This article,

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/movies/oscars/24FRIE.html ,

in yesterday's New York Times rather fascinated me, because from the

film I had concluded that Jesse Friedman was likely innocent, and that

this was another of the many cases of fake therapist-induced memories.

Now I think the opposite, that it's more likely that he's guilty. The

victim's mom who says, "What fame is there in making a film about a

pedophile who's a pedophile? " is right, of course, and there's always a

devil's incentive for journalists -- the film is a form of journalism,

I'd argue -- to create a story when there is none. I'm not saying that

Jesse is or isn't guilty, and unlike many I actually didn't like the

film very much, but  now I like it a lot less. Lie detector tests are

not truly reliable, but they are at much better than 50-50, I believe,

and Jarecki left out the fact that Jesse flunked his. Jeracki seems

confused as to whether he was trying to make on "objective" documentary

or write a legal brief for Jesse, and that confusion, which shows in the

film, now seems much more questionable.



- Fred

I don't think the film came to any conclusion about

Jesse Friedman -- or anything else for that matter.

Clearly "something" happened. The father "did" collect

kiddie porn. But what and to what extent has been

drowned in the mass hysteria of that moment. Living in

L.A. I saw the McMartin case first-hand. The

entire"repressed memory" thing is a scam. A reporter

for a local TV station was having an affair with one

of the "therapists" in the case(!) alllowing him all

manner of "scoops." There was another case in the

mid-west wher two teenage girls acused their father of

witchcraft and rape.he was so upset that he 'admitted"

commiting acts that proved to be untrure. There was a

verylong "New Yorker"piece about this, plus a book.

The daughters still insist to this day that their

"witch" father (who of course had the ability to fly

through the air) raped them.

--- Fred Camper <f@...> wrote:

> This article,

>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/movies/oscars/24FRIE.html

> ,

> in yesterday's New York Times rather fascinated me,

> because from the

> film I had concluded that Jesse Friedman was likely

> innocent, and that

> this was another of the many cases of fake

> therapist-induced memories.

> Now I think the opposite, that it's more likely that

> he's guilty. The

> victim's mom who says, "What fame is there in making

> a film about a

> pedophile who's a pedophile? " is right, of course,

> and there's always a

> devil's incentive for journalists -- the film is a

> form of journalism,

> I'd argue -- to create a story when there is none.

> I'm not saying that

> Jesse is or isn't guilty, and unlike many I actually

> didn't like the

> film very much, but  now I like it a lot less. Lie

> detector tests are

> not truly reliable, but they are at much better than

> 50-50, I believe,

> and Jarecki left out the fact that Jesse flunked

> his. Jeracki seems

> confused as to whether he was trying to make on

> "objective" documentary

> or write a legal brief for Jesse, and that

> confusion, which shows in the

> film, now seems much more questionable.

>

> - Fred

>

>





__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.

http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

Ahem, people, please do NOT quote entire messages before replying. Turn

off your email's damned auto-quote feature, or learn the simple key

commands (in Windows; CTRL+A followed by the delete key) which will

delete the quoted message before you start typing in the message window.



David Ehrenstein wrote:



>I don't think the film came to any conclusion about

>Jesse Friedman -

>

Not exactly, but it left me with the strong impression that he was

completely innocent, and that his dad was probably innocent of molesting

anyone too. I think it's true that there are pedophiles by inclination

who go through their whole lives without molesting anyone.



I agree with you completely about the McMartin case and the case

documented in that New Yorker article, which I read (I think that case

was in Washington state, actually). The therapeutic climate that emerged

a few decades ago resulted in massive cases of the abuse of very young

children BY THERAPISTS, who would take three year olds, whose grasp on

reality is tenuous at best, in inject them with the suggestions that

they had been raped, fondled, abused. It turns out that experiments done

much later with kids of that age show that they are suggestible: a

therapist who asked a kid who had never been to the hospital about his

"operation" would get "no operation" the first time, but on repeated

asking over a period of weeks would get an elaborate story about surgery

for a broken leg or something. And their experimenters were far more

gentle than those insistent therapists, who would keep pressuring kids

who said nothing had happened. The result is that there are hundreds of

teenagers who now think they were abused as toddlers, and many people

(there have been other cases like McMartin) languishing in prison. In

that context I thought this was another such case. But none of this

means that abuse doesn't happen, because it does, and kids in the

"Friedmans" case were older, and while I can't be sure the Times article

convinced me that the film is biased, had an agenda, and probably had

the wrong agenda, which is of course much worse.



