The Diary of a Teenage Girl

I turned 20 in 1974, the year Patty Hearst was kidnapped by highly organized domestic terrorists, The Symbionese Liberation Army.The movie opens with the TV news covering the kidnapping, which I would have guessed was a few years earlier, but she was either cooperating or a prisoner for almost 18 months, with the FBI at chase. It was an excellent way to remind some of us of the bizzareness unique to the 70's. I remember huge controversy about if she was really a victim or willing participant.The kind of grainy look of the film feels very 70's. The costumes and sets also took me back.I caught myself thinking I wish I had dated about half the losers I did during that time period.Minnie, played by Bel Powley is about 16 and lives with her single mom, Charlotte, played by Kristen Wiig.It's San Francisco, and the household is VERY permissive, with Charlotte, and apparently her current boyfriend, Monroe, played by Alexander Skarsgard, openly boozing it up, and snorting cocaine in front of Minnie and her younger sister.Charlotte is a chain smoking librarian who obviously has substance abuse issues, and is half in the bag most of the time, but not TOO wasted to notice subtle chemistry fairly soon between Minnie and Monroe.It's clear to the audience, and Minnie, Charlotte is more focused on her boyfriend than her daughter, and gives her very sexually graphic tips on how to get boys interested, to punish Minnie, and also send the message to stay away from Monroe.Her comments are bitter and abusive, betraying Charlotte's deep insecurities, only able to fear Minnie as a rival, nothing a loving mother would say to her daughter, even in that liberal era.Minnie is understandably a sensitive loner, and talented graphic artist. She wants to illustrate and write graphic novels.There is mostly light use of graphic animation throughout the film. The style fits with the the character and the 70's, used in Minnie's daydreams. I think it works quite well and not too trendy to date the movie.The emotional void Minnie lives in is apparent by the way she pretty much does what she wants, risky sexual and drug escapades, out late at parties attended largely by adults with extensive drug use, etc.She decides she wants to have sex for the first time, and Monroe is convenient and not unwilling.There is NO conversation about birth control, and not TOO much concern he is committing statutory rape, of his girlfriend's daughter. (Maybe the age of consent was pretty young in California. It was 18 in Washington. Either way, just fraught with danger)But because oral contraceptives had been invented, there wasn't a lot of concern about pregnancy or STD's then. Herpes had just started rearing it's ugly head a couple years earlier, and I remember people really not knowing what it was or exactly how it was transmitted. So, the feeling was everything was curable.It felt odd and disturbing seeing such casual sex between the two, especially since I think Minnie looked younger than 16.Monroe was certainly exploitive of Minnie's crush, but he wasn't portrayed as a pedophile. In fact, that term was not common then. I think the writer intended to show how easily children could be exploited and how much awareness has changed.It was a compelling view of a bright, but vulnerable young girl trying to find her wayalmost entirely on her own.The whole cast was excellent, including Kimmie, Minnie's best friend played by Madeleine Waters.Very well done. Loved it!

TDOATG is a warped, odd, beatifully shot if tonally deranged little movie with some great acting and spot on period details (as well as some fun cartoon flourishes), but don't expect it to be the uplifting coming of age movie the trailers promised. Really TDOATG left me feeling sort of the way Kids or Thirteen made me feel. Blistered, cold, and sad. It isn't really the movie's subject matter tiself that made me feel queasy. The central relationship, while illegal, didn't feel all that out of place in this presentation of San Fran in the 70s--the era of free love after all. What did seem odd was the movie's constant nods to female empowerment in voiceover, with the protagonist's journey into some rather thorny territory, to put it lightly, presented without a shred of irony as a sort of handbook for teens experiencing the first pangs of burgeoning sexuality. Critics have lauded the movie for not passing judgement on its characters, something I usually agree with. Let characters speak for themselves is often the way to go. But here it all felt a little nihilistic, and disengenuous, and cold. Scenes of pretty off-putting 'exploration' (a scene with sex for money, for example) were presented as feel-a-little-icky-but-laugh-it-off hjinks that wouldn't be out of place in a normal kid's life. Mostly I just felt bad for the protagonist with her unrepentant drug addicted mother, hedonist friend, and emotionally remote older boyfriend. Ultimately, the movie struck me as more sad than empowering and the whimsical floral texture of the daydreams throughout just felt jarring. Like Miranda July and Larry Clark had a baby, and they left it out in the rain to have sex with a lot of rats.

While this movie was tolerable (not much more) I thought the film makers missed the mark when it came to setting the tone of the book. The book is compelling, raw, shocking. The novel--part text, part comic--is from the perspective of Minnie Goetz--an emotionally neglected teen who is searching for love and attention in ways that are self-sabotaging. It is heartbreaking--and riveting. The movie felt far too light. For one thing, it made the central relationship seem almost "normal." The reality of that relationship is that a 35 year old man has sex regularly with the 15 year old daughter of his girlfriend. The movie makes the relationship seem almost sweet, which was such a gross mistreatment of this abuse I could barely stand it. We feel no creep up our spine as he takes advantage of her youth and her neediness and seduces her. The most fatal aspect of the film was the miscasting of Minnie Goetz, the central character from whose perspective the story unfolds. The actor they chose to play the role did not feel at all like the insightful, complex, yearning adolescent the book celebrates. This actor was superficial and cutesy. Hard to recreate the layers of emotion in that wonderful novel.

Have to say hadn't heard of Bell until they showed this on channel four late one night, I fell asleep half way through but wanted to see it all t Firstly, brilliant film, with brilliant acting. It's a good story line, nothing quite like it, very honest too!!I really hope this gives Bell a few platforms, she is a "Star" . She is also very lucky getting down and dirty with the gorgeous Alex.:)

Every teenage girl should watch this film, I love everything about this film. I think it'll become a classic one day.

Weird movie, find it hard to explain. When I originally watched it on Netflix it was described as more of a comedy than it actually was. The cast were good though

Delivery just before time, great condition and plays well

this trash is why i don't usually buy films now