|
|
Post by audrey notwhatsheusedtobe on Oct 11, 2004 11:32:34 GMT
I'm sure there has already been a thread about this but I can't find it which is cheesing me off big time because I watched this at the weekend and I'd like to see what others thought about it.
It was one of the weirdest things I've ever seen. I wonder if David Friedman is still the #1 kid's entertainer in New York or if he has been tarred with the Freidman brush, given his complete denial that his dad was at all dodgy? And what was the truth about Jesse?
|
|
Floss
Jane Asher
Posts: 191
|
Post by Floss on Oct 11, 2004 15:20:08 GMT
I watched this at the weekend too, and can't figure out the truth about any of it.
It was incredible to hear the investigating officer say that there were "piles of pornographic magazines" around the house - a statement we'd seen was false.
And I just don't get the idea that these horrific sex games were going on, but the parents knew nothing - no physical evidence, no upset children at the end of classes, parents being able to turn up half way through classes and see nothing ... and yet children were testifying to 3 sex crimes against them each session for 10 weeks.
But then, there was something weird, and not just about Arnold. Why did Jesse think pleading guilty would help?
Why did they video tape so much? Why film yourself dancing on the courthouse steps just before you are sentenced to 15 years in jail? Why film terribly emotional dinner conversations with a family that's falling apart? Although - I think that's got to be one of the best arguments for the Great Neck allegations being false - in a family which videotapes everything... why didn't they tape that?
|
|
|
|
Post by audrey notwhatsheusedtobe on Oct 12, 2004 10:24:58 GMT
Yeah, it's like when Warren Beatty says in In Bed With Madonna "what's the point of talking off-screen". It's like they felt they had to record all their experiences or they wouldn't count. You're right, you'd assume that Arnold would record the abuse, given his obsession. David is almost the weirdest. All that stuff about his video diary being private then he handed everything over to the film makers.
I suppose the ambiguity comes from the fact that Arnold WAS a paedophile, it's just that he was a accused of the right crime but at the wrong time if that makes sense. It's bizarrely ironic.
The DVD has a additional disk of material where you get to see the premiers attended by many of the key figues in the film: lawyers; police; the judge. They started arguing about what was shown and what wasn't. David starts slagging Jesse's lawyer, but the lawyer is there and contradicts him and David is like "OK I forgot". Which kind of sums it up...
|
|
Floss
Jane Asher
Posts: 191
|
Post by Floss on Oct 12, 2004 12:13:47 GMT
Damn. I got the DVD through "Screen Select" who only send one disc at a time. Am I going to have to order the second disc now?
There was a mini interview with Jarecki on the first disc, where he talks about people not leaving the cinema, because they want to discuss the film with people - even people they don't know. I'm kind of there at the minute - I want to find out more. But I suppose that's the point.
Jarecki also talks about memory a lot in that interview. It is all about what your recollection is, and how easily a story becomes fact. Again, the police woman talking about the piles of pornography - exaggeration for effect at years of dinner parties has made that real to her.
There is a lot of "OK, I forgot" but there's also a lot of, "Yes, I remember it like that - so that's definitely true."
|
|
