • Great Neck Outraged.
  • New Witnesses and Evidence.
  • Uncut footage of the prosecution's star witness.
  • Friedman family scrapbook and hidden audio tapes.
  • Just a Clown (the 20-minute short featuring David Friedman that led to Capturing the Friedmans).
  • Jesse's Life Today.
  • An altercation at the film's New York premiere.
  • The Judge (Abbey Boklan) speaks out at the Great Neck premiere.
  • A ROM section with key documents from the family and the case.

The materials show an altercation from a discussion period following the film's premiere in which the retired head of the Nassau County Police's Sex Crimes Unit Frances Galasso argues with Debbie Nathan, as well as a speech by trial judge Abbey Boklan from the showing in Great Neck. Both made the claim that the film had ignored relevant evidence of Jesse's guilt. This evidence included his appearance on the Geraldo Rivera show, when Jesse confessed to sexually abusing children,[18] and the fact that there was another defendant (Ross Goldstein), who turned state's evidence and pleaded guilty, and two other unindicted co-conspirators. (Goldstein is not named in the film but it is said in one of the other DVD extras that he declined to be interviewed. One of the unindicted co-conspirators claims in the same section that both were accused falsely by Goldstein.) In the video of the discussion period, Jesse's lawyer at the time, Peter Panaro, said that he had advised Jesse not to appear on Rivera's talk show (Panaro was also present on the show), and in fact had Jesse sign an affidavit saying that he was doing so against legal advice. [19]

Subsequent legal developments[edit]

In August 2010, a federal appeals court upheld the conviction of Jesse Friedman on technical legal grounds,[20] but took the unusual step of urging prosecutors to reopen Friedman's case, saying that there was a "reasonable likelihood that Jesse Friedman was wrongfully convicted".[21] The decision cited "overzealousness" by law enforcement officials swept up in the hysteria over child molestation in the 1980s.

Following the appeals court ruling, the Nassau District Attorney's office began a three-year investigation led by District Attorney Kathleen M. Rice. On June 24, 2013, the report was released. In a 155-page report,[22] the district attorney's office concluded that none of four issues raised in a strongly-worded 2010 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit were substantiated by the evidence. Instead, it concluded, "By any impartial analysis, the reinvestigation process prompted by Jesse Friedman, his advocates and the Second Circuit, has only increased confidence in the integrity of Jesse Friedman's guilty plea and adjudication as a sex offender." Jesse Friedman was regarded as a "narcissist" and a "psychopathic deviant" by a psychiatrist his attorney hired to conduct an evaluation.[23] Boklan had been subject to "selectively edited and misleading film portrayals in Capturing the Friedmans". A four-member independent advisory panel guided and oversaw the work. It included Barry Scheck, a founder of the Innocence Project, one of the country's leading advocates for overturning wrongful convictions, and a member of O. J. Simpson's defense team.[24] However, Scheck has subsequently complained that key documents were not available to the panel, and urged the matter be reopened.[25]

Prior to the report's release, details emerged, including letters from some of the alleged victims in which they recant their accusations and implicate the police in coercing their statements.[26] Prior to the report's release, The Village Voice conducted an interview with Jesse Friedman,[27] who described himself as "freakishly optimistic", and also reported that Ross Goldstein, a childhood friend of Jesse Friedman's, had broken his 25-year silence to explain he had been coerced into cooperating with the district attorney's office: "He told the review panel of how he'd been coerced into lying, how prosecutors coached him through details of the Friedmans' computer lab, which he'd never even seen, and how he was imprisoned for something he'd never done."[28]

On February 10, 2015, Jesse Friedman was back in state appellate court seeking to have Nassau County prosecutors turn over to him the remainder of their evidence against him.[29] A state Appeals Court found, in December 2015, that the prosecutors did not have to release the records. According to a spokesperson for the Nassau County District Attorney, because Friedman pleaded guilty and there was no trial, the records of witnesses who did not testify are confidential, and the law does not mandate their disclosure.[30]


