For the documentary class I’m taking for my contextual study, True Lies, we have been tasked to write a thousand words on one of the documentaries we’ve seen in class. I’ve chosen the fascinating documentary called Capturing The Friedmans . So, I thought for my initiative post I would jot down some of my initial impressions as this is what I’ve been thinking about a lot in the last few days in preparation for my essay. It was released in 2003 and is described as telling the story of “a seemingly typical, upper-middle-class Jewish family whose world is instantly transformed when the father and his youngest son are arrested and charged with shocking and horrible crimes”.

It was a really interesting documentary because the reception of the audience will truly depend on the sort of person you are (sceptical, understanding, reactive etc) and the knowledge you have of the events surrounding the making of the documentary. The film centres around a father and son who are both accused of child molestation, but unlike a lot of other documentaries you may have seen (or I have seen – I watch way too many crime docos to be healthy) on the subject, it’s very much centred around the family and the dynamic within the family, utilising old video clips of when the family are in happier times or reminiscing on the bond between the father and his son to humanise the social actors – this is done through archival footage, interviews, photographs, footage shot by the family during the events of trial. For some, it may feel subtle and they may be conflicted about whether the accused truly committed the crimes, but to the more sceptical audience members, an implicit bias becomes apparent as we see this set up of a happy family, who all the while, ostracise and bully the mother because she doesn’t want to immediately go along with what her husband and sons have said is the truth.

It’s because of this that the documentary straddles the line of truth and ethics in documentary making. This moral grey area is made especially clear after doing some research into it’s director: Andrew Jarecki, who apparently advocates for Jessies (the son accused and who was jailed for a number of years) innocence and has petitioned for a pardon from the courts. This information can change the entire way in which you view this documentary; as the aforementioned family footage is now suspicious and the interviews with police officials, whose views were presented as not corroborated by evidence, are now suspect. But, despite the clear bias, it is very interesting to see how a working class family would deal with such an unusual situation and I found myself empathising with these people who have apparently committed atrocious acts and even in my research after watching the film I’m still left unsure of Jessies guilt, though the film even in its bias, does acknowledge that the father is a self-admitted pedophile, the question of Jessies guilt is left unresolved.

From a filmmaking perspective I can understand having an opinion and wanting to convey a message to the audience, but I don’t really believe documentary-making is the place for that, it’s a form of truth telling and with that comes ethical quandaries that simply must be considered. This is how it links back to what my studio True to Form is all about, this bias is not true to the form of documentary making, there shouldn’t be a bias, the form of a good documentary is to present the available evidence through various techniques (i.e interviews, reenactments/staging, footage etc), presenting both sides and allowing the audience to make up their own minds. This film betrays the form and content of what I believe documentary making should be, as I disagree with what directors like Michael Moore do (putting a slant on their films) and believe that it should remain objective rather than subjective. Jareckis suppression of the facts makes it possible for uneducated viewers to view this documentary, with the emphatic testimony of the accused and the family, and the doubt cast upon the criminal investigation and come away with the view that these people are actually innocent. Transgressions aside, I did enjoy this documentary, even for someone as sceptical as I am and even if the subjects are guilty of such a disgusting crime, I could still feel for them, try to understand them and wish that they weren’t so damaged that they went on to destroy the lives of others.