Capturing The Friedmans - Spoiler

Sysiphus

Has any one seen this "Documentery" yet??

Hate to spoil it but its a fake, and not a gret one either. Have a look at it then look at Series Seven - The Contenders and you'll spot two of the same actors, also I'm convinced I've seen the father elsewhere as well.

If someone else knows where??????

michaelanthony

What are you talking about - it's based on fact. Read this:
http://www.rte.ie/arts/2004/0407/capturingthefriedmans.html

Sysiphus

Its supposed to be actual footage with the family, so there is no room for manuvere in saying "base on".

The mother "Ellen" is the Psycho Nurse in Series Seven and "David" the Clown is the Dad who "Kidnaps" his own child in Series Seven.

The true life aspect of the publicity is the same as when The Blair Witch Project came out. Make it llok real, spread a bit of a press release that is real and people will buy it.

Its an old format, BBC do it brilliantly, if you only saw one or two episodes of some of their dead pan documentary light entertainments you would think them real as well!

Sorry, but I don't buy it. If they had used actors that were totally unknown then maybe......

SweetBirdOfTruth

there's a long post on it in the reviews sections above

ixoy

It's a fake? And only you've noticed it? And none of the thousands of reviewers have spotted this and/or commented on it? Stop talking sh1t.

Sysiphus

Get out Series Seven, watch it then come back and comment.

The reviewers are probably either buying into the myth or are playing along as they did for the first few month of Blair Witch.

Seriously get Series Seven - The Contenders and look at the nurse and the psycho dad, then look at friedmands Elaine, and David. They are the same actors!

Sysiphus

Also the numbers involved are irrelevant, argument ad popularum is falactious!

Ask Alfred Wegener.

ixoy

I've seen Series Seven and I still can't believe you're the only one who has "spotted" this. Have you seen anyone else who has noticed it? It'd make your claim more credible. I'm poor enough with face recognition but surely the subject matter here is too contentious for a mockumentary? And I can't find any links supporting your theory and have found many news articles about the case (even if they were raised post-movie).

If you had one more bit of evidence other than you spotted the faces...

Sysiphus

No, I can't find anyone else apart from the girlfriend who agress its the same actress. But that don't count in court....

As for contentious, look at the Brass Eye Special (pedophlia). Or even look at SCUM, or Once Were Warriors, or American History X, or Schindlers List. Nothing is too contentious for movie making. but if you package it right (not like Paths to Freedom (ugh)) it'll work. And while I still contend the CtF is a mocumentary it is well done for the subject.

Go back to Series 7 and look at the nurse. You'll see that is Elaine!

As for sites, I've had a look around, but part of the problem is there is very little about the movie production of CtF. It's very easy to hide the link if you don't advertise the producers or create dummy companies for the purpose of publicising it as reality.

BBC did a series of mocumentaries last year - can't recall the name - tht were brilliant and utterly convincing - for the first 30 mins or so, this movie just extends it.

I've looked on the web for photos of Elaine to compare to series 7 but can only find all the old family fuzzy photos. But here is the nurse its not great but may jog a few memories of Elaine.

ixoy

Well if you're convinced, you should spread the word. Get people going on IMDB, for example. Post to NGs and see if we can track this down.

Was there anything else - besides the faces - that made you think it a fake? Did you feel certain people's "performances" were artificial? I mean the picture you posted DOES look quite like Elaine but it's not enough to convince me yet. It'd certainly be interesting if you were correct, which is why I suggest spreading the news. I assume the fact that this is the director's first movie, meaning we've no other bodies of work to study, that adds weight to your convictions?

shotamoose

Doesn't CTF have footage/images of the same people over a fairly long period of time? E.g. the main poster image of the happy family in their Sunday best and the 'dad in hancuffs' image. Seems like that would make it considerably more difficult to fake.

Sysiphus

Partly that it is his first movie, but also when I was watching, even before it dawned on me that I recognised the faces (2) some of the video footage looked off. some of the people didn't quite look like themselves (in the movie), if you know what I mean.

What I mean is that the older video when compared with the later footage some of the faces just weren't right, close but not quite right. Just like any movie where you have multiple actor playing the one character through different ages, say Shine for example, you will only ever get a partial lookalike.

I can't say categorically that I had any other reason, I could be too close now to post-viewing criticism and thinking, maybe David's emotional outburts were a bit to Cinema, but I don't want to go that route as I'm now biased in the "Reality" aspect, so I'll just stick to the Actual Visable proof I believe I have!

When I get time later I think I will post on IMDB and see what happens!!

Sysiphus

Shotamoose,

Are you serious?