  1. ^ King, Loren (December 19, 2010). "Making dysfunction work for him". The Boston Globe. Retrieved December 18, 2013.
  2. ^ Waxman, Sharon (February 24, 2004). "Victims Say Film on Molesters Distorts Facts". The New York Times. Retrieved April 24, 2011.
  3. ^ Byrne, Peter (May 20, 2003). "Review of Capturing the Friedmans". BMJ. Retrieved October 25, 2013.
  4. ^ "Presentation by Jesse Friedman, May 17, 2012",, consulted 10-20-2014.
  5. ^ "Reinvestigating the Friedmans - The New York Times". The New York Times. Retrieved April 5, 2019.
  6. ^ "Capturing the Freidmans (2003)". Rotten Tomatoes. Fandango Media. Retrieved April 10, 2018.
  7. ^ "Top 100 Movies of 2003". Rotten Tomatoes. Fandango Media. Retrieved April 10, 2018.
  8. ^
  9. ^ "Capturing the Friedmans (2003)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved April 10, 2018.
  10. ^ Mitchell, Elvis (May 20, 2003). "Capturing the Friedmans". The New York Times. Retrieved February 12, 2007.
  11. ^ Howe, Desson (June 13, 2003). "The Friedmans' Tale of the Tapes". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 16, 2016.[dead link]
  12. ^ a b c Ebert, Roger (June 1, 2003). "Capturing the Friedmans". The Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved October 22, 2016.
  13. ^ Turan, Kenneth (June 13, 2003). "MOVIE REVIEW: Capturing the Friedmans". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 22, 2016.
  14. ^ [dead link]Vitello, P (January 11, 2004). "Documentary's Haunting Tale of Abuse: Open letter to Friedman's victims". Newsday. Retrieved September 18, 2009.
  15. ^ Nathan, Debbie (May 26, 2003). "Complex Persecution: A Long Island Family's Nightmare Struggle With Porn, Pedophilia, and Public Hysteria". The Village Voice. Archived from the original on July 24, 2008. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
  16. ^ CONVICTION INTEGRITY REVIEW: PEOPLE V. JESSE FRIEDMAN June 2013, on page 30 of the report, 53 of the pdf
  17. ^ CONVICTION INTEGRITY REVIEW: PEOPLE V. JESSE FRIEDMAN June 2013, on page 44 of the report, 67 of the pdf
  18. ^ The recording of this video has not been released publicly, as of 2016.
  19. ^ CONVICTION INTEGRITY REVIEW: PEOPLE V. JESSE FRIEDMAN June 2013, on page 45 of the report, 68 of the pdf
  20. ^ US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (August 17, 2010). "FRIEDMAN v. REHAL". Findlaw. Retrieved June 16, 2013.
  21. ^ Nathan Duke (August 25, 2010). "Conviction of Friedman upheld". TimesLedger Newspapers. Retrieved June 16, 2013.
  22. ^ "Report: 'Jesse Friedman Was Not Wrongfully Convicted'" (Press release). Nassau County District Attorney's Office. June 24, 2013. Retrieved November 30, 2016.
  23. ^ Gregorian, Dareh (June 25, 2013). "Jesse Friedman is 100% guilty of sexually abusing children, reinvestigation by Nassau County district attorney concludes". Daily News. New York. Retrieved July 26, 2016.
  24. ^ Applebome, Peter (June 24, 2013). "Friedman's Sexual-Abuse Conviction Was Justified, Report Says". The New York Times. Retrieved June 24, 2013.
  25. ^ Wise, Dan J. (June 24, 2014). "Scheck Takes a Different Tack in Friedman Case". Retrieved October 13, 2013.
  26. ^ Appleborne, Peter (June 15, 2013). "Reinvestigating the Friedmans". The New York Times. Retrieved June 16, 2013.
  27. ^ Pinto, Nick (May 30, 2013). "Jesse Friedman: The Interview". The Village Voice. Archived from the original on June 8, 2013. Retrieved June 13, 2013.
  28. ^ Pinto, Nick (May 19, 2013). "Jesse Friedman Spent 13 Years in Prison as a Notorious Child Rapist -- He May Soon Get an Apology". The Village Voice. Archived from the original on June 10, 2013. Retrieved June 16, 2013.
  29. ^ Wegman, Jesse (February 9, 2013). "After a Guilty Plea, a Prison Term and a Movie, a Sex Abuse Case Returns". The New York Times. Retrieved February 10, 2015.
  30. ^ "Court Denies Jesse Friedman Access To Documents In Sex Abuse Case". CBS New York. December 9, 2015. Retrieved July 7, 2016.

External links[edit]