Capturing The Friedmans - Response

Response

The film received extremely positive reviews, with the review tallying website rottentomatoes.com reporting that 139 out of the 143 reviews they tallied were positive for a score of 97 percent and a certification of "fresh". The film was ranked as the 7th best reviewed movie of 2003 on the website's best of the year list. The low-budget documentary was a success with audiences as well grossing over $3 million in theaters, making it a surprise hit. In terms of individual reviews Elvis Mitchell of The New York Times wrote, "Mr. Jarecki so recognizes the archetypal figures in the Friedman home that he knows to push things any further through heavy-handed assessment would be redundant." He praised Jarecki for operating under the premise "that first impressions can't be trusted and that truth rests with each person telling the story." Washington Post columnist Desson Howe offered similar praise, writing, "It's testament to Jarecki's superbly wrought film that everyone seems to be, simultaneously, morally suspect and strikingly innocent as they relate their stories and assertions...This is a film about the quagmire of mystery in every human soul." Similarly, Roger Ebert wrote, "The film is as an instructive lesson about the elusiveness of facts, especially in a legal context. Sometimes guilt and innocence are discovered in court, but sometimes, we gather, only truths about the law are demonstrated." The film won the Grand Jury prize at the Sundance Film Festival for 2003. Capturing the Friedmans was voted the fifth most popular film in the Channel 4 programme, The 50 Greatest Documentaries of all time, in 2005.

In one of the few negative reviews, Los Angeles Times writer Kenneth Turan wrote a critique of both the film and Jarecki stating, "Jarecki's pose of impartiality gets especially troublesome for audiences when it enables him to evade responsibility for dealing with the complexities of his material."

Criticism intensified as Jarecki's role in deliberately choosing not to pursue his firm belief in the Friedmans' innocence became publicly known. In his review, Ebert had recounted Jarecki's statement at the Sundance Film Festival that he did not know whether Arnold and Jesse Friedman were guilty of child molestation. Ebert roundly praised Jarecki for communicating this ambiguity. It has since emerged that Jarecki funded Jesse Friedman's appeal. Writing for The Village Voice, Debbie Nathan — who was hired by Jarecki as a consultant after having been interviewed for the film — wrote of Jarecki, "Polling viewers at Sundance in January, he was struck by how they were split over Arnold and Jesse's guilt. Since then, he's crafted a marketing strategy based on ambiguity, and during Q&As and interviews, he has studiously avoided taking a stand."