Capturing the Friedmans - Thu 23rd C4

[goldenecitrone]

does it? Well, I better shut up then... (top marks for most daily mailesque statement of the day though)

It's very easy to judge people rather than try and understand them though, isn't it? I never for one second said being a child molester was ok, but not for one second do I believe people chose to be that way, and I don't think seeking therapy for it is something that's generally easily available or acceptable... It's something you'd be so ashamed of you'd never ever tell anyone.

Sweet FA was agreeing with you. He's got his tongue firmly in his cheek.

 

[Sweet FA]

Easy. I wasn't judging you. My remarks about paedononces and sympathisers were a ref to the way threads like this often go over in general... (just seen sr. citrone's comment - cheers)

Anyway, I agree with you - the guy was clearly fighing his impulses (right up to that freaky visit the lawyer paid to him in jail when he asked to be reseated away from the 5 year old kid). The point about abuse within the family I don't think will ever be answered though. For the boy's sakes I hope not - I hope that their love for him made them blind to the awful things he'd done; not that there was some even more fucked up dynamic going on there (competition for their father's affection between the boys etc). I did feel very sorry for the mum though - completely isolated within her family for a crime her husband had committed. It seemed she salvaged a relationship with the boy who'd been in prison though?

Not sure how many clown bookings the other one's getting now though.

 

[girasol]

Sweet FA was agreeing with you. He's got his tongue firmly in his cheek.

Was he? Damn! I'll get off my soapbox then...

(sorry Sweet FA )

 

[foo]

For the boy's sakes I hope not - I hope that their love for him made them blind to the awful things he'd done

why would you hope that?

 

[Sweet FA]

I meant I hope that they truly didn't believe that he was a paedophile. I hope they weren't covering up for him (due to loyalty or because he'd been abusing them too).

Christ, it's a bloody minefield. Perhaps I'm a paedononce. BURN ME!

 

[foo]

oh i see!

sorry i completely misunderstood that sentence.

 

[Spion]

The only thing that niggles me about the mother is that she seemed to accept the computer class allegations/witch hunt/prosecutions.

 

[beeboo]

why would you hope that?

I think Sweet FA meant hoped that the boys' loyalty to their father was borne from blind devotion, rather than the more sinister alternative that it was connected to the father having abused them.

Rather than suggesting that their blind devotion was a good thing, IYSWIM.


edit: far too slow, Sweet FA has already explained - is getting misunderstood all over the place today

 

[girasol]

The only thing that niggles me about the mother is that she seemed to accept the computer class allegations/witch hunt/prosecutions.

It's been a while since I watched it, but I was under the impression she just believed her husband/son's story?

(poor Sweet FA! He's proving how someone can be completely misunderstood quite well though! )

 

[foo]

Thing is, *both* sides turn out to be right. He is both guilty and innocent. He really is a child molester, but he is also the tragic victim of a witchhunt. Weird.

yes, ultimately this is my take on the dad.

i may be one of the more reactionary people on this thread when it comes to child molestation (i admit to having no compassion for child abusers) so this probably colours my judgement - but even without the hysterical (probably trumped up charges about the computer classes), he admitted to abusing two 7 year olds anyway didn't he...so he should have been taken out of society and/or not allowed near children anyway.

imo etc. of course.

 

[5t3IIa]

Really? I thought it was kind of a sweet ending - at least one of them ended up normal, happy and stable. Why TA-DAAAA!? I thought it was pretty obvious he was gay.

The thing that freaked me was how much, if any, sexual contact there'd been between the father and the sons.

I thought it was abit TA-DAAA! being right at the end, with the camera pulling back to show his partner. A possible implication by the filmmaker could be that he was damaged in his early life by his brother? I do take you point that actually it was lovely, and it's great that ONE member of the family is happy.

I admit that I may've been a bit on-the-edge-of-my-seat throughout the whole wonderful viewing experience and too ready to find something - anything- to 'disaprove' of or find fault with to ground it on some kind of 'it's only telly' plane I can undertsatnd!!...I got really caught up in it and need to watch it again to really work out what I thought.

 

[Spion]

I thought it was abit TA-DAAA! being right at the end, with the camera pulling back to show his partner.

I had no sense of that at all.

