Capturing the Friedmans - Thu 23rd C4

[STFC]

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.

I don't think it's shocking at all. What I thought as I watched the film last night, and apparently a few other did independently, was that "revealing" the brother as gay was completely out of place in the context of the film as a whole.

 

[maximilian ping]

this incredible Village Voice article by Debbie Nathan, the investigative journalist who appeared in the film, is required reading for anyone interested in Capturing the Friedmans

 

[5t3IIa]

this incredible Village Voice article by Debbie Nathan, the investigative journalist who appeared in the film, is required reading for anyone interested in Capturing the Friedmans

Which article? I think you forgot the link!

 

[maximilian ping]

nuts!

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0321,nathan,44228,1.html

 

[beeboo]

Great article - thanks for the link!

The idea that the film was deliberately ambiguous about the guilt or otherwise of Arnold and Jessie is very interesting.

There are some fairly controversial views about paedophilia/molestation in there, but in the context of paedo-hysteria it is really refreshing to hear it discussed in non-sensationalist context. Bravo that woman.

 

[girasol]

nuts!

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0321,nathan,44228,1.html

thanks, great article!

 

[Sweet FA]

that "revealing" the brother as gay was completely out of place in the context of the film as a whole.

I know what you're saying; what I'm saying is did they 'reveal' it or was it just 'here's this guy and his partner', the same as they did with the mum; 'here's this woman and her new partner'?

Why was one out of context, not the other? Is it only because he was gay?

(It's just an interesting point by the way - I've not got an axe to grind or anything).

 

[Chairman Meow]

Y'see, maybe I'm just an old softy, but when it showed his boyfriend at the end I said 'Ahhh, isn't that nice'. I can see that there might have been another agenda, but, like a lot of the movie, you can put your own interpretation I suppose.

 

[beeboo]

Speaking for myself, I thought there was something in the way it was done which made it feel like we'd been deliberately not told that he was gay earlier, in order to lend the 'ta-dah!' element later. I'm kind of guessing here because I didn't see the film last night, but wasn't it almost a pan-out in the same room he'd been sat in before to 'reveal' his partner had been sat there?

Also, because he was more of a 'bit part' in the story, it seemed a bit more like it had been crow-barred in as an interesting tit-bit, than forming a part of the main narrative.