 |
 |
Director Andrew Jarecki Answers Questions Submitted on our Bulletin Boards
jrprodmast: My question is why did you feel the need to conceal Arnold's brother's homosexuality until the very endcap of the story? Was it an attempt to make the audience question
their perceptions, or something else?
Andrew Jarecki: Arnold's brother Howard did not tell me he was gay, and I had never met his partner Jack before. So I felt that it would be best to allow him to share that information if and how he chose to do so. As it turned out, he never discussed it himself, but when we were in Oregon interviewing him, Jack came back from the market and Howard asked him if he wanted to say a few words to us. Jack agreed and so we included it at the end of Howard's interview, which is where it organically came up in our interaction with Howard. It feels a bit like a "reveal" now, but it's clear if you watch the film that Jack was not sitting there the whole time, but rather just dropped in at the end and said a few things sort of as a summation. It does play interestingly with the audience's perceptions. Some would say that knowing Howard was gay might imply something about Arnold's being gay, but that issue is never in question. The legal question is whether Arnold, or more relevantly Jesse, committed the acts of which they were accused. I'm not sure how Howard's sexual orientation would affect the audiences thinking about that, or whether those audience members who are affected would even admit it. So it does play interestingly, leaving aside exactly where it appears.
vegasedge: It seems there is no question of the guilt of both the father and son. I am surprised how this movie supposedly made a lot of people beleive otherwise. I could not imagine
anybody pleading guilty to these charges unless they are indeed guilty. Anybody who could dance and sing the way Jesse was on the day of his plea shows what type of psychotic your dealing with. What is your take on my comments?
Andrew Jarecki: We made the film in a balanced way because we wanted to leave room for various interpretations. Your opinion is as valid as the opinion of anyone else who was not present for any of these events. After working on the film for over 3 years, I realized that there were many interpretations of the same facts, and that for me to express a simple opinion would be to act as if I were a primary source - as if I had witnessed the computer classes or was present in the Friedman house, which I thought was not appropriate. I feel the same way about your comment. Because you weren't there, I don't know how you can be as certain as you appear to be. I think one of the key lessons for me in the film is how elusive the truth can be. Standing in judgment of our fellow men, based on evidence related by others, is dangerous business and can only be undertaken in a way that exhaustively explores the issues. To base our conclusions on things like Jesse's demeanor, is to trivialize the consequences. I'm sure all of us can look at our own behaviors and find things in our past to which we've reacted in odd ways. For example, Jesse was not dancing or singing on the courthouse steps, though he is characterized by the police as having done both. In fact, if you carefully watch the footage, he is recounting a Monty Python comedy sketch, keeping his brothers entertained. And this moment doesn't come until after they have been asked to wait for some hours outside the courthouse while the parents of the victims sit with the district attorney in an effort to double his proposed jail term. Jesse says his reaction was a sort of "gallows humor" - he says he was not showing remorse because he was not guilty of anything, and that after a year of accusations and pain, he was letting off steam in this way while they waited. I wasn't there and even if I had been, I probably couldn't tell you exactly what was in their minds, but his version of it makes a bit more sense than if I just heard second hand that someone saw the Friedmans "dancing and singing." The point is that for any of us (me included) to draw hard and fast conclusions about what was in someone else's mind 15 years ago in circumstances we couldn't even imagine ourselves in, seems risky. How can we know? And it is in this very uncertainty that we can begin to find ways to deal with uncertainty in our culture. The ways we have in place - for example the reliance in our justice system on plea bargaining - are imperfect at best. Whatever you believe about the Friedmans, it's clear that many people plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit because they don't have the resources to fight or because they are coerced with threats of long prison terms if they go to trial. As a result, many people don't risk a jury trial. I don't believe the system can operate fairly in this way.
jthome: Is David married?
Andrew Jarecki: David is not married. He has a girlfriend and would like to get married at some point.
kathie55: What's your take on Jesse's attorney. is he a liar? did he advise Jesse to lie about being sexually abused by Arnold in order to garner sympathy from the judge? Did
Arnold abuse Jesse?
