Where peace is not a pie ...Rick's Cafe Americain

The first time I saw Citizen Kane I was probably somewhere between 10-12 years old.  My parents were going to watch it on video and they told me that it was an “adult” movie and that I’d probably be bored.  Well that, of course, guaranteed I would watch (I have always wondered if my parents were using reverse psychology on me there), but I still was expecting to be bored.  Instead, I was absolutely enthralled.  To be able to watch a movie like Citizen Kane for the first time without the burden of expectations or knowledge was a truly wonderful thing.

I may have seen part or all of Citizen Kane one more time in between, but it certainly had been many years since I had seen it and I was curious to see my reaction to it with the full burden of memories, expectations and Rick’s take.  I was enthralled again.  Citizen Kane fully deserves its laudatory status in the annals of filmmaking.

The cinematography in Citizen Kane is amazing.  Welles use of light and camera angle is far more technically and artistically accomplished than the vast majority of movies made today with the benefit of modern techniques and knowledge.  Citizen Kane deserves consideration as a great movie on this basis alone.

I found the story of a man with nearly limitless amounts of money, who sets out to change and mold the world with a “I don’t care what other people think” attitude (because he expects everyone will eventually think what he thinks and, later, what he tells them to think), but painfully learns that he does care when he discovers the limitations of his power and influence, to be engrossing and fascinating.  It is not told in a traditionally dramatic fashion and lacks the sappy Hollywood happy ending.  Some might interpret this as a weakness as the movie does not “flow” in the way one typically expects a movie to, but I view this as a great strength.  It is easy to follow the traditional formulaic pattern of a dramatic movie, but Citizen Kane disrupts us and challenges our expectations, while not losing any of its power.  That is talent.

The acting is also excellent.  Welles is magnificent and the rest of the cast is, for the most part, strong.  The only possible criticism of Welles’ acting is that, at twenty-five, he didn’t fully pull of Kane in his later years. 

I also found Citizen Kane to be remarkably timely, with many modern parallels.  For example, the examination of a media mogul (modeled on William Randolph Hearst) is relevant to considerations today of media titans such as Murdoch and Bloomberg.  The corrupt and unscrupulous Boss Gettys’ use of Kane’s affair to topple his run for governor—with Kane believing, incorrectly, that the people wouldn’t care—brought to mind the Clinton witch-hunt.  And Kane’s retreat to his reclusive fantasy world of Xanadu still only scratches the surface of the King of Pop.  Also, Welles’ examination of the degree to which money, power and the media can dictate what people think is relevant to this year’s election.  Welles suggests that while people can be greatly influenced by such things, there is a point where “the people” will see through the bullshit, but that those who spout it often fail to realize this point exists (let’s hope Welles is right).

It was also interesting to watch this movie with the knowledge of who or what Rosebud is/was (if you haven’t seen Citizen Kane, don’t worry, I’m not telling).  Watching Citizen Kane as a child, I remember going “Ah ha” when Rosebud was revealed and feeling that it completed the movie and made sense.  Watching it a second time, knowing who or what Rosebud is/was and, thereby, knowing the parable Welles is telling actually made the movie more profound.  Welles’ depiction of what a man of tremendous power and influence misses, regrets and longs for on his death bed is quite powerful. 

To be fair to the critics, there are a few instances in the movie where it drags a bit and I can see how someone could get bored if they were not focused in on or engaged in the movie and didn’t particularly care about the movie’s artistic elements.  Also, we never fully understand why Kane “losses it” to the degree to which he does, but, then again, does anyone understand why Howard Hughes or Michael Jackson became such wackos?  Answering that question, it seems to me, is beyond what we can reasonably as of Welles.  One might the depiction is unrealistic, but for the fact that real life icons of power, wealth and influence have made Charles Foster Kane look quite balanced in comparison. 

