kevin-1272

I randomly selected and streamed this film last night on Netflix, enjoyed it, and checked today to see what others were saying about it. I was surprised to find harsh words about the film, and they made me wonder why people would react this way to a well-made story like this. The cinematography is lovely. The music is so well suited that it plays unnoticed beneath the visuals – never clashing with the emotional content of the scenes. The sound editing is top notch. The young actors are all excellent. Set design is spot on for the story. No dialog is wasted. Etc. etc.

So what was the problem? My personal reaction was quite good. When it started, I expected a bad film – another sappy story about girls at school. In fact, the only scene I didn't care for was the girls "partying" in their rooms. Such a cliché rendering. But the rest was endearing. The film seduced me, drawing me in further and further as I watched. It's not revolutionary, to be sure, but why does every film have to be revolutionary? We don't hold music to that type of criteria. "Oh, another blues song. That's been done…"

Harron's achievement here is in the mood of this piece. I see people complaining about the connecting scenes, and I think about how much they must hate a film like Upstream Color or Tree of Life or Melancholia (though those films are rated quite a bit higher). The Moth Diaries is not like those films because it has a much more grounded story.

Why are people down on this film? My best guess is that the negative reactions this film received are indicative of the altered nature of film itself. The Moth Diaries takes a different tack than contemporary blockbusters. It's not The Conjuring (a great horror film), which twists every few minutes and keeps throwing shocks at you, making you squirm in your seat. But it's not intended to be. It's not a shock piece. It is a mood piece, and Harron does a beautiful job of establishing a consistent mood throughout, a mood that captures appropriate emotional content for the age-rage of the characters in the story. Had this movie been released in the 1970s, it would have found a large, receptive audience. I, for one, found it refreshing to watch a film that takes its time building mood and environment and character.

The strength of the film is its subtlety. Unfortunately, it appears that subtlety is lost on many contemporary film goers. For me, The Moth Diaries returned me to the days when movies could be captivating and sensory without abandoning story in service to "art." I liked it and I'll be tracking Mary Harron's work from now on.

Look, it's a good script with good editing and wonderful acting. In fact, the acting is the best part of this film. Everyone in the cast is tremendous. But but but...the reason I even checked in on this film is because of the camera work. I read the reviews to see if anyone mentioned it. I only found one guy who had. The reality is that the camera work almost sinks this film. For some reason, someone decided to arbitrarily zoom on almost every shot - in and out! Randomly, without any logical point related to story. Now generally you keep you hands off the zoom in film because it is unbelievably distracting. Pulls the audience right out of the film every time. In this film, the camera will zoom in, then zoom in again, and then zoom back out without any justification. No reason for it. It's like some kid got into the studio and grabbed hold of the zoom. I can't figure out why they did it. But it really damaged what otherwise would have been a much more solid film. I don't know whose idea all the zooming was - the cinematographer Jas Shelton's? The Duplass directors? If it was the cinematographer's idea, the directors should have pulled him back and made him stop it. If it was the directors idea, then they should have noticed during the first dailies that it doesn't work and reshot. Really unfortunate decision. It doesn't ruin the film, mainly because it's a solid story and the acting is so good, but believe me, when you watch the film, it will drive you crazy.