On one hand the film does a fine job of validating the claim that documentary is more of an "experience" than an "object." We are acutely aware that we are somehow active in piecing together the story. Moreover, we are aware of the film's very conscious (recognizable, not hidden) awareness that it too is putting this enigmatic puzzle together. We can recognize the choices the film has made in framing (the male on the couch) and in editing (intercutting between home video and contemporary footage). I don't mind a film's overt activeness in this manner (see any Errol Morris film, e.g.).
On the other hand (though I am sure there are more than two hands here), the film is frustrating in this very way. For instance, Debbie Nathan, the journalist who looks into false memory/sex abuse cases, is quite intentionally not given the space to develop a linear story. The film consciously stops her narrative telling and moves to another's view so often that it leaves me wanting to hear more from her (actually, she seems the only one able to tell the "whole" of the story). It's as if the film withholds information for its own "artistic/creative/power" benefit.
Thus, I admit I picked this film (quickly, I know) because of what it exposes about documentary film(-making), more than about what story it tells us.
Yeah that is definitely one thing that I noticed too. The film rather than telling us a simple story, allows us to become a part of it, the experience, and come up with our own judgment and their own opinions about the case. I like this form of story telling because it makes the documentary more interesting for me as a viewer. However, I can see how it can get frustrating at times for the audience not to know what is really going on.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that documentary films are related to an "experience" and fiction films are related to an "object" appears to me problematic. I would argue that ANY film - both fiction and documentary - allows us as viewers to have an "experience." And I am not quite convinced that fiction films can be strictly considered as "objects" because the reason why viewers are attracted to going to the cinema, I think, is that they want to escape into a world that is not their own and eventually get lost in it. A fiction film is thus an experience.
ReplyDeleteWhen watching a documentary, on the other hand - as the article suggests - viewers are brought a world familiar and relevant to their lives, which is still an experience, but not in the sense in which fiction films are. Putting aside movements like Italian Neorealism and European Art Films that followed (which I think are "objects" because they encourage us to analyze and observe the film objectively), I believe conventional cinema's power is to not make itself an "object," but rather to win audiences hearts and get them to be seduced into the "experience." All in all, I simply don't buy the argument that fiction films are "objects."
I agree with goodroger on this. I think all films are "experience" its just that fiction films exaggerate reality alot more than documentary films tend to.
ReplyDeleteBy having the viewer piece together the story, like Dr. Roberts, I was frustrated because I wanted to hear more from people like Debbie Nathan and the 'victims' of the case. However I found that to be a strength of the film because it left me with a thirst for the truth and to research the Friedman's case and the hysteria of 1980s child abuse cases (which dear god there was ALOT). I initially felt that there should have been longer interviews with more witnesses and workers on the case, but even after extensive research into it I'm still left with the same questions I had after watching the film.
Regardless of whether or not you personally liked the film, Andrew Jarecki masterfully uses editing and cinematography throughout the entire film. (Isn't this the Moviefone dude by the way?)
ReplyDeleteOne particular shot that was interesting was the tracking shot of the houses in the neighborhood which stopped with the Friedman's house. Instead of simply cutting to a shot of the house, Jarecki makes the documentary to show his artistic viewpoint. Jarecki also uses many cuts to dissect various aspects of the story. For example, when Arnold's brother, Howard, is speaking about the coniditions of the prision, instead of just showing Howard speaking, Jarecki uses a non-diegetic voiceover while showing various parts of the prision, more or less confirming the words of Howard.
Though it seems as though Jarecki is trying to be as objective as possible in his film, he uses editing to hint at his own personal opinions. He hints at his distaste for suburbia by showing the houses with perfectly green lawns with sprinklers going off in sync. As Roberts mentioned, having the young man on the couch with his body in the light but his head in the dark, seems to make the young man (who is one of the few who actually still claim to have been molested within the film) untrustworthy. In a period of only a few minutes, Jarecki cuts to one student who says nothing happened then cuts to Detective Anthony Sgueglia who says he knows something happened then cuts back to another student who says nothing happened as well and then back to the young man on the couch (who HERE contradicts himself by saying the game "leap frog" occured outside in the open when he previously stated no molestation occured outside of the bedroom). By doing this, it seems that Jarecki is subtley trying to make the audience question the honesty of the Detective(s) and the contradicting shadow man on the couch (who also says later he was hypnotized before he remembered any of the molestation, HMMM).
But also like Roberts, I feel like Jarecki didn't take ENOUGH of a stand. While I appreciate movies letting me form my own conclusions, it seems to me that Jarecki should have used this movie as a catalyst for stopping false imprisionment/for forcing people to look at the FACTS of a case before coming to a quick judgement. Instead, Jarecki sort of just leaves the viewer hanging. Did they do it? Did they not do it?