I am not going to argue that Citizen Kane is the greatest movie of all time.  I don’t believe in such a thing as an objectively “greatest” movie.  But because of the combination of a great story, a non-formulaic style of telling it, tremendous technical and artistic quality, relevance 60+ years later and influence on future filmmakers, Citizen Kane absolutely deserves to be on any all time Top Ten list and gets the rare 5 stars (out of 4) on Signor Ferrari’s rating system (description forthcoming).

The first time I saw Citizen Kane I was probably somewhere between 10-12 years old.  My parents were going to watch it on video and they told me that it was an “adult” movie and that I’d probably be bored.  Well that, of course, guaranteed I would watch (I have always wondered if my parents were using reverse psychology on me there), but I still was expecting to be bored.  Instead, I was absolutely enthralled.  To be able to watch a movie like Citizen Kane for the first time without the burden of expectations or knowledge was a truly wonderful thing.

I may have seen part or all of Citizen Kane one more time in between, but it certainly had been many years since I had seen it and I was curious to see my reaction to it with the full burden of memories, expectations and Rick’s take.  I was enthralled again.  Citizen Kane fully deserves its laudatory status in the annals of filmmaking.

The cinematography in Citizen Kane is amazing.  Welles use of light and camera angle is far more technically and artistically accomplished than the vast majority of movies made today with the benefit of modern techniques and knowledge.  Citizen Kane deserves consideration as a great movie on this basis alone.

I found the story of a man with nearly limitless amounts of money, who sets out to change and mold the world with a “I don’t care what other people think” attitude (because he expects everyone will eventually think what he thinks and, later, what he tells them to think), but painfully learns that he does care when he discovers the limitations of his power and influence, to be engrossing and fascinating.  It is not told in a traditionally dramatic fashion and lacks the sappy Hollywood happy ending.  Some might interpret this as a weakness as the movie does not “flow” in the way one typically expects a movie to, but I view this as a great strength.  It is easy to follow the traditional formulaic pattern of a dramatic movie, but Citizen Kane disrupts us and challenges our expectations, while not losing any of its power.  That is talent.

The acting is also excellent.  Welles is magnificent and the rest of the cast is, for the most part, strong.  The only possible criticism of Welles’ acting is that, at twenty-five, he didn’t fully pull of Kane in his later years. 

I also found Citizen Kane to be remarkably timely, with many modern parallels.  For example, the examination of a media mogul (modeled on William Randolph Hearst) is relevant to considerations today of media titans such as Murdoch and Bloomberg.  The corrupt and unscrupulous Boss Gettys’ use of Kane’s affair to topple his run for governor—with Kane believing, incorrectly, that the people wouldn’t care—brought to mind the Clinton witch-hunt.  And Kane’s retreat to his reclusive fantasy world of Xanadu still only scratches the surface of the King of Pop.  Also, Welles’ examination of the degree to which money, power and the media can dictate what people think is relevant to this year’s election.  Welles suggests that while people can be greatly influenced by such things, there is a point where “the people” will see through the bullshit, but that those who spout it often fail to realize this point exists (let’s hope Welles is right).

It was also interesting to watch this movie with the knowledge of who or what Rosebud is/was (if you haven’t seen Citizen Kane, don’t worry, I’m not telling).  Watching Citizen Kane as a child, I remember going “Ah ha” when Rosebud was revealed and feeling that it completed the movie and made sense.  Watching it a second time, knowing who or what Rosebud is/was and, thereby, knowing the parable Welles is telling actually made the movie more profound.  Welles’ depiction of what a man of tremendous power and influence misses, regrets and longs for on his death bed is quite powerful. 

To be fair to the critics, there are a few instances in the movie where it drags a bit and I can see how someone could get bored if they were not focused in on or engaged in the movie and didn’t particularly care about the movie’s artistic elements.  Also, we never fully understand why Kane “losses it” to the degree to which he does, but, then again, does anyone understand why Howard Hughes or Michael Jackson became such wackos?  Answering that question, it seems to me, is beyond what we can reasonably as of Welles.  One might the depiction is unrealistic, but for the fact that real life icons of power, wealth and influence have made Charles Foster Kane look quite balanced in comparison. 

