Digger (Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2026)

[thirtyframesasecond]

Was Bardo any good? Looking back at Inarritu's career, I'm not sure I truly like any of these films (Birdman, especially - but even the earlier films like 21 Grams and Babel but at least they had Arriaga's scripts).

[Matt]

Was Bardo any good?

See the dedicated thread

[thirtyframesasecond]

Was Bardo any good?

See the dedicated thread

Thanks. Hit and miss then. Having now read the reveal of Digger, maybe these two films and Birdman share the sense of one man's existential crisis in common. Have to say it's a brave big swing of a film but it is going to lose a hell of a lot of money and Inarritu probably won't get a large scale personal film again and Cruise may just rethink doing anything more experimental again.

[Mr Sausage]

Yep, the movie's no good. Both critics and supporters seem to agree the movie's a wild, ambitious, swing-for-the-fences kind of creative risk, and disagree only on how well it lands. And I can't agree with either side: all the wild ambitious creative stuff felt pro forma to me. The thing's a fake, an attempt to mimic a huge risk-taking auteurist mess rather than the genuine thing. Which is why the movie felt so lifeless, why the hooting and grotesquerie was leaden: there's no conviction here, except to embody someone else's idea of a of a bold individualist movie. The whole thing feels like it's surrounded by quotation marks, and not just because much of the plot is literally surrounded by quotation marks. The bifurcated structure in and of itself felt like "big creative gamble" was branded across it rather than seeming like an actual creative gamble. It felt conventional, actually, just lifted from the conventions of the experimentalist mess. All of its themes and satire, from capitalism and climate change to family and the nature of art are just so rote, so trendy for a movie like this. So much here is impersonal and sententious. There's no real passion or anger radiating through, just posturing and calculation. Even the parts that are successfully meaningful carry no personal weight. A cobbled together mimicry of Art (with a built in defense mechanism to forestall that accusation!)

That's the only real annoying thing, that built-in defense mechanism the film grants itself to evade criticism. Ugly and unfunny? Laboured and vague? Poorly stitched out of received ideas? Well it's supposed to be! Nevermind of course that you have to spend 70% of your time watching something ugly and unfunny, etc. And that these criticisms apply to all the material that isn't covered by the defense mechanism. Beyond that, the movie sat dead on the screen for me and I felt nothing except slight boredom. To be passionately against the movie, I'd need to feel like it was trying to really do something, and it's not. Its only ambition is to seem like it is. The movie allows itself only one authentic emotion, a muted despair, and then only briefly and limply before fizzling. We've all given up and are going through the motions, the movie says...and so I guess have the creative team behind this message, to judge by the final product.

Spoiler

One of the satirical barbs here isn't bad: even after these ghoulish powerful men have destroyed the world and ruined everyone's lives, their families not only continue to be rich and privileged, but can fund the very art that lampoons them (degrading the worth of that art), knowing it won't harm them, and then get hugs and affection at the end for throwing around a bit of money even tho' the whole situation with the daughter only existed in the first place because of the Rockwell family's greed and corruption. The audience shouts and cries, gets their bread and circus or their two-minutes hate or whatever, and then proceeds back out into the nightmarish totalitarian world they inhabit, while the Rockwell family carries on just fine. A bleak and toxic point. Also a dead obvious one. It'd be very easy to overpraise this kind of thudding satirical point. But it's at least a point.

[Michael Kerpan]

Mr S -- You make this movie sound sort of like how I felt about (my once upon a time loved) BONG Joon-ho's Parasite.

[Mr Sausage]

Hah! I liked Parasite! But I also stopped thinking about it the moment I left the theatre and have kinda forgotten it exists. But I’ll say this: if it is a fake, it’s one Bong wished people to think was successful, while Digger felt like it was supposed to come across as a grand artistic failure from the start. As if that’s what Inarritu felt like a serious, authentic artist would do, make a bloated movie of ideas that fails spectacularly but shows the artist’s uncompromising creative originality. Even the movie’s poisonous view of art in the modern world felt like posturing meant paradoxically to bolster Inarritu’s status as an artist.

[swo17]

It doesn't look like anyone's mentioned what I thought might have been the film's most effective moment. I wonder if some people missed it because it happens during the end credits:

Spoiler

The film of course gradually reveals that the audience of Fossil Fools is delighting in a night of mediocre entertainment as a bit of escapism from the dystopia outside. It doesn't matter that the entertainment is in fact about that dystopia, because nothing matters. Then the mask announcement blares and the audience starts to leave the theater, just as we the audience of Digger are about to do the same. As the credits began to roll, I observed the parallel and lightly chuckled to myself. But then a minute later the song abruptly drops out and we get our own mask announcement before the soundtrack devolves into animal noises. Suddenly I kind of didn't even want to go back out into the world. On paper this was a cheeky punchline, but the execution was very sobering

[Noiretirc]

Well, to be fair, hardly anyone has gone to see it.

