feeldb

Capturing the Friedmans

2003 · 107 min · Director: Andrew Jarecki ★ IMDb 7.6 · 29,082 ratings

Show plot summary (may contain spoilers)

In the late 1980's, the Friedmans - father and respected computer and music teacher Arnold Friedman, mother and housewife Elaine Friedman, and their three grown sons, David Friedman, Seth Friedman and Jesse Friedman - of Great Neck, Long Island, are seemingly your typical middle class American family. They all admit that the marriage was by no means close to being harmonious - Arnold and Elaine eventually got divorced - but the sons talk of their father, while also not being always there for them, as being a good man. This façade of respectability masks the fact that Arnold was buying and distributing child pornography. Following a sting operation to confirm this fact, the authorities began to investigate Arnold for sexual abuse of the minor-aged male students of his computer classes, which he held in the basement of the family home. Based on interviews with the students, not only was Arnold charged with and ultimately convicted of multiple counts of sodomy and sexual abuse of these boys but so was eighteen year old Jesse, who was mentioned by many as the aggressor of the two in the acts. Arnold admitted that he is a pedophile, but that he did not abuse the boys in his class as charged and convicted. The trial process brought out the dysfunction that previously existed within the family. But the issue of Arnold and Jesse's guilt of these acts is hotly debated among the family, among the authorities, among the media and among the students of the computer classes.

Trailer for Capturing the Friedmans

Playing the trailer connects to YouTube. No connection is made until you choose to play.

Rate how it felt
Working…

Your viewing check-in

Emotional fingerprint

Capturing the Friedmans (2003) — Movie. Top emotional signals: Confusion 30%, Anxiety 25%, Disturbing 20%. Source: AI estimate. Shares describe emotional signal, not percentages of people. Your experience may differ. How we measure

AI estimate · no viewer votes yet

How we measure

AI estimate

Share of emotional signal, not the percentage of people or a probability of enjoyment.

Each viewer contributes one response, split equally across their selected emotions. When available, an automated estimate supplies a prior that is blended with those responses. Counts include distinct viewers, not automated estimates or archived anonymous votes. Fewer than 3 viewers is an early estimate; more responses do not guarantee certainty.

Why it feels this way

The strongest emotional signals are Confusion, Anxiety, Disturbing. Genres: Documentary, Crime, Biography. AI estimate.

Is it worth watching?

Consider this title if you are looking for Confusion, Anxiety and Disturbing. Its IMDb rating of 7.6/10 suggests a generally positive audience reception. For these leading emotions, its Feel Score is 73/100.

How did it make you feel?

Votes are saved to the fingerprint once you’re signed in.

Pick up to three · 0/3

1
2
3

Emotional journey

AI · from subtitles
  • Sadness
  • Sympathy
  • Disturbing

Not enough subtitle evidence

No dominant emotion

Dominant emotion: Sadness

Dominant emotion: Curiosity

Dominant emotion: Disturbing

Dominant emotion: Tension

Dominant emotion: Sympathy

Sadness
Sympathy
Disturbing
Emotional journey Emotional intensity over the film’s runtime, from quieter to stronger on a fixed 0–1 scale. Hatched intervals have insufficient subtitle evidence. The table provides the values.
Ending hidden

Dominant emotion

Intensity dips around 3 %, then peaks around 28 %, then peaks around 83 %.Ending hidden

Emotional journey
%Approximate minuteDominant emotionOverall intensitySadnessSympathyDisturbing
2.5 %≈ 3′Sadness37 %20 %15 %7 %
7.5 %≈ 8′Curiosity51 %20 %18 %28 %
12.5 %≈ 13′Disturbing65 %25 %26 %55 %
17.5 %≈ 19′Disturbing64 %34 %36 %56 %
22.5 %≈ 24′Tension66 %39 %44 %55 %
27.5 %≈ 29′Disturbing75 %38 %46 %66 %
32.5 %≈ 35′Curiosity74 %41 %48 %56 %
37.5 %≈ 40′Sadness70 %56 %54 %40 %
42.5 %≈ 45′Sadness65 %57 %51 %40 %
47.5 %≈ 51′Curiosity59 %48 %46 %44 %
52.5 %≈ 56′Sympathy64 %52 %55 %44 %
57.5 %≈ 62′Sadness74 %64 %63 %46 %
62.5 %≈ 67′Sadness80 %66 %60 %61 %
67.5 %≈ 72′Disturbing79 %56 %54 %70 %
72.5 %≈ 78′Curiosity76 %48 %50 %65 %
77.5 %≈ 83′Disturbing80 %60 %59 %61 %
82.5 %≈ 88′Sadness84 %70 %65 %57 %
87.5 %≈ 94′Tension83 %69 %63 %60 %
92.5 %≈ 99′Sadness80 %71 %63 %53 %
97.5 %≈ 104′Sadness73 %68 %58 %32 %
Riches to rags

Rags to riches: The emotional tone rises from negative to positive.

Riches to rags: The emotional tone falls from positive to negative.

Man in a hole: The tone falls, then recovers.

Icarus: The tone rises, then falls.

Cinderella: The tone rises, falls, then rises again.

Oedipus: The tone falls, rises, then falls again.

AI reading of the film’s English subtitles (dialogue and sound cues) — not viewer votes. How we measure ↗

Afterward Reveal viewer responses · may contain spoilers

Viewer responses about feelings after the title ended, separate from feelings while watching. No AI estimates.

0 responses so far

Feeling details appear after at least 3 viewers respond, to protect privacy.

Cast

AF
Arnold Friedman

JF
Jesse Friedman

EF
Elaine Friedman

Self

DF
David Friedman

SF
Seth Friedman

Self (archive footage)

JM
John McDermott

Self - Postal Inspector

FG
Frances Galasso

Self - Ret. Director, Sex Crimes Unit

AS
Anthony Sgueglia

Self - Detective, Sex Crimes Unit

JO
Joseph Onorato

Self - Asst. District Attorney

JM
Judd Martin

Self - Jesse's Best Friend in High School

HF
Howard Friedman

Self - Arnold's Brother

RG
Ron Georgalis

Self - Former Computer Student

SB
Scott Banks

Self - Judge's Legal Secretary

AB
Abbey Boklan

Self - Judge

DN
Debbie Nathan

Self - Investigative Journalist

JB
Jerry Bernstein

Self - Arnold's Attorney

PP
Peter Panaro

Self - Jesse's Attorney

LD
Lloyd Doppman

Self - Detective, Sex Crimes Unit

JF
Jack Fallin

Self - Howard's Partner

Details

Directed by
Andrew Jarecki
Type
Movies
Released
2003
Runtime
107 min
Country
United States
Ratings
★ IMDb 7.6 · 29,082 ratings
Feels mostly
Confusion
Data updated

Where to watch

Data: JustWatch · Wikidata

Feels similar

More like this →

Emotion overlap shows mood similarity, not a prediction of enjoyment.