- Fred

Fred Camper wrote --



"But none of this

means that abuse doesn't happen, because it does, and kids in the

"Friedmans" case were older, and while I can't be sure the Times

article

convinced me that the film is biased, had an agenda, and probably had

the wrong agenda, which is of course much worse."



This is interesting and troubling to me, though in a good way.  It

clarified something that's been bugging me ever since I read some

critical postings and reviews of THE FOG OF WAR, a film that was one

of my favorites of last year.  It seems that in both films there is a

divide between what it is that makes me embrace them and what makes

others critical of them.  Jonathan Rosenbaum and Gabe Klinger's

critiques of THE FOG OF WAR resemble your complaint with FRIEDMANS in

that you are suspicious of the filmmaker's possible intention of

facilitating (willfully or not) the subject's deliberate

attempt at self-exoneration.  To be honest, I didn't feel like either

film was making a singular case for or against their subject's guilt

or innocence in the crimes in which they were implicated.  Perhaps

because such issues weren't central to my interest in the films.  My

main reason for liking both films is that they seem to interrogate

both the subjectivity of truth itself and the process of truth-

making.  Which leads me to a troubling dilemma, as I am trying to

resolve your point with mine.  I put a lot of value in how vividly

and purposefully a film can raise a viewer's awareness of what they

are seeing, what they are being *made* to see, and what this tells

them about the relationship between life and the medium of cinema.

This is why Rossellini is one of my favorites (and yours too, I

believe).  The problem you and Rosenbaum and Gabe raise for me is,

can such a preoccupation with the "process" of truth actually serve

as a diversion from truth itself?  With these films, do the "meta-

narrational" qualities of the film actually disable the viewer from

getting to the facts (assuming those facts are to be had)?



Can such a bottom be found?  What Jarecki and Morris (and come to

think of it, Morris may have been an influence in Jarecki's style)

seem to conclude in their respective films is that truth is almost

entirely subjective, well beyond the reach of a single perspective,

and that men merely clutch at it and try to bend it to their own

will.  Like Rosenbaum's complaint (which I'm somewhat sympathetic to)

that Morris should have been harder on Robert McNamara and nailed him

on Vietnam, your feeling that there's something being misrepresented

reveals an insistence that the filmmaker should be accountable to

*some* truth to this morass of manipulations on all levels.  I'm not

sure if I agree, but in any case it's worth clarifying what's at

stake.  Maybe what's really at stake is not entirely with the films

but what we as different viewers want out of them.



Expanding this issue into the realm of narrative fiction films, I

think similar criticisms can be (and have been) laid at DOGVILLE and

ELEPHANT, two more of my favorites from last year, again for how

vivdly they present the process in which reality and

perception are formulated.  They too were attacked for their lack of

substantive insight concerning America and Columbine.  So perhaps a

simple way to sum this up is that form-as-Truth is still no subsitute

for the Truth?  One could bring in a range of other filmmakers as

well: Marker, Resnais...



Hope some of this encourages a response, as I sincerely want to

understand this better...



Kevin

--- alsolikelife <alsolikelife@...> wrote:



   Like Rosenbaum's complaint (which I'm

> somewhat sympathetic to)

> that Morris should have been harder on Robert

> McNamara and nailed him

> on Vietnam, your feeling that there's something

> being misrepresented

> reveals an insistence that the filmmaker should be

> accountable to

> *some* truth to this morass of manipulations on all

> levels.  I'm not

> sure if I agree, but in any case it's worth

> clarifying what's at

> stake.  Maybe what's really at stake is not entirely

> with the films

> but what we as different viewers want out of them.

>

No it's with the films. If you're interviewing

McNamarra and allow him to get away with lying about

the Gulf of Tonkin incidnet you're in a world of

trouble -- with those who know th truth.



> Expanding this issue into the realm of narrative

> fiction films, I

> think similar criticisms can be (and have been) laid

> at DOGVILLE and

> ELEPHANT, two more of my favorites from last year,

> again for how

> vivdly they present the process in which reality and

>

> perception are formulated.  They too were attacked

> for their lack of

> substantive insight concerning America and

> Columbine.



Well "Dogville" is a work of pure fiction whereas

"Elephant" is a re-imagining of Columbine in Portland.

Rather different things IMO.







__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.

http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein <cellar47@y...>

wrote:

> No it's with the films. If you're interviewing

> McNamarra and allow him to get away with lying about

> the Gulf of Tonkin incidnet you're in a world of

> trouble -- with those who know th truth.



