Digger (Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2026)

[cdnchris]

Saw this today. Not really sure what I thought of it, to be honest. I really disliked Birdman, but ultimately liked this much more, but that's really not high praise.

What interested me, though, was I feel this may have done better at the box office (not a hit, just less of a bomb) if the advertising just straight up explained what the film was actually about, especially since it's given away so early. I mentioned to my daughter that I saw this and when she asked how it was I ended up just explaining the plot to her, and afterwards she said "That sounds better than the trailer I saw. It looked so stupid!" And it went from her having zero interest in watching it to she'll put in the effort to watch it when it's streaming, even though it was obvious I'm clearly mixed on it.

[Noiretirc]

Ha!

How many bombs were bombs mostly because of the advertising?

[cdnchris]

It would have still flopped I feel; it had 0 chance making its money back. But you look at audience reactions and they're actually not terrible, so it seems most who are seeing it at least think it's okay. Even that one cinema score metric was like a C+, which isn't great but better than I would have anticipated. Other Mommy got a D+.

No direct spoilers ahead, but warning anyway...

Sorry, I know this contributes nothing to the film itself, but I'm just bewildered by the marketing. It was shit, as clearly stated elsewhere, but i really feel this would have gone over better if they were up front about it, or at least hinted. Was there a point to hiding it? It's revealed a few minutes in! Was that a director choice or was it just Warner not having faith in the concept?

[Matt]

I'm surprised they didn't do a second-week marketing switch-up. A new trailer, a resetting of people's expectations like when Marvel revealed that Thunderbolts was actually (somewhat sarcastically) The New Avengers or when Cruise's Edge of Tomorrow had a soft rebrand as Live. Die. Repeat.. But it seems to me that no one had (or was allowed to have) second thoughts about Digger's original marketing campaign, so there was no backup plan. There just seems to be a stink of hubris around the whole project which, whether the movie is "actually" good or "actually bad," is what's most off-putting to people.

[swo17]

I thought they did change it to "see for yourself/make up your own mind"

[Boosmahn]

I saw this on Sunday. I'll risk making myself look foolish by saying Digger, for as much as it seems to be trying, does not arrive at any sort of coherent point.

Spoiler

I don't think that the film's observations on art (Or just satirical art? I can't tell!) as escapism and a means of assigning blame are very applicable to our world because it gives its world no option for hope. A catastrophe has occurred and life sucks a lot more: that's as far as it goes. Because of that, I find it hard to emotionally disagree with the play's director that people need to be able to laugh at the catalyst. The world in Digger seemingly can't be improved, so why not let its inhabitants laugh? In contrast, in our reality, while we are feeling and will continue to feel the consequences of global warming, I believe there is time to avoid a future as bleak as the one Digger portrays. Call me naive, but I believe that. Of course, we need to put resources and effort and even basic belief toward the issues, and that's certainly not being done in the U.S. right now, but we are not hopeless. So while there might be merit to what Iñárritu et al are proposing, it only comes across as vague and cynical.

That being said, Rockwell's mid-film monologue about how the general populace's thirst for convenience is to blame can be applied to our world. But it's hard to take it in earnest because it's delivered through a play that the film says, over and over again, is bad. This urgent message is delivered via a means we are told not to trust, so its effect is dulled. Why? I don't understand the reasoning.

After reading impressions on here, I think the material with Plemons' character is the most worthwhile, or at least the most developed. I'd have preferred if we spent only the first act in "Fossil Fools," with the rest dedicated to the real world, reactions to the play, and the actor/crew characters (especially Cruise's).

[Toland's Mitchell]

Spoiler

Rockwell's mid-film monologue about how the general populace's thirst for convenience is to blame can be applied to our world. But it's hard to take it in earnest because it's delivered through a play that the film says, over and over again, is bad. This urgent message is delivered via a means we are told not to trust, so its effect is dulled. Why? I don't understand the reasoning.