 

[STFC]

I think the mother knew more than she let on. When talking about the initial discovery of child porn, she seemed to accept it - "It was Arnold's thing", I think she said. Arnold was a dangerous child molestor in my opinion, whether he did actually abuse the kids in the computer class I'm not sure, but he certainly had 'urges' which he had acted on in the past. The sons' loyalty towards him was weird, and I think the lawyer's theory that he abused Jesse was plausible. Maybe the other boys were also abused by their father, it must have been hard for him to keep a lid on his perversion with 3 boys growing up in the house. The part about the little boy in his father's knee in teh visiting room makes me feel physically sick, and the part where teh fathe rof one of the victims attacks Jesse - "You raped my son!" makes my blood run cold.

Ultimately I think the whole family was in denial about the extent of the father's sexual activities. The reasons for their denial are hard to explain.

A very unsettling, but compelling documentary.

 

[Sweet FA]

<steps gingerly back onto thread>

Tbh, I'm not surprised the mum thought the claims made against her husband might be true. Like she said; she'd trusted him for 30 odd years, then he gets busted with these magazines, he keeps saying 'that's it' but then admits to molesting 2 boys, he keeps a 'secret' room downstairs, their sex life is perfunctory, she practically had to railroad him into getting married etc etc. (I'm not saying the last 3 mean you're a paedo OK?!). Poor woman clearly didn't know what to believe.

Re: The TA DAAA!ness or otherwise of the ending - if his partner had been a woman, would you have thought anything? "A possible implication by the filmmaker could be that he was damaged in his early life by his brother". Erm...You don't have to be damaged to be gay, 5t3IIa.

 

[beeboo]

the guy was clearly fighing his impulses (right up to that freaky visit the lawyer paid to him in jail when he asked to be reseated away from the 5 year old kid).

That was a really stand-out moment in the film for me - just a simple thing but it gave you a bit of insight into what Arnold's life must have been like. How do you even begin to admit to feeling like that about a child, when most people are (understandably!) going to react like that lawyer did?

Maybe I'm being too sympathetic, but part of me thinks you just get dealt your hand in life and you're stuck with it. And whereas some guys get their kicks from busty blondes, some guys get their kicks from other guys, this guy get his kicks from 5 year old kids. Which is a very crappy hand to get dealt.

 

[STFC]

<steps gingerly back onto thread>

Tbh, I'm not surprised the mum thought the claims made against her husband might be true. Like she said; she'd trusted him for 30 odd years, then he gets busted with these magazines, he keeps saying 'that's it' but then admits to molesting 2 boys, he keeps a 'secret' room downstairs, their sex life is perfunctory, she practically had to railroad him into getting married etc etc. (I'm not saying the last 3 mean you're a paedo OK?!). Poor woman clearly didn't know what to believe.

Re: The TA DAAA!ness or otherwise of the ending - if his partner had been a woman, would you have thought anything? "A possible implication by the filmmaker could be that he was damaged in his early life by his brother". Erm...You don't have to be damaged to be gay, 5t3IIa.

I thought the ending was clumsy, the way the camera panned out to reveal the brother's partner did make it appear like the film makers were saying "and now we can reveal that this man, who was allegedly abused by his brother........is GAY!!!".

 

[Reno]

Re: The TA DAAA!ness or otherwise of the ending - if his partner had been a woman, would you have thought anything? "A possible implication by the filmmaker could be that he was damaged in his early life by his brother". Erm...You don't have to be damaged to be gay, 5t3IIa.

I felt that to have the fact that the brother was gay revealed as a surprise was just a poor choice by the film makers. I don't actually think they meant to imply that the brother was gay because he may have been abused, but it certainly could be interpreted as such by the bigots who link peodophilia with homosexuality.

It also seemed fairly obvious early on that he was gay, so the reveal at the end was at best redundant and at worst bordering on the offensive.

 

[phildwyer]

yes, ultimately this is my take on the dad.

i may be one of the more reactionary people on this thread when it comes to child molestation (i admit to having no compassion for child abusers) so this probably colours my judgement - but even without the hysterical (probably trumped up charges about the computer classes), he admitted to abusing two 7 year olds anyway didn't he...so he should have been taken out of society and/or not allowed near children anyway.

Even this isn't clear. I thought he was *reported* to have admitted--and not in a legal situation--abusing *one* boy, a long time ago. But then he also admitted to having abused his brother a long time ago, and the brother denied it. I don't think we got anywhere near the truth about any of it....