I am not going to argue that Citizen Kane is the greatest movie of all time.  I don’t believe in such a thing as an objectively “greatest” movie.  But because of the combination of a great story, a non-formulaic style of telling it, tremendous technical and artistic quality, relevance 60+ years later and influence on future filmmakers, Citizen Kane absolutely deserves to be on any all time Top Ten list and gets the rare 5 stars (out of 4) on Signor Ferrari’s rating system (description forthcoming).

Matthew, a 21 year-old American, goes to Paris in 1968 to learn French.  Obsessed with movies he frequently views old classics at museum.  At a protest over the theater’s closing, he meets Theo and Isabelle, attractive twins who he had observed but never approached before.  They immediately bond with Matthew, inviting him to their house for dinner and then to stay indefinitely when their parents leave for a long trip.  As Matthew discovers, the twins’ relationship is a fair bit closer than most brother/sister relationships and this creates tension as Matthew’s relationship with them, and especially Isabelle, develops.

The first half of The Dreamers is an interesting coming of age movie, but ultimately the storyline starts to drag and the relationships between the three becomes less interesting.  The movie is visually engaging at times and the early references to old movies and the demonstration of their influence on the characters (which fades away in the second half) is the movie’s most interesting motif.  By the end, I was losing interest and did not find the abrupt ending to be satisfying. 

What I liked most about this movie was the frankness and directness with which Bertolucci’s shows the three in their more intimate and less clothed moments (and no, I am not just talking about sex).  Taking the slightly odd context of their relationships as a given, the characters act on screen as we would expect them to act in real life.  There is no fake Hollywood sensuality and no distinction between male and female nudity.  The Dreamers is unquestionably an “adult” movie, but I am disturbed that a movie like this garners an NC-17 rating, whereas movies with callous violence, demeaning depictions of women and much more raunchy sexuality garner R ratings.  The Dreamers probably gained an NC-17 simply because Bertolucci showed people naked, without hiding their genitals. 

Ultimately, The Dreamers might be worth a viewing artistically, but don’t be distraught if you miss it.

Matthew, a 21 year-old American, goes to Paris in 1968 to learn French.  Obsessed with movies he frequently views old classics at museum.  At a protest over the theater’s closing, he meets Theo and Isabelle, attractive twins who he had observed but never approached before.  They immediately bond with Matthew, inviting him to their house for dinner and then to stay indefinitely when their parents leave for a long trip.  As Matthew discovers, the twins’ relationship is a fair bit closer than most brother/sister relationships and this creates tension as Matthew’s relationship with them, and especially Isabelle, develops.

The first half of The Dreamers is an interesting coming of age movie, but ultimately the storyline starts to drag and the relationships between the three becomes less interesting.  The movie is visually engaging at times and the early references to old movies and the demonstration of their influence on the characters (which fades away in the second half) is the movie’s most interesting motif.  By the end, I was losing interest and did not find the abrupt ending to be satisfying. 

What I liked most about this movie was the frankness and directness with which Bertolucci’s shows the three in their more intimate and less clothed moments (and no, I am not just talking about sex).  Taking the slightly odd context of their relationships as a given, the characters act on screen as we would expect them to act in real life.  There is no fake Hollywood sensuality and no distinction between male and female nudity.  The Dreamers is unquestionably an “adult” movie, but I am disturbed that a movie like this garners an NC-17 rating, whereas movies with callous violence, demeaning depictions of women and much more raunchy sexuality garner R ratings.  The Dreamers probably gained an NC-17 simply because Bertolucci showed people naked, without hiding their genitals. 

Ultimately, The Dreamers might be worth a viewing artistically, but don’t be distraught if you miss it.

For starters, let me say that I didn’t find it anti-semitic.  Sure, the Temple Elders were a touch unsympathetic, but so were the British in Braveheart, the Romans in Gladiator, the Germans in . . . well . . . pretty much every movie.  Remember, folks, this is a movie—and a Mel Gibson picture, at that.  Hollywood meets the Vatican: think Braveheart, without a storyline or epic battle scenes or even a terribly sympathetic hero, and you get to see the drawing and quartering.  Actually, think Braveheart where the drawing and quartering lasts two and a half hours.