Spoiler

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning either. Even so-called bad art/entertainment can still deliver earnest messages. My main gripe with the film is the play within the movie just wasn't all that funny. It's been covered here, but I agree with Sausage that unfunny-by-design isn't an excuse nor a defense for having to sit through so much eye-rolling bad humor. However, I'd still say Fossil Fools made multiple earnest criticisms about the world we live in. It was not only Rockwell's speech about everyday people's consumptive habits feeding the very impending disaster they complain about. It also criticized the ignorance, greed, and corruption of the people in charge who can prevent it. Furthermore, their hopes and prayers that the ice shelf will drift out to sea and melt, (and if that doesn't work, BOMB IT!). Again, these are not original ideas, but still valuable.

And to your earlier remark, I also believe we aren't as bleak and hopeless as Digger suggests. For one, there is still time (though it's quickly running out). Two, we don't know if the future Digger illustrates will be our future reality. It could be better (though it could also be worse).

[Roger Ryan]

Spoiler

Rockwell's mid-film monologue about how the general populace's thirst for convenience is to blame can be applied to our world. But it's hard to take it in earnest because it's delivered through a play that the film says, over and over again, is bad. This urgent message is delivered via a means we are told not to trust, so its effect is dulled. Why? I don't understand the reasoning.

Spoiler

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning either. Even so-called bad art/entertainment can still deliver earnest messages. My main gripe with the film is the play within the movie just wasn't all that funny. It's been covered here, but I agree with Sausage that unfunny-by-design isn't an excuse nor a defense for having to sit through so much eye-rolling bad humor. However, I'd still say Fossil Fools made multiple earnest criticisms about the world we live in. It was not only Rockwell's speech about everyday people's consumptive habits feeding the very impending disaster they complain about. It also criticized the ignorance, greed, and corruption of the people in charge who can prevent it. Furthermore, their hopes and prayers that the ice shelf will drift out to sea and melt, (and if that doesn't work, BOMB IT!). Again, these are not original ideas, but still valuable.

And to your earlier remark, I also believe we aren't as bleak and hopeless as Digger suggests. For one, there is still time (though it's quickly running out). Two, we don't know if the future Digger illustrates will be our future reality. It could be better (though it could also be worse).

Before the spoiler, I'll only add that I appreciated the opportunity to go into this film with lowered expectations as it is certainly better than the most damning reviews would have you believe. I'm lukewarm on Iñárritu in general but found Digger to fall just short of Birdman, a film I think is merely decent with some points added for ambition, yet one that remains universally praised (and, of course, a multiple award winner). I also got to experience Digger in, what I imagine, was the best way possible: completely alone in the theater. As to the above spoiler comments...

Spoiler

I would disagree that the film itself, or the characters in the film, are telling the viewer that the play is unfunny by design. What is complained about, primarily by Cruise's actor character, is that the play is too broad, too heavy-handed in its satire, or not accurate to the actual events it is spoofing. While this has the unfortunate side effect of giving Digger the feeling of wanting to have its cake and eat it too, it works to illustrate the film's subtext which is that subtlety in art or drama, like a well-presented treatise on climate change, is ineffectual compared to bombast that gives the population what it wants to hear. Despite the gross exaggerations, the material in the play can still be funny in a sick way, or perhaps effective dramatically if not actually successful as comedy. The overall effect of Digger is like the "We'll Meet Again" ending of Dr. Strangelove; we can smile at the ironic juxtaposition of image and song, but this is where the satire becomes chillingly cold and uncomfortable. If Digger succeeds at all, it is at making the viewer uncomfortable with the recognition that it mirrors an uncomfortable reality outside the cinema.

[Mr Sausage]

Spoiler

The actor also complains that the tone is muddled and the aim of the broadness unclear—is it satire or farce or what? The director seemingly doesn’t even know the difference between these modes, and the Rockwell heir confirms that she was hired to direct less for her suitability for the project than because she was trendy, a rising popular voice. That latter reveal is one of the better barbs against the current film industry.

We don’t know the production history of the play, but I think we’re meant to assume that the cartoonishness, muddled tone, lack of comic energy, and over-reliance on tech wizardry in place of solid dramaturgy is the fault of a shallow, inexperienced director at the mercy of her bankroller. This is where the contempt comes in, because the audience eats that shit up, because we’re undiscriminating devourers of pablum.

That latter point is partly why I think Iñárritu conceived this as a failure from the start—because that would confirm the film’s satire. It would’ve been something of an embarrassment if the popular audience had embraced it.