Sorry, but digital edting nowadays is so good, unless you actually believe that supermodels have no skin blemishes and that Neo and Morpheus really did fight like that!

I don't mean to sound bad but thts a silly assumption to make, that just because the poster shows it, it must be real, sorry.

RE*AC*TOR

this is the most retarded thread i've ever read

Sysiphus

Fine bit of debate david, I bow to your superior ability to put forward cogent ideas.

The two picture are seperated by about 30 years and also the profile shot is very low definition. If you could post one of the "Talking Heads" shots of Elaine, against the same photo of connier, then it might be more comparative.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sysiphus
Shotamoose,

Are you serious?

Let me think: yes. I haven't seen the film and I was asking you as someone who apparently has whether or not there was a lot of video footage covering a fairly long and continuous period in the family's life and whether this would be quite difficult to fake.

Apparently this is was an incredibly stupid thing to ask.

On the other hand, you claim to be the one of the only two people in the world who have noticed that Capturing the Friedmans is a mockumentary, the other being your girlfriend.

A quick internet search reveals that among those supposedly fished in by this elaborate ruse are:
- the New York Times ,
- the Village Voice ,
- the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and a host of other film award bodies,
- every single other person who has reviewed the film, including some of the most experienced and respected critics in the USA and Europe.

Considering that the Times and The VV have carried long, detailed news stories and features, this would count as one of the most damaging scandals in the history of both of these highly-respected companies.

Could it be that they are right and you are the one who is completely, utterly, embarassingly wrong? No, of course not, that's just ridiculous. Give us all a fukcing break.

Sysiphus

Doesn't CTF have footage/images of the same people over a fairly long period of time? E.g. the main poster image of the happy family in their Sunday best and the 'dad in hancuffs' image. Seems like that would make it considerably more difficult to fake.

Even though there is question mark its more of a statement, but never mind that now.

Yes, there is the posibility that I'm wrong. Thats what I'm trying to find out.

Before you jump to the defense of the movie by citing "authority" sites excercise a bit of free thought and look at the two movies yourself. Arguments from authority, while in some cases are valid, are not always so.

As I say, I'm just positing my view here.

I'm also very dubious of quick internet searches, as I'm sure that a quick internet search will give me the information on how to live forever, not eat just live off of Prana, build a free energy machine etc.

I reckon that as I stated earlier, just like the Blair Witch project, which at the time was marketed by (and reported by the media outlets) as being true, before the bubble burst. I'm just asking if the same is not possible here.

If anyone has it on DVD and can compare the two, criticaly, then we'll be somewhere. Where as saying its true on account of such and such a report is not that much use to the debate, espcially if you havn't seen it yourself.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sysiphus
Before you jump to the defense of the movie by citing "authority" sites excercise a bit of free thought and look at the two movies yourself. Arguments from authority, while in some cases are valid, are not always so.

While I should believe the unsupported claims of a pseudonymous stranger on an Internet discussion board?

Yes, I wish I was enough of a 'free thinker' to believe every conspiracy theory I read on the net. Damn me for being such a slave to authority!

And you didn't frame it as a question, you put it as a statement of fact: "It's a fake".

I look forward to your eventual retraction.

Sysiphus

Correct, I didn't frame it as a question, because its a view. I am however just puting the view out so that people with a reasonable informed view (ie. have seen the material in question) may look at what I'm saying and agree in an informed manner or disagree in an informed manner not just flame away because although they havn't seen it, the media says its true so it must be.

Where are those WMD in iraq?

Free thinking doesn't involve the believing of every conspiracy theory, but it also dosn't believe all they hype surrounding something. It is as it suggests free thought, that is looking at the subject and thinking about it, not just accepting a given line. So while I concede that I may be wrong (nothing wrong with that, the greatest knowledge in science, and best first step in any endevour, is the statment "I could be wrong"), I still have the right to propose the idea and see if I can gain the support of others through debate, not just by flaming or using argumentum ad hominem in a vain hope to brow beat the opponent.

Sysiphus

Now,

Back to the main topic,

Has anyone out there seen both movies, and would look at them again for the sake of research? Or even just drag out seriers 7 to see if it can jolt you memory?

From what I've read ixoy is the only participant who has seen both, and most havn't seen either by the looks of it.

So we need another voice who has seen both!!!

ObeyGiant

I haven't seen either film yet. But even a cursory examination reveals that both of these people that you are referring to in Series 7 are both established actors.
Marylouise Brook, who was Nurse Connie in Series 7 has also been in, among other things, Bringing Out the Dead and Meet Joe Black.
Michael Kaycheck also appears in Requiem for a Dream and Party Monster.
These, along with Series 7, are all relatively high-profile movies. Certainly high-profile enough to have been seen by the New York Times, the Village Voice and the Academy.

