David Holzman's Diary (1967)

Nineteen sixty-seven was a genuinely restless year for American independent cinema. Bonnie and Clyde was busy rewriting the rules of the Hollywood studio picture, while a handful of filmmakers working far outside that system were pushing at something altogether stranger: the question of what a film even is, and who it is for. David Holzman's Diary belongs firmly to that second camp. Directed by Jim McBride on what was clearly a shoestring, the film presents itself as the personal video diary of its fictional protagonist, a young New York filmmaker who turns his camera on himself in an attempt to make sense of his own existence. The trick, and it is a trick, is that the film is entirely scripted and staged, yet shot and assembled to look for all the world like found footage. It fooled a good number of people on its initial release, and that confusion between document and fiction is very much the point. For those interested in how other films from the same era were experimenting with form and identity, it sits in interesting company alongside Persona and Winter Light, two other films from the 1960s that take a similarly uncomfortable look at the self.

McBride was a young director at the time, and David Holzman's Diary remains his most discussed work, largely because of what it anticipated rather than what it achieved by the conventions of its day. Shot in black and white, handheld, and clocking in at a lean 74 minutes, it has the texture of something genuinely amateur, which is, of course, the whole point. The production was low-budget by any measure, and the film's rough, unpolished surfaces are not a flaw but a deliberate choice. It was part of a broader movement within American independent filmmaking that drew on the influence of the French New Wave and cinéma vérité, both of which were encouraging filmmakers to get out of the studio and onto the street with lighter cameras and smaller crews.

The film rests almost entirely on the shoulders of L.M. Kit Carson as David Holzman, and Carson, who would go on to work as a screenwriter, commits fully to the role. He has to: the camera is on him for the vast majority of the running time, and the film lives or dies on whether you find his particular brand of anxious, self-absorbed monologuing watchable. Eileen Dietz appears as the girlfriend whose fidelity David becomes fixated on, and her presence, though limited, gives the film some of its more uncomfortable edges. The rest of the cast, including Lorenzo Mans, Louise Levine, and Fern McBride, are woven into the fabric of a film that deliberately blurs the line between character and person, performance and reality.

David Holzman’s Diary (1967) is a fascinating cinematic artifact (often cited as a proto-vlog decades before the internet existed) and watching it today feels eerily prescient. The film presents itself as the raw, unfiltered video diary of a young New York filmmaker documenting his daily life, relationships, and neuroses with a handheld camera. He films himself talking to the lens, obsesses over his girlfriend’s fidelity, wanders the streets capturing strangers, and even sets up hidden cameras in his apartment. The format is so familiar to anyone raised on YouTube or Instagram that it’s genuinely surreal: you half-expect him to sign off with “Don’t forget to like and subscribe.” But while its form is groundbreaking, the content quickly reveals its limitations. What begins as an intriguing experiment in self-surveillance and media narcissism devolves into repetitive navel-gazing. David’s monologues grow increasingly solipsistic, his actions border on invasive (especially toward women), and the lack of narrative arc or emotional growth makes the experience feel less like a story and more like eavesdropping on someone who’s deeply uncomfortable in their own skin, without offering deeper insight. The film’s power lies in its historical foresight, not its entertainment value. As a commentary on privacy, performance, and the illusion of authenticity in personal media, it’s remarkably ahead of its time. But judged purely as a viewing experience, it’s slow, uneven, and often alienating. David Holzman’s Diary is more important than enjoyable. A prophetic glimpse into the age of digital oversharing, made long before the tools existed. It’s compelling as a concept, but tedious as a film. Watch it once for its uncanny relevance; just don’t expect a satisfying story beneath the selfie-era déjà vu.

For me, that tension between historical importance and actual watchability is really the crux of it. I find myself genuinely glad I watched David Holzman's Diary, in the same way I'm glad I've read certain books I wouldn't necessarily recommend to a friend on a Friday night. It earns its place in the conversation about where personal media and self-performance have taken us, and there's something almost unsettling about how clearly McBride and Carson mapped out a territory that billions of people now inhabit without a second thought. But sitting with it for 74 minutes is a different matter, and I'd be doing nobody any favours by pretending otherwise. If you've got a taste for films that reward patience and contextual thinking, it's worth your time, much like other drama films I've covered here that prioritise mood and meaning over momentum, such as Yi Yi and Mustang. Just go in with your eyes open. Some films are more useful than they are fun.

Rating: ★★½  | Year: 1967  | Watched: 2026-04-27

View on Letterboxd →

Where to watch

Watch in the US
Rent: Amazon Video
Buy: Amazon Video
Physical: Amazon US

Affiliate disclosure: Movies With Macca may earn a small commission on purchases or subscriptions started via these links. It costs you nothing extra.

Related on Movies With Macca

More from the 1960s: Viy (1967) · Persona (1966) · Carnival of Souls (1962) · Daisies (1966)
More comedy: The Eagle (1925) · The General (1926) · Americana (2023) · The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (1988)
More drama: Viy (1967) · Wonder (2017) · A Better Tomorrow (1986) · Beautiful Boy (2018)