My only real complaint on a “historical accuracy” level is that Pilate is easily the most likeable character.  That’s problematic for two reasons.  First, historical accounts don’t make him seem like quite the honorable, fair, thoughtful man he is in the film.  Second, in a film about Jesus, why is Pilate the only one with depth?

And he is.  Everyone else is a caricature (Judas is a cowering simp who becomes a babbling maniac—at least that’s growth of a sort; Mary and Mary are kind of like Jesus’ backup singers—they follow him around, making soft noises but not really doing much of anything; Peter does a lot of staring; and the Rabbis ride around on mules and generally look smug and vicious; Satan (yes, Satan) is a dead ringer for Emperor Palpatine, and mostly just sulks around looking smug and vicious.  Wait a minute . . .

Did I leave anyone out?  Oh, yeah, Jesus.  See, despite being the focus of the film (and a major religion, incidentally), he’s not really a character.  And that’s the part that really bugged me.  This film reduces Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God, King of the Jews, Prince of Peace, to nothing more than a fetish object: a body that we can watch be torn apart on screen for two hours.

I wouldn’t say that this movie was about Jesus.  In fact, I wouldn’t say this movie was “about” anything.  Instead, of being The Greatest Story Ever Told, it’s an extended scene from one of the Hellraiser movies, with Roman soldiers as the Cenobites.  In my opinion Gibson has done for Catholicism what Tobe Hooper did for the Texas Tourism Board.

The movie doesn’t really teach you anything about who Jesus was, what he did or said, or what it meant.  It just shows you how he died.  And boy, was it gory.  When it was over, I didn’t think to myself “Hey, that Jesus was quite a guy!” or “Hmmm, what a great message he had!” In fact, it didn’t make me think at all, except to marvel at how much the blood looked like barbeque sauce.  There is no message of peace and love, no theological, philosophical or even political statement made or question posed.  Just lots and lots of blood.  And I think I saw a rib.

Also, the end is crap.  I don’t recall ever reading that when Jesus finally died, the earth shook, and the Temple was cracked in two (I think Mel got that from an Indiana Jones film).  That may also have been a touch anti-semitic, now that I think about it.  Editor’s Note:  I have been informed (by Pauly) that this is in fact in the gospel.  Still, the scene with Satan screaming and writhing in defeat was pure cheese.

Bottom line:  if you get off on watching someone get tortured and die slowly and gruesomely, this is the flick for you.  Otherwise, rent The Last Temptation of Christ. 

As for Gibson, his punishment should be to be placed in the Harrow and have “Stick to Action Flicks” inscribed on his body

On the other hand, British Airways has some fine movie selections.  On the way home I got to see Cool Hand Luke and Dog Day Afternoon.  Those are some amazing movies, and they get better with each viewing.

Best Picture
For Best Picture, I think The Return of the King will win and should win, see comments on the movies below (in order of rank).

The Return of the King (ROTK): (****)
Of the three Lord of the Rings movies, I thought Fellowship of the Ring was by far the best and ROTK second best.  Further, the extended editions of both Fellowship and the Two Towers were superior to the theatrical renditions and I am certain it will be the same for ROTK (it was pretty obvious at times where scenes were chopped or cut).  Also, ROTK seemed a little long (or perhaps drawn out) at times, even for a devoted Tolkienite like myself, though think the extended version will, counter intuitively, diminish this effect as the story is smoothed out.  All that being said, ROTK was a visual tour-de-force and a true epic.  While I don’t think ROTK standing alone is a clear Oscar winner in any given year (though against this years competition it is), the three movies together (which really are “one” movie, just as the book was) will go down as one of the most impressive accomplishments in movie history and The Lord of the Rings in toto absolutely deserves a best picture victory.  Also, ROTK blows away previous Oscar winning war like epics like Gladiator and Braveheart.