 

[STFC]

...some guys get their kicks from other guys, this guy get his kicks from 5 year old kids. Which is a very crappy hand to get dealt.

But not as crappy as the hand dealt to any poor youngster who is unfortunate enough to be in the way when that person is unable to control their urges.

 

[zenie]

But not as crappy as the hand dealt to any poor youngster who is unfortunate enough to be in the way when that person is unable to control their urges.

I agree

 

[STFC]

It also seemed fairly obvious early on that he was gay...

How? Because he spoke with a soft voice?

 

[girasol]

But not as crappy as the hand dealt to any poor youngster who is unfortunate enough to be in the way when that person is unable to control their urges.

Very true, but haven't they themselves, in many cases, been victims of abuse as children too?

 

[Spion]

For me, possibly the most unsettling thing about the documentary was the police fit up and willingness of people to go along with it.

A case of one man who obviously needed help was blown up needlessly into a cataclysm that destroyed him, his family, and undoubtedly those of the many supposed 'victims'.

IMO, it's another example that there's a thin veneer of civilisation on our society and it doesn't take a lot for the medieval mob mentality to surface when deeply held fears are played upon

 

[Reno]

How? Because he spoke with a soft voice?

Because I am gay and I've got gaydar.

 

[5t3IIa]

Re: The TA DAAA!ness or otherwise of the ending - if his partner had been a woman, would you have thought anything? "A possible implication by the filmmaker could be that he was damaged in his early life by his brother". Erm...You don't have to be damaged to be gay, 5t3IIa.

EXACTLY! I did say 'an implication by the filmmaker', not by me

I felt it was clumsy, as another poster says, like a false note, or maybe just yet another layer being peeled away from the family.

 

[STFC]

Because I am gay and I've got gaydar.

Fair one. I didn't twig that he was gay (not that it's something I would have thought about anyway), and I've seen it before!

 

[beeboo]

But not as crappy as the hand dealt to any poor youngster who is unfortunate enough to be in the way when that person is unable to control their urges.

Of course! I feel that almost goes with out saying! Obviously any abuse that took place is wrong in the wrongest way possible.

I think what was so extrordinary about the film was that there were these moments when I thought "shit, poor bloke" in relation to Arnold. But I also thought he was creepy and repellant.


The point about the brother being gay - wasn't quite sure how the 'reveal' of that was meant to be taken, as obviously it was considered. Of course, we also had the 'reveal' of the mother's new life with her new partner too, so it could be taken in the 'happy ending' sense, or also in the 'shock, must be something to do with the abuse' sense. I kind of felt there was an element of the latter, but that is really out of step with the rest of the film so I'm not sure.

 

[Reno]

I thought the film makers were lucky to stumble across this incredible story and the extraordinary amount of documentation that came with it, as originally they set out to make a documentary about professional clowns in NY. The were also talented enough to shape the material into a complex, gripping documentary, but not always skilled enough to stay clear of a instances of needless manipulation.

As I said before, the extras on the DVD provide enough material for an feature length follow up which is as gripping as the film itself. It gives more of an insight into the failings by social workers and the legal system, the aftermath and the point of view of the mother. I'm finding it a bit difficult now to discuss the film properly because I'm getting the actual film and the extra material on the DVD mixed up, much of which was essential to get e more rounded view of the case.

 

[Sweet FA]

I thought the ending was clumsy, the way the camera panned out to reveal the brother's partner did make it appear like the film makers were saying "and now we can reveal that this man, who was allegedly abused by his brother........is GAY!!!".

I don't see why people are saying that the 'reveal' about the brother being gay was any more or less shocking than the 'reveal' about the mother having remarried. Wasn't it just the end of the film? I'd have said he might be gay before he was 'revealed' to be so (he was very 'theatrical' ) Why is it shocking that he's gay - a lot of people are?

Are we just making that connection between being abused as a child and homosexuality later or are the film makers making that link (for whatever reason)? Like beeboo said, it'd be weird if the film makers were 'saying' something at the end. Particularly as the success of the film was kind of based on not taking a stance at all - just letting the story reveal itself.

 

[Jim]

[words into a lot of kids' mouths and their parents going along with it. It reminded me of the Cleveland "satanic abuse" case in parts.[/QUOTE]

just for the record the cleveland case was not about satanic abuse, it was about the controversial 'anal dilation' test. The Satanic abuse cases were in Rochdale and the Orkneys.