No, this wasn’t on our prescribed watch list, but damn, it so could have been! However considering it’s been covered by every other documentary-related class I’ve done, it probably was a good idea it was skipped this time. Great example of filmmaker/subject ethics though.

Capturing the Friedmans (2003) is disturbing to say the least. In some ways it draws many parallels to the Wolf Pack which we studied this year. There’s so many angles you could approach a discussion about this film, but I was particularly interested in the ethics side of it.

Considering the taboo subject matter, you would assume that such a film would be handled with delicacy- only grant interviews to reliable sources, give subjects realistic expectations etc… But no. Andrew Jarecki let allegations run wild in this film and gave a platform to people who had no idea what they were talking about. In every documentary this is a bad idea, however in a documentary where you’re discussing pedophilia; this is an exceptionally bad idea. Subjects later admitted that they didn’t fully remember what happened. But it was too late, I already formed an opinion about the subject that couldn’t be shaken. I thought he was a pedophile, and nothing after that could change it.

Secondly, Capturing the Friedmans uses a lot of archival footage. To retrieve this footage, Andrew Jarecki befriended the Friedman family and formed a close trust with them. It was only because of their familiarity that the Friedmans decided to relinquish such intimate footage. The Friedmans chose to participate in the documentary with the preconceived idea that Andrew Jarecki would clear up their names, and turn the public in favour of them. Did he do this? Was this his intention? No, I don’t think so. I think Jarecki wanted to be controversial and play up ambiguity as much as possible. In the marketing of the film, Jarecki took no real stance in declaring whether he thought the Friedmans were innocent or guilty. He played up the unknown as much as possible, and cashed-in on letting their reputations hang in the balance.

Also, the older son (what’s his name?) couldn’t find work for years proceeding this film. Jarecki should haven taken more discretion in hiding the fact that the eldest son was a children’s entertainer. Pedophilia documentary and ‘children’s entertainer’ naturally don’t go hand-in-hand. Jarecki should have left his career out of the picture to prevent the easily foreseeable damage it would have had on his subject.