Lost in Translation: (***)
I found Lost in Translation to be a good to very good movie.  I did not think it was a clear cut Oscar nominee when I saw it, but I am not disappointed that it garnered a nomination compared to what else was 2003 had to offer.  However, I have to disagree with those who found this to be a transcendent film.  It was original and interesting and demonstrated that Sophie Coppola has great potential, but ultimately is not that sophisticated or daring.  Hopefully, we’ll look back on this movie some day as one of Coppola’s early works that showed the promise of future greatness.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (***)
This is another movie that I did not think was clear cut Oscar material, but I am not disappointed it has been nominated.  The movie was very well done, did not over dramatize the combat scenes and, from all accounts, was very accurate in historical detail.  It also was a little slow at times and the characters were not particularly memorable, which prevents it from making a serious run at ROTK.  However, I do hope that they make more in this series.

Mystic River (**½)
Mystic River is a decent to good movie.  It is not an Oscar caliber movie.  There is nothing “wrong” with the movie, but it did not do anything original, had a fairly generic story line (as in we’ve seen all this stuff before) and the twist ending was not particularly satisfying.  The acting performances were good (not great), but were not enough to justify the critical acclaim this movie has received.  To compare it to 21 Grams – which was also an ok movie carried by a very strong cast with very strong performances – 21 Grams had a more original and more interesting story.  In addition to City of God, I would swap Mystic River with 21 Grams, Bad Santa and Elf – even though I don’t think any of those were Oscar worthy either.

Seabiscuit (**½)
Again, Seabiscuit is a good to decent movie, but is absolutely not an Oscar caliber movie.  First, the movie did not even scratch the surface of the book, which was much better (a must read).  Perhaps it is unfair to compare the movie to its source, but I did not like the creative choices made.  The movie emphasized the human characters and stories too much and did not place enough emphasis on the horse and the amazing effect the Biscuit had on the country – which is what the book focuses on.  Seabiscuit’s owner, trainer and jockey were minor celebrities in their time, but only because Seabiscuit was a major celebrity.  The movie short changed Seabiscuit’s story to make a more generic human interest story.  Blah!

Best Director
Same list as Best Picture, with the substitution of Fernando Meirelles for City of God instead of Seabiscuit (which should have been swapped in Best Picture as well).  This category is a no brainer.  Adapting The Lord of the Rings as impressively as Peter Jackson did is one of the more impressive feats in movie making history.  While Best Picture can be argued about, I think Jackson clearly deserved best director for Fellowship and ROTK and arguably the Two Towers as well.  None of the other nominated movies this year come close to having the challenges that Jackson had to overcome.

Adapted Screenplay
Nominees, American Splendor, City of God, Return of the King, Mystic River and Seabiscuit.  I did not see American Splendor, but this one is a no brainer as well.  ROTK by a mile.  If you don’t believe me, read the book – then try to think about making it into a movie.

Best Actor
I did not see House of Sand and Fog or Cold Mountain, so I cannot comment on Kingsley or Law, but all indications are that this is a three horse race between Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean), Bill Murray (Lost in Translation) and Sean Penn (Mystic River), with Penn as the slight favorite.  Again, I don’t see what was so special about Mystic River.  All of the acting performances were impressive, but I did not find Sean Penn’s performance earth shattering in any way.  Similarly, while Johnny Depp was good, as always, he often plays this somewhat quirky character and his I don’t think his pirate performance was Oscar worthy.  I would give the Oscar to Bill Murray.  One could easily sub in any number of actors to Sean Penn’s role in Mystic River and, while that perhaps cannot be said for Depp’s role, Pirates would have rolled along just fine with a less stellar performance.  However, Lost in Translation would have fallen flat on its face without a great performance from Murray and I cannot think of another actor to easily substitute for him.

Beyond the above categories, I either did not see enough of the movies nominated, or don’t enough technical knowledge (or don’t care enough) to comment on.  Please comment on where you agree and, more importantly, disagree.

Best Picture
For Best Picture, I think The Return of the King will win and should win, see comments on the movies below (in order of rank).