Andrew Jarecki: I think everything I know about these issues is fairly represented in the film. We can't know whether Arnold abused his kids. He has certainly said he did not, and all three of his kids, and Elaine, all have told me that the kids were never abused by Arnold. As for Peter Panaro, he said in the film that he always believed Jesse's story that nothing happened, was more believable than the police story about hundreds of sodomies. In the film, he also says that Jesse confessed to him that something had happened. Today, Peter has said publicly that he believes that the only reason Jesse told him that something had happened was that he knew Peter would not plead him guilty if he didn't tell him that. Sorry I can't give you a stronger view than that.
reggaeky: I'm sure I must have missed this in the documentary, but did any of the children who
were supposedly abused ever mention any type of problem whatsoever to their parents regarding anything happening at computer class by Mr. Friedman or his son? I mean wouldn't the children have been physically hurt? Why did they just go on the words? I'm sure this was addressed. Sorry to have missed it (if I did). I also did NOT think the guy interviewed, who stated he was molested as a child by Mr. Friedman, was credible at all! He sounded so unbelievable! Jump-frog out in the open - I mean, it MUST be difficult for an adult man to insert himself into a child, much less one after the other, without pain or without at least ONE of the children telling their
parents. I just don't believe this man molested all of those kids. I could maybe believe
fondling some of them, I could even believe molesting his own son, but not those
children. I also believe he was a pedophile, but not all of those charges. I just don't.
Andrew Jarecki: Prior to the questioning initiated by the Nassau County police, none of the children, including the boy interviewed on the couch, had ever made any statement to anyone indicating that they had been abused. As stated in the film, there was no physical evidence or medical evidence of abuse ever introduced.
amadi: I was at first shocked at the disrespect the boys had for the mother! The documentary was very interesting yet puzzling. I don't know what to believe...but I do believe the father had some serious issues. The sons seem to have been in denial. It's not like the father wasn't guilty of nothing, right? It was a beautiful family...dysfunctional like a lot of families. I wonder what the truth is as far as the child molestation charges are concerned.
Andrew Jarecki: I am glad to hear that you felt compassion for this family, even though you are not sure what really happened. That is how I feel. I always felt a sense of compassion for the family, because whether these crimes occurred or not, it is hard not to see their humanity and see their similarity to other families. I agree that the boys' anger toward their mother is extreme, but that is truly how they feel. I have always had a lot of sympathy for Elaine, who obviously felt very betrayed by her husband. But the boys never seemed to see Arnold's responsibility for bringing the police into their lives, for lying to their mother, and so on. The boys have a hard time seeing past their strong love for their dad. I think that is in some ways natural.
danislon17: Can you tell me why Seth wanted no part in this film? where did he stand on his father and brother's guilt? What is he doing today? Are the siblings close to eachother and have they forgiven their mother? Are any of the siblings in a relationship? What is Jesse doing
now since he was released? Did he inherit the $250,000? I also found it interesting that
Howard Friedman is gay, that Arnold was evidently homosexual too - evidently their early childhood had an impact on their sexual development. Have any of Arnold and Jesse's accusers since recanted as adults?
Andrew Jarecki: Thank you for your comments. Seth Friedman never wanted to participate in the film. He has a family of his own and said that he didn't want these events to play a role in his life today. He strongly supports his brothers' view that Arnold and Jesse were innocent. As for Elaine, the boys continue to have a lot of anger toward her, though Jesse has a much more active relationship with her. As for Jesse, his life is still difficult since he is subject to the strictest provisions of Meghan's Law and will be for the rest of his life. He is trying to use material we uncovered in our investigation to re-open his case and attempt to get a new hearing. It is unclear whether he will have any success. In the meantime, he attends Hunter College in New York and is trying to build a life for himself. He remains close to David, though they don't talk to Seth as much. Jesse did inherit the money from his father, though he has had to spend much of it on legal and other expenses. As for Howard, I don't know whether his homosexuality has anything to do with his brother's. There are varying opinions on this issue. There are two accusers who say in the film that they told the police they were abused, but now say they were not. There is one in the film (the boy on the couch) who strongly feels he was abused.