Regardless, Jarecki uses editing and cinematography beautifully throughout the film (the fast motion views of the the Great Neck clock and the trains were especially beautiful) and the film is certainly a very well-done/artistic documentary. However, as far as the STORY is concerned, it leaves much to be desired.
I agree with goodroger that fiction films can be viewed as an "experience" like documentary films. I think what separates the two types are the levels of relatability. Yes, with fiction films you on some level can relate to characters and situations, but it is still fiction. Documentaries are real. While watching them, there is a "this could happen to me" factor.
ReplyDeleteIn thinking that way, I saw the clips of Great Neck completely different than how Samantha saw them. I don't see the clips as his distaste for suburbia, I see it as him showing that the community the Friedmans lived in could be anyone's neighborhood. That they lived in a typical, affluent suburban area. These shots heighten the severity of the crimes even more, in my opinion. In a cookie cutter community nobody would ever think these crimes could happen to them and their family.
Also, I wish we could have heard more from Jesse and less from David and the mother. At times, it seemed like the film focused on the mother's opinions and coping methods and not on the actual allegations and the people being charged with the crimes.
I too agree that all films provide an experience. With this one in particular I liked that there were multiple points of view. Some documentaries can simply show one side (i.e interviews only reflect one side) whereas this one told the Friedmans side and the victim's side. Watching it I felt as if I was a member of a jury being presented a court case. Although I did not get a vote on whether or not I thought the Friedmans were guilty, I still got to hear two sides.
ReplyDeleteCapturing the Friedmans does provide its audience with an experience that not many other films can provide, but in addition to this the film does have considerable thought put into the composition of the shots used to give the "victims" their side of the story. The film seems to have a style of framing that gives the victims as well as the "experts" a less than genuine testimony, unlike the homemade footage that the Friedmans took during this event. The main example of this was when the boy on the couch is speaking about being raped during the leap frog game. From his actions and the way he is sitting he seems to be disingenuous, thus making the shot have a hidden connotation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with C.Peters, throughout the entire film it felt like I was a juror for this trial, being presented with arguments for this case. Even though several people were interviewed, I felt it was never really clear, on whether Arnold and Jesse Friedman were guiltly. There is always more than one side to a story, and as far as those accused of the crime this film was only able to get Jesse's side of what happened.
ReplyDeleteMy feelings on the case are biased because I wasnt able to take either side, because there wasnt enough evidence presented. The only thing the investigators had to go by was the hidden magazines in Arnold's office and the victim's plea. On one hand its like, "Are they innocent?", because none of the students ever came home and discussed it with their parents, nor did they have any medical documentation showing that these young boys had being sexually abused. The victims in this case only decided to speak out after the police and the news stations were involved, and the one on the couch was a little skeptical to me. Ending with Jesse saying that his he never witnessed his father molesting any of his students, along with Arnold himself saying that he was innocent. Jesse's friend who was also interviewed stated that he would be visiting with them all the time, and he had no recollection of Arnold touching him. One of the computer students even said that he didnt remebered anything ever happening and that the police would come over and put words in his mouth. And then while outside on the courtroom steps Jesse seemed so happy and content, like what was the deal with that?
Then on the other hand its like, "Are they Guilty", because on the footage that was recored by the Friedman family, Arnold always seemed to be kind of quite, like he was guilty of something, he just looked sneaky. There was also a statement by one of the interviewee's that Arnold, did confess to molesting his younger brother when they were children. He also was involved in sexual relationships with his own sex, and said that as he got older he wanted to continue to mess around with boys alot younger than his self. Also Jesse's lawyer said that one day Jesse broke down and started crying, saying that his father did molest him while he was a young child, ending with Jesse pleading guilty. In my opinion there wasnt much clarity in this film.
On the notion that Documentary asserts opinion through editing I must say I strongly agree especially after watching Capturing the Fieldmans. I must admit that I was so much involved, it was almost as if I was part of what was going on. The story was told in such a way that you wanted to watch to end even if it was going to take all day because you weren't just examining what was going on, you were a part of what was going on. What baffles my mind is that even at the end we're not satisfied. Most of us are still wondering "were they GUILTY?" WOW!
ReplyDeletei see the idea of fiction films being objects as meaning they are there for entertainment. we go into a fiction film expecting to escape from reality and be entertained by it. you don't go into it with the frame of mind of "ok, i'm gonna learn something" or "my opinion of something will change" that's not to say that after watching a fiction film you won't learn anything but you don't go into it with that intention.