The Return of the King (ROTK): (****)
Of the three Lord of the Rings movies, I thought Fellowship of the Ring was by far the best and ROTK second best.  Further, the extended editions of both Fellowship and the Two Towers were superior to the theatrical renditions and I am certain it will be the same for ROTK (it was pretty obvious at times where scenes were chopped or cut).  Also, ROTK seemed a little long (or perhaps drawn out) at times, even for a devoted Tolkienite like myself, though think the extended version will, counter intuitively, diminish this effect as the story is smoothed out.  All that being said, ROTK was a visual tour-de-force and a true epic.  While I don’t think ROTK standing alone is a clear Oscar winner in any given year (though against this years competition it is), the three movies together (which really are “one” movie, just as the book was) will go down as one of the most impressive accomplishments in movie history and The Lord of the Rings in toto absolutely deserves a best picture victory.  Also, ROTK blows away previous Oscar winning war like epics like Gladiator and Braveheart.

Lost in Translation: (***)
I found Lost in Translation to be a good to very good movie.  I did not think it was a clear cut Oscar nominee when I saw it, but I am not disappointed that it garnered a nomination compared to what else was 2003 had to offer.  However, I have to disagree with those who found this to be a transcendent film.  It was original and interesting and demonstrated that Sophie Coppola has great potential, but ultimately is not that sophisticated or daring.  Hopefully, we’ll look back on this movie some day as one of Coppola’s early works that showed the promise of future greatness.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (***)
This is another movie that I did not think was clear cut Oscar material, but I am not disappointed it has been nominated.  The movie was very well done, did not over dramatize the combat scenes and, from all accounts, was very accurate in historical detail.  It also was a little slow at times and the characters were not particularly memorable, which prevents it from making a serious run at ROTK.  However, I do hope that they make more in this series.

Mystic River (**½)
Mystic River is a decent to good movie.  It is not an Oscar caliber movie.  There is nothing “wrong” with the movie, but it did not do anything original, had a fairly generic story line (as in we’ve seen all this stuff before) and the twist ending was not particularly satisfying.  The acting performances were good (not great), but were not enough to justify the critical acclaim this movie has received.  To compare it to 21 Grams – which was also an ok movie carried by a very strong cast with very strong performances – 21 Grams had a more original and more interesting story.  In addition to City of God, I would swap Mystic River with 21 Grams, Bad Santa and Elf – even though I don’t think any of those were Oscar worthy either.

Seabiscuit (**½)
Again, Seabiscuit is a good to decent movie, but is absolutely not an Oscar caliber movie.  First, the movie did not even scratch the surface of the book, which was much better (a must read).  Perhaps it is unfair to compare the movie to its source, but I did not like the creative choices made.  The movie emphasized the human characters and stories too much and did not place enough emphasis on the horse and the amazing effect the Biscuit had on the country – which is what the book focuses on.  Seabiscuit’s owner, trainer and jockey were minor celebrities in their time, but only because Seabiscuit was a major celebrity.  The movie short changed Seabiscuit’s story to make a more generic human interest story.  Blah!

Best Director
Same list as Best Picture, with the substitution of Fernando Meirelles for City of God instead of Seabiscuit (which should have been swapped in Best Picture as well).  This category is a no brainer.  Adapting The Lord of the Rings as impressively as Peter Jackson did is one of the more impressive feats in movie making history.  While Best Picture can be argued about, I think Jackson clearly deserved best director for Fellowship and ROTK and arguably the Two Towers as well.  None of the other nominated movies this year come close to having the challenges that Jackson had to overcome.

Adapted Screenplay
Nominees, American Splendor, City of God, Return of the King, Mystic River and Seabiscuit.  I did not see American Splendor, but this one is a no brainer as well.  ROTK by a mile.  If you don’t believe me, read the book – then try to think about making it into a movie.