Compare this to Heather, Josh and Michael from the Blair Witch Project, whose fantastic "True story! We swear!" publicity coup you are saying Capturing the Friedmans is jacking. This worked well for this film because these three had appeared in.. nothing before Blair Witch Project (There is one listing for Heather, which lists her as appearing in ONE SHOT of a film from 1997. It also lists her as the only cast member, so we can all be agreed that this was only entered by some fanboy completist, and it's not something many people would have seen).

It's also worth remembering that the Blair Witch Project's "True story! We swear!" marketing stunt only worked once, for the Sundance Festival. Then people did some research, and found out it wasn't true. By the time the movie opened in regular cinemas, everyone knew it wasn't true. How long has Capturing the Friedmans been on release?

I think you should maybe loosen that tin foil on your head.

dave13

Having seen the film about two hours ago i'm pretty sure the women from series seven is not the mother.The footage does look like the principal people. I don't think anybody would make a mockumentary about a subject so serious. So have to come to the conclusion it's real and it's also one of the best and most thought-provoking films i've seen in quite a while.

Sysiphus

Yep, I saw those Credit litings and agree that there are quite a few, but mostly bit parts that no one would really remember. However I will stand corrected if wrong, I'm still looking for stills.

AS for the listings, I still say look at both, wonder boy how long since you saw Series 7?

aine

Originally posted by Sysiphus
Its supposed to be actual footage with the family, so there is no room for manuvere in saying "base on".

The mother "Ellen" is the Psycho Nurse in Series Seven and "David" the Clown is the Dad who "Kidnaps" his own child in Series Seven.

The true life aspect of the publicity is the same as when The Blair Witch Project came out. Make it llok real, spread a bit of a press release that is real and people will buy it.

Its an old format, BBC do it brilliantly, if you only saw one or two episodes of some of their dead pan documentary light entertainments you would think them real as well!

Sorry, but I don't buy it. If they had used actors that were totally unknown then maybe......

I haven´t seen the film yet but I have read a lot of reviews...all of which seem very positive, I don´t doubt the fact that you might have seen one fo the sons before though as he is an actual clown in fact one of the most famous birthday/event type kids entertainers in New York...in fact thats how the director met him in the first place I think, he was supposed to be doing a documentary on kids entertainers or something like that but got caught up in the Friedmans story instead!

Given the amount of press it has received I seriously doubt thats its fake, yes the blair witch project did get a lot of coverage too, but I think most people ultimately knew that wasn´t real.....

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sysiphus
the media says its true so it must be.

Not just the media, everyone else except you and your girlfriend. Including, as I said, the Academy.

Free thinking doesn't involve the believing of every conspiracy theory, but it also dosn't believe all they hype surrounding something.

Hype? What hype? Did you even read the stories I linked to? The NY Times alone has carried at least two news stories about the reaction to the film from Jesse Friedman's alleged victims, and the Village Voice carried a very large and very detailed feature about it. If this is just another showbiz hoax it is the most elaborate, tasteless and extensive I have ever seen. The Village Voice would lose face and nobody would ever believe a word the NY Times printed again. It's not me you have to disagree with, it's them.

I'm trying not to take this too seriously, since it's clearly bollocks, but when you come back with this self-righteous crap in defense of something you haven't even given a second thought to it really pisses me off.

I still have the right to propose the idea and see if I can gain the support of others through debate, not just by flaming or using argumentum ad hominem in a vain hope to brow beat the opponent.

You haven't put forward any argument, any evidence, just came out with this unsupported claim in order to look big and then reacted with hostility when someone pointed out how rubbish it was. I put forward evidence against it, and you obviously find that offensive. Tough.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Sysiphus
Yep, I saw those Credit litings and agree that there are quite a few, but mostly bit parts that no one would really remember. However I will stand corrected if wrong, I'm still looking for stills.

Logic and common sense won't convince you, but film stills will?

You're a troll, right?

ronano

This guy sticks of a troll but to be honest for about 60% of the thread it was entertaining and interesting then it kinda drifted off

ixoy

The DVD contains more interviews with the alleged victims. Apparently the director has being given tours, addressing questions about the movie. If this is a hoax, then I'm off to pick spaghetti from a tree.

RE*AC*TOR

Originally posted by Sysiphus
Fine bit of debate david, I bow to your superior ability to put forward cogent ideas.

That's just dandy.

:rolleyes:

Pigman II

A nasty troll touched me in my special place.

Miguel_Sanchez

Sysiphus - you seriously need glasses and the ability to think properly.