ReplyDeletein documentary you almost have to prepare yourself to watch it. i was told by a couple of friends that the documentary "man on a wire" was one of the best documentaries they had ever seen. so in hearing this i rented it. i came home put it in the player and started watching it with the expectation that "wow this is gonna be awesome" within 5 minutes i was bored to death and started getting distracted by housework and would off and on look at it and at no point did my interest increase so i turned it off because it was just "people talking".
i think my reason for disliking it was my fault, i went into it with the thought that it would entertain me the same way a fiction film would. i'm sure had we watched it for class i would have thoroughly enjoyed it because i would have had a different mindset of why i was watching this film.
needless to say i should probably rent it again and give it another shot =D
I agree that capturing the friedmans is more than a documentary about informing. It pulls the viewer into the story and the ending theory is up to the individual. Andrew Jarecki did a great job at incorporating raw "untampered" footage with interviews and original cinematography which in my opinion altered the mode of the documentary for the better. To me it seemed as if this film was not only focussed on the information presented through peoples testimonies, but also wanted to create a visual picture. When the mother was talking about being confused as to why the police were invading her house, the film then cut to a shot of that actual day of the investigation for child pornography. By doing this it makes not only what she is saying more believable, but herself is then more believable. There was a great balance between facts. There was, however, not a contrasting difference between fact and fiction. At the end of the film the viewer does not know what to believe, which in my opinion is what a documentary should be. The individual needs to decide for themselves what they are looking at and how to interpret it without the voice of a narrator telling them what to believe. In my opinion that scenario of story telling is bias and takes away from "documenting" and letting the audience decide what is true to themselves. Capturing the Friedmans seemed to not have manipulated its precedings and was more aimed towards telling a story.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read all the blogs so I might be out of the sequence but I'm going to talk about the film anyway.
ReplyDeleteI went through to the right and left of Capture the Friedman's for most of the film, not knowing if the family was sick and in denial or if the whole world was against them. The way it was edited and interviews of particular people left me in a state of reasonable doubt.
For instance the guy laying on the couch whose face was not shown, his story was so unbelievable that I chose not to believe anything he had said. The story of Leap Frog from a physical stand point is unbelievable and discredits the due diligence that most parents do when their child is going over to someone else's home.
Also the close friend of David's that said he was in the class and saw nothing happen the whole time. He appeared to be more believable.
In the end, I thought that Arnold deep down knew he was messed up in the head and wanted to get restrained from himself because he could not do so. He was sick, but that does not mean he was not honest. As sick as it was to tell the lawyer to move tables, he knew himself and could not run away from himself. I believe he molested all of his sons and created a group between them that made them all feel specially connected.
If you look at the editing from the interviews to the real footage, they linked together areas that were spaced out in time and made them appear as if they happened back to back. I like how documentaries take real footage and make it seem like something that happened months apart happened within hours of eachother because it can tell a story, truthful or not, that people otherwise would not have seen with the appearance of truth. If that tool is used wisely, I think it does more good than harm.
I think the maker is exploiting this footage he has and just narrating the story to make himself come off as oblivious to the fact that these men were clearly guilty.Like some people I noticed a complete analysis was never presented by a single interviewee,to satisfy my need for understanding the situation. Narrating the story in the fashion of is he innocent is he not, jolly music, court tv music just seems a little too much creativity and art to satisfy a viewer, in a case as serious as this.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that evidence n testimony isn't presented substantially, which the maker/editor uses to try and keep us in a sort of middle ground which annoys me at times, since I want to be able to make up my own mind about the situation, but im not awarded that complete resolve i seek.When critical footage is strategically casted aside in order to promote the point of view of the film maker, isn't it wandering away from documenting and more towards a sort of a propaganda to vindicate the makers involvement or connection to the situation at hand.I acknowledge the creativity of the narration, and the fact that they didn't have a voice narrating to give a firm point of view for viewers to agree or disagree with. The minimizing of facts, professional testimony, pointing out of blatant inconsistencies, functioned as a way to complicate events which could have been easily presented using fuller overviews and interrogation(from a narrator),indictment would have been quicker and more satisfying but that might also have made it more boring.
Last thing is the objectivity of the film, triggered signals in my head about who the directed/maker/editor of this film might be, how does one remain objective when there is an admitted pedophile at hand?
One contrast which they use which was effective in keeping balance were the two students in the film. The faceless student in the dark, leaning back on the couch(I know it might not have been the filmmakers choice)who professes to be a victim with and in-credible story vs the student who denounces any notion of victimization, he shows his face and never contradicts himself while the other hides his face and tells what seems to be a monumental lie or exaggeration.
Did anybody feel it was strange for Jarecki to present Howard's partner towards the end of the film? The whole time Howard is interviewed sitting on the couch presumbly his partner was sitting next to him, but Jarecki decided not to show him until the end. Howard denies all allegations that his brother raped him when he was I believe 8 years old. Why would Jarecki conceal his homosexual relationship to the end? It is quite a twist in the overall film experience
ReplyDelete