Perhaps you're right.  I don't know as much about these events as

others including yourself so I can only take your word for it that

this Morris mis-represents the facts.  My own take on this film is

that Morris tries to let McNamara speak for himself while at the same

time trying to expose fissures in McNamara's self-portrayal (via

startling jumpcuts in the interview footage mixed with floridly

assembled stock footage illustrations of McNamara's points, and of

course the "lessons" McNamara imparts that become increasingly

dubious and contradictory as they accumulate).  Many of Morris' films

have tried to straddle the mystery of how people present themselves,

trying to be both sympathetic and critical at once.  I don't think

McNamara gets nailed in the way you would like, but I don't think he

gets exonerated either... at least I find it a worthwhile argument

(if not a bit dour and pessimistic) that Morris is saying that the

McNamara's failings -- the limitations of human perception and

judgment -- could very well be anyone's.



> Well "Dogville" is a work of pure fiction whereas

> "Elephant" is a re-imagining of Columbine in Portland.

> Rather different things IMO.

>

True, but I don't think that was the point I was making.  I was

saying that both films seem occupied with questions about perception

and narrative framing, and what moral implications these have for

both the filmmaker and audience (I still can't forget how the packed

NY Film Fest audience cheered the DOGVILLE massacre like a

bloodthirsty throng at a gladiatorial match -- it scared the crap out

of me but convinced me that von Trier was on to something).



shit, I'm going to be late for OSAMA.



Kevin

--- alsolikelife <alsolikelife@...> wrote:



> Perhaps you're right.  I don't know as much about

> these events as

> others including yourself so I can only take your

> word for it that

> this Morris mis-represents the facts.



Start reading. There are any number of books about

Vietnam. Thoser who do not learn from history are

condemned to listen to murderers like McNamarra paint

themselves men of honor.



  My own take

> on this film is

> that Morris tries to let McNamara speak for himself

> while at the same

> time trying to expose fissures in McNamara's

> self-portrayal (via

> startling jumpcuts in the interview footage mixed

> with floridly

> assembled stock footage illustrations of McNamara's

> points, and of

> course the "lessons" McNamara imparts that become

> increasingly

> dubious and contradictory as they accumulate).



Piffle!



  Had he cared (which he doesn't -- Morris is a pompos

ass) he would have brought in any number of other

people to expose McNamarra's shameless lies. Instead

he polishes an apple for the teacher and then pretends

that he wasn't the one who put it on his desk.



  Many

> of Morris' films

> have tried to straddle the mystery of how people

> present themselves,

> trying to be both sympathetic and critical at once.



There is nothing "mysterious" about the way people

present themselves. The lie. They create myths. They

become Marlene Dietrich-- or George W. Bush.



> I don't think

> McNamara gets nailed in the way you would like, but

> I don't think he

> gets exonerated either... at least I find it a

> worthwhile argument

> (if not a bit dour and pessimistic) that Morris is

> saying that the

> McNamara's failings -- the limitations of human

> perception and

> judgment -- could very well be anyone's.

>



No they couldn't. Not at all. That's like saying

Adolph Eichmann's failings could be the failings of

anyone.



  (I still can't

> forget how the packed

> NY Film Fest audience cheered the DOGVILLE massacre

> like a

> bloodthirsty throng at a gladiatorial match -- it

> scared the crap out

> of me but convinced me that von Trier was on to

> something).

>

Naw. He just made a bloody spectacle. People love to

watch anything knowing they won't get their hands

dirty.



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.

http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

David, didn't you write a couple of weeks ago that "there is no such

thing as revealed truth in cinema"? Not that I'm trying to catch you

out, but I'm curious about how you reconcile your insistence on facts

here with your scepticism in other contexts.



I think of Morris as a good journalist with some unfortunate arty

pretensions -- I wish he'd concentrate on his often fascinating

subjects without trying to turn every movie into a "philosophical"

investigation of the nature of truth, etc. It does depend what you

want out of a movie, but to most people McNamara is probably more

interesting as a foreign policy player than as a human enigma, and

rightly so.



JTW

--- jaketwilson <upworld1@...> wrote:

> David, didn't you write a couple of weeks ago that

> "there is no such

> thing as revealed truth in cinema"? Not that I'm

> trying to catch you

> out, but I'm curious about how you reconcile your

> insistence on facts

> here with your scepticism in other contexts.

>

Because in the context I was referring to then

Absolute Truth was the question.



Here we're talking about the much simpler truth of

events taking place -- and being lied about.