Seattle43: I saw that the Nassau County Grand Jury investigated the Friedman case, interviewed the boys and then indicted both the Friedmans in 1988 on charges they endangered the welfare of children. The Friedmans pled guilty. Do you think that the results of the Grand Jury investigation should be taken into account when evaluating Jesse's case?
Andrew Jarecki: The Grand Jury heard only from students in the computer classes. While I think that is very relevant information, just as I think their guilty pleas are important, I don't think it is sufficient to bring me to a hard and fast conclusion about what happened. It would be nice to think that anyone who pleads guilty does so because they are guilty but as we've seen in many cases (especially recent ones like the Central Park Jogger case) often people plead guilty because they are afraid they wil not get a fair trial and are afraid of going to jail for many many years. Certainly Jesse says this is the truth of his case. I think that the proper way to achieve some kind of clarity in a case like this is to have both sides present evidence at trial. Jesse has said that his decision to plead guilty was based largely on the Judge's statement that she intended to give him "consecutive time" and that he was so afraid of this threat that he pled guilty to avoid going to jail for a lifetime. Hearing the Judge speak about the case, and particularly her statement in the film that "there was never a doubt in my mind as to their guilt" lent some credence to Jesse's claim that he pled guilty because he felt he could not get a fair hearing in front of this judge.
Varjak: I just finished watching "Capturing the Friedmans," and was curious why the differing
explanations of Arnold's death weren't explored a bit more. Obviously David believes it was the result of a "surprise heart attack" (are there any other kind?); while the documentary suggests that the autopsy revealed a sedative overdose. This conflict alone is interesting. Also, if the autopsy suggested it was suicide (or an accidental overdose), why was there an insurance settlement for Jesse?
Andrew Jarecki: Arnold had taken out a policy which allowed beneficiaries to receive benefits even in the event of suicide, provided that two years had elapsed between the time he took out the policy and the death. So under either circumstance, Jesse would have received the money. It is my view that the evidence indicates that Arnold committed suicide. David does not think his father would have done this. That is all we know.
music taxes: You were fairly reserved when addressing the "recovered memory syndrome" aspect of the Friedman case. Do you have a personal opinion on whether it had any validity in this or any other case you researched?
Andrew Jarecki: I strongly believe that memory is a very ephemeral and dynamic thing. I have read studies on it, but also know in my own life how memory plays tricks on me. Whether one believes it was relevant in this case is a personal decision. I think it is hard to know just what the kids said to the police and how they said it because as we see from the comments by the police officers themselves, the investigation was handled in an inappropriate way. So because of the techniques the police used, it is impossible for us to know today with certainty what the children actually remembered. As for why we didn't refer much to the idea of recovered memory in the film, it wasn't really the mission of the film to delve into these theoretical "expert" topics. The film is about a family and the events surrounding the case against them. There are plenty of films that go into great detail on opposing scientific theories. This was a different animal.
Why didn`t Seth Friedman wish to be interviewed for the film?
Andrew Jarecki: Seth has a family of his own now and chose not to participate. We respected his wishes. Seth continues to have a relationship with his brothers, and in fact traveled a great distance to be with Jesse after he was released from prison.
How did you come across the story of the Friedmans?
Andrew Jarecki: A few years ago I set out to make a film about professional children`s birthday party clowns in New York City. After months of interviewing David Friedman, who is the most successful party clown in New York, I discovered that he had a secret story. Over the course of making the film, I developed a relationship with David and he decided that he was willing to tell the story of his family, and that some good could come from it.
Why did the Friedmans videotape themselves, even during many of their most difficult moments?
Andrew Jarecki: The police have said that the Friedmans were showing their cavalier attitude to their situation, treating it in a joking way by videotaping it. David Friedman has said that he bought the video camera because he knew his father was going to jail, probably for the rest of his life, and he wanted to capture images of his father for his own children and others who would never know him. As the investigation became increasingly intense and turned to focus on Jesse, David continued to tape so they would have a record for the future.
What is the current relationship between the boys and Elaine?:
Andrew Jarecki: Elaine and Jesse keep in contact but she does not have an active relationship with the other boys.
|
|
|
|
|