Best Actor
I did not see House of Sand and Fog or Cold Mountain, so I cannot comment on Kingsley or Law, but all indications are that this is a three horse race between Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean), Bill Murray (Lost in Translation) and Sean Penn (Mystic River), with Penn as the slight favorite.  Again, I don’t see what was so special about Mystic River.  All of the acting performances were impressive, but I did not find Sean Penn’s performance earth shattering in any way.  Similarly, while Johnny Depp was good, as always, he often plays this somewhat quirky character and his I don’t think his pirate performance was Oscar worthy.  I would give the Oscar to Bill Murray.  One could easily sub in any number of actors to Sean Penn’s role in Mystic River and, while that perhaps cannot be said for Depp’s role, Pirates would have rolled along just fine with a less stellar performance.  However, Lost in Translation would have fallen flat on its face without a great performance from Murray and I cannot think of another actor to easily substitute for him.

Beyond the above categories, I either did not see enough of the movies nominated, or don’t enough technical knowledge (or don’t care enough) to comment on.  Please comment on where you agree and, more importantly, disagree.

Arnold Friedman, a well respected school teacher, was caught with a large stash of man-boy child pornography.  When the police discovered that he ran computer classes for young boys in his home, they launched an investigation (it appeared the classes were just for boys, but the movie never proffers an explanation).  Going house to house and interviewing, and often re-interviewing suggestively until they got what they wanted, the police built a case of child molestation against Arnold and his 19 year-old son Jesse.  Arnold and Jesse were arrested and charged with hundreds of counts of sodomy and other acts of molestation.

Arnold had many home movies of his family and, just before the crisis started, the oldest son, David Friedman, purchased a home video camera and recorded family discussions, debates and break downs, allowing us to be a fly on the wall of this quite dysfunctional family.  Additionally, the filmmakers interviewed, modern day, the police who investigated the case, the judge, David and Jesse, the mother and wife Edina Friedman, children who recalled being molested, children who swore nothing ever happened and other bit players.  Interestingly, the dominant character in the movie was probably David who, I kid you not, is the #1 Birthday Clown in NYC (though I seriously wonder if he has kept that title after this movie).  David clearly has some serious issues and comes across like someone who believes that if he tells himself, and everyone else, that it isn’t true long enough that it won’t be.

I was surprised, in that, based on what I knew of the movie before watching it, I expected that I would come away with more questions about Arnold and Jesse’s guilt.  I hesitate to attempt to draw any conclusions because, as a lawyer, I have had direct experience in how one person or entities’ (especially a movie or T.V. production) rendition of events can tell a tale far removed from the truth; however, just based on the movie and the bonus material, my take would be that (1) Arnold, and probably Jesse, were probably guilty of something; (2) the gruesome horror story told by the police almost certainly was exaggerated and (3) the Friedmans are one fucked up family.

The bonus material on the second DVD is a great addition because the story continued after the movie was released.  When you see a controversial documentary like this, you often wonder what the people in the documentary thought about it.  Here, you get to find out.  The bonus DVD includes:  (1) the judge speaking out (and be spoken out at) at the Great Neck debut of the movie; (2) confrontations between many of the principles during an open discussion at the NYC debut at the Tribecca Film Festival; (3) additional elements to the story left out because of time constraints; (4) Jesse’s life today free and out of jail – and dating a doctor.  So, if you rent the DVD, definitely check out disc 2, you’ll be glad you did.  You can also check out the website for interesting things too. 

Arnold Friedman, a well respected school teacher, was caught with a large stash of man-boy child pornography.  When the police discovered that he ran computer classes for young boys in his home, they launched an investigation (it appeared the classes were just for boys, but the movie never proffers an explanation).  Going house to house and interviewing, and often re-interviewing suggestively until they got what they wanted, the police built a case of child molestation against Arnold and his 19 year-old son Jesse.  Arnold and Jesse were arrested and charged with hundreds of counts of sodomy and other acts of molestation.