__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.

http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jaketwilson" <upworld1@h...> wrote:

> David, didn't you write a couple of weeks ago that "there is no such

> thing as revealed truth in cinema"? Not that I'm trying to catch you

> out, but I'm curious about how you reconcile your insistence on facts

> here with your scepticism in other contexts.

>

> I think of Morris as a good journalist with some unfortunate arty

> pretensions -- I wish he'd concentrate on his often fascinating

> subjects without trying to turn every movie into a "philosophical"

> investigation of the nature of truth, etc. It does depend what you

> want out of a movie, but to most people McNamara is probably more

> interesting as a foreign policy player than as a human enigma, and

> rightly so.

>

> JTW

     Although he's not a film critic, and views the film from a purely politcal

perspective, Alexander Cockburn offers a particuarly savage critique of Morris

at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn01242004.html



R. Porton

Has anyone seen this movie?  I love the book but can't seem to track this

one down (the VHS is apparently rare and goes for around $60).  The book is

about the author's personal involvement with the Columbia U. riots in the

late 60s, among other things...on my paperback (1970), the copy reads, "Soon

a New Kind of Movie From MGM!"



Released 1970,

Directed by

Stuart Hagmann



Writing credits

  James Kunen (novel)

Israel Horovitz



Starring...

Bruce Davison

Kim Darby

Bud Cort

Murray MacLeod





As a bonus, if you know where to rent this in Chicago, give me a tip.



Respond offlist, unless you feel the urge to raise list-relevant issues, of

course.



Joey Lindsey

jlinds@...

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, jl <jlinds@a...> wrote:

> Has anyone seen this movie?  I love the book but can't seem to track this=



> one down (the VHS is apparently rare and goes for around $60).  The book =

is

> about the author's personal involvement with the Columbia U. riots in the=



> late 60s, among other things...on my paperback (1970), the copy reads, "S=

oon

> a New Kind of Movie From MGM!"





Saw it back when -- my recollection is dim, but I'd have thought 60 cents m=

ight be more like it...  Andrew Sarris' review, evoking something of the pol=

itics of the day, is collected in his "The Primal Screen," and recalls what =

could have been part of the problem:  the film is not set at Columbia, but "=

in some anonymous institution in the San Francisco Bay area [...]  The book =

makes no sense apart from the uniquely incestuous power relationships at Col=

umbia University and throughout Manhattan Island..."

Kevin,



You raise a lot of intriguing points. Unfortunately I haven't seen "The

Fog of War," but I have a chance to see "Elephant" soon that I'm

planning to take advantage of, so perhaps I'll put off a full response

for ten days or so. But here's one thought: "Capturing the Friedmans" is

a kind of journalism. Jarecki is telling a story. And since I've written

journalism as well as criticism, I know one thing for sure: that the

journalist is always sorely tempted to tell an interesting story.

Editors, and the public, are often more interested in a well-told

entertaining story than in the truth. And so the temptation is always

there to embellish in one way or another, or to tilt in one way or

another, as the mom quoted by the Times suspects. One of my

disappointments with "Friedmans" is that it didn't seem all that

profound an investigation of the "process," though I do suspect all such

investigations are slanted one way or another. Vertov's "The Man With a

Movie Camera," which is a profound investigation, certainly is also

slanted. I suspect that every film, especially every film that's any

good, somewhat "disables" (your word) the viewer, because every film is

skewed somehow. I take that skewing to be an inevitable result of human

subjectivity, not a necessary product of the investigative process,

except insofar as that process depends on humans.



But the Vertov film is honest in its way. It espouses a certain

ideology, and tries to be true to that ideology in its choice of subject

matter, framing, and especially in its editing. "Capturing" purports to

be an objective investigation, and it apparently was not. The Times

article had two real red flags for me. One was that Jesse flunked a lie

detector test. I'd want to learn that from the film, and what his

"excuse" was, and also hear from an expert on how reliable such tests

are. I know they're not reliable enough to use in court, but I suspect

they are reasonably reliable. The other was the interview Jesse

supposedly gave from prison in which he admitted he molested and also

said his dad had molested him. If his guilty plea was the lie that he

now claims it was, what reason did he have for continuing that lie in

prison? There may be a good rebuttal to both of those pieces of evidence

against him, and he should also be allowed to give it. I can see how a

viewer of the film might be left wondering if some kids had been

molested by Jesse's dad, but I can't see how a viewer would seriously

believe that Jesse too had done it -- I certainly didn't.



- Fred