Arnold had many home movies of his family and, just before the crisis started, the oldest son, David Friedman, purchased a home video camera and recorded family discussions, debates and break downs, allowing us to be a fly on the wall of this quite dysfunctional family.  Additionally, the filmmakers interviewed, modern day, the police who investigated the case, the judge, David and Jesse, the mother and wife Edina Friedman, children who recalled being molested, children who swore nothing ever happened and other bit players.  Interestingly, the dominant character in the movie was probably David who, I kid you not, is the #1 Birthday Clown in NYC (though I seriously wonder if he has kept that title after this movie).  David clearly has some serious issues and comes across like someone who believes that if he tells himself, and everyone else, that it isn’t true long enough that it won’t be.

I was surprised, in that, based on what I knew of the movie before watching it, I expected that I would come away with more questions about Arnold and Jesse’s guilt.  I hesitate to attempt to draw any conclusions because, as a lawyer, I have had direct experience in how one person or entities’ (especially a movie or T.V. production) rendition of events can tell a tale far removed from the truth; however, just based on the movie and the bonus material, my take would be that (1) Arnold, and probably Jesse, were probably guilty of something; (2) the gruesome horror story told by the police almost certainly was exaggerated and (3) the Friedmans are one fucked up family.

The bonus material on the second DVD is a great addition because the story continued after the movie was released.  When you see a controversial documentary like this, you often wonder what the people in the documentary thought about it.  Here, you get to find out.  The bonus DVD includes:  (1) the judge speaking out (and be spoken out at) at the Great Neck debut of the movie; (2) confrontations between many of the principles during an open discussion at the NYC debut at the Tribecca Film Festival; (3) additional elements to the story left out because of time constraints; (4) Jesse’s life today free and out of jail – and dating a doctor.  So, if you rent the DVD, definitely check out disc 2, you’ll be glad you did.  You can also check out the website for interesting things too. 

The movie comprises excerpts from a 20-hour interview of McNamara (JFK and Johnson’s Secretary of Defense) focusing on his role in World War II, the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam.  In addition to the interview with McNamara, we are shown images of what is being described and we also often hear tape recorded exchanges between McNamara and Kennedy or Johnson.  The contemporary exchanges alone make the movie worth seeing. 

McNamara’s recollections, insights and conclusions are fascinating and the filmmakers do an excellent job of blending themes.  One example is the discussion of proportionality in war, a doctrine McNamara loosely endorses.  During World War II McNamara analyzed the efficiency of bombing raids in Germany and Japan and helping to develop America’s crushing air superiority.  He discusses the devastating pre-Hiroshima fire bombing of Japan led by General Curtis LeMay (which was far more extensive than I had ever realized) and admits that the architects of the bombing raids, himself included, probably would have been tried as war criminals if we had lost the war.  He asks the question, without answering it, whether the killing of hundreds of thousands (if not more) Japanese civilians was justified in order to save American troops.  The filmmakers subtly compare this approach, with the U.S.’s approach in Vietnam, where the debate continues today as to whether we put in too many or too few troops.  (McNamara maintains that he wanted to scale back the conflict and refers to a memorandum he wrote to Johnson just before he “resigned”/was fired where he advocated scaling back operations; however, other statements by McNamara don’t seem entirely consistent with that position and McNamara’s comments on Vietnam were not as straightforward as his comments on WWII or the Cuban Missile Crisis.) Neither the movie, nor McNamara attempt to give a definitive answer, but the contrasts in approach and tactics are though provoking.

Many other aspects of the movie that could be commented on, such as an insider’s chilling recollections, aided by hindsight and additional information, of how close we came to nuclear devastation in the Cuban missile crisis, but a full discussion could fill a book.  Go see this movie or, perhaps better yet, catch it on DVD.  An extended edition version is due out soon and if it is like the extra material on the 2 disk Capturing the Friedmans DVD, waiting for (or seeing it again on) the DVD will be well worth it.  While there are some excellent visuals in the movie, you won’t lose much viewing it on DVD as long as you can watch it in letterbox.  Also, it is an excellent movie to stop and discuss at times as a lot of ground covered in less than two hours.

Fog of War was directed by Errol Morris, who also did The Thin Blue Line and A Brief History of Time, both of which I highly recommend.

The website for Fog of War is quite interesting and has excerpts from the film.