[swo17]

Sorry, fixed:

I wonder if some people missed it because it happens during the movie

[colinr0380]

Spoiler

I wonder if that may play into the idea that the actors get to remain somewhat insulated within their theatrical bubble space (at least to a certain extent) during times of crisis, even whilst the audiences they play to get only a temporary solace from knowing they were right all along, even if they still have to inhabit an apocalyptic wasteland? That could potentially play out in all sorts of ways as either a condemnation of the power of cultural artifacts to change the outside world, whilst pretending to have that influence; the power of revisionism of those holding the reins of culture; and whether it is worth being able to smugly look back with hindsight and say "I told you so!" when nothing is left to fight over?

Without having seen it as yet, it all sounds rather like The Bed Sitting Room mixed with the elite co-opting of culture of The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover!

Also, once it is not so much of a spoiler to do so, it might be interesting to do a thread in the "Other Lists" area of what films have their end credits play out over a reverse shot of the audience in theatre filing out of the play/movie we have been seeing? The main one that comes to mind is the ending of Portraits Chinois!

[erok910]

Spoiler

I wonder if that may play into the idea that the actors get to remain somewhat insulated within their theatrical bubble space (at least to a certain extent) during times of crisis, even whilst the audiences they play to get only a temporary solace from knowing they were right all along, even if they still have to inhabit an apocalyptic wasteland? That could potentially play out in all sorts of ways as either a condemnation of the power of cultural artifacts to change the outside world, whilst pretending to have that influence; the power of revisionism of those holding the reins of culture; and whether it is worth being able to smugly look back with hindsight and say "I told you so!" when nothing is left to fight over?

Without having seen it as yet, it all sounds rather like The Bed Sitting Room mixed with the elite co-opting of culture of The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover!

Also, once it is not so much of a spoiler to do so, it might be interesting to do a thread in the "Other Lists" area of what films have their end credits play out over a reverse shot of the audience in theatre filing out of the play/movie we have been seeing? The main one that comes to mind is the ending of Portraits Chinois!

I dont want to sound harsh by any means. Ive watched it twice, and honestly: I dont love it. But i really think you ought to see it before theorizing in that way. It isnt my kind of thing, I did not get there with it. But the idea of seeking out themes and making assumptions without knowing the context seems really strange to me. I hope you see it and come back with thoughts on it. I found the post with spoiler tags sort of scary in a way.

I enjoy the discourse, but I just dont understand. Again, not trying to be harsh. Enjoying the discussion. But i dont understand assumptions or comparisons to other things based on what you read in spoiler filled reviews. Maybe I missed a previous post. If so, i apologize. Just my thought. When i have more time i look forward to coming back with thoughts on it.

[colinr0380]

That's understandable erok910. I was more just throwing some random thoughts out there in these last couple of posts.

[Noiretirc]

Well I'm sorry but I enjoyed colinr0380 thoughts and I don't see what is "scary".

But whatever.

[j99]

Well I'm sorry but I enjoyed colinr0380 thoughts and I don't see what is "scary".

But whatever.

So did I, and think colinr0380 is one of the best contributors on this forum.

[erok910]

Im not disputing his value as a contributor on the forums, and im not going to get into a fight with anyone here by any means.

But to explain: seeing a spoiler tagged comment with a large portion of it theorizing what the film was getting at, only to realize the post is purely conjecture- it was a bit confusing to me is all. Im not saying the post cant exist, it confused me. And also reminds me of how common people judge a subject based on other peoples opinions from the internet instead of their own reading. To each their own, not trying to bother anyone on the forum either.

[Zot!]

Gentleman, I value both your perspectives, but intentionally rewatching a movie you disliked vs prejudging a movie you are trying to avoid watching, are both absurd positions to take. I am sure I am also guilty of both at different times.

[Never Cursed]

intentionally rewatching a movie you disliked

Why is this absurd?

[therewillbeblus]

I rewatch movies I disliked all the time. In fact, Pierrot le fou -arguably my favorite film, depending on the day- was the only Godard film I outright hated for years!

[Michael Kerpan]

I only re-watch things I didn't initially like if thery had some feature(s) that interested/intrigued me even if I did not like the work overall. I can't imagine re-watching anything I in which found no value at all.

[Mr Sausage]

I mean, he's right that it's absurd on the face of it to subject yourself to something you know you dislike. Imagine deliberately going back to a restaurant to eat the same meal you hated last time. And yet we all do it with art, don't we? I mean, I re-read Pierre this year. I knew I was going to hate it. I studied that shit in grad school, so it's not like I wasn't intimately familiar with the novel or hadn't given it a thorough look. But I read it again anyways and hated it all over again, and did it entirely because I ended up talking about the book with Sloper. And I'll probably do it again in another 15 years!

It's absurd. We're absurd. But so what?

[therewillbeblus]

I don't think it's absurd if there's new context to consider, and this is certainly a movie that provides a grander context that makes it worth revisiting under a different lens

[Zot!]

I made mention I also do this at times, especially if it has been a long time, so not exempting myself, but the absurd part was the disagreement between the guy who is hate watching twice in quick succesion and the guy who is posting analysis without watching it.

[Never Cursed]

the guy who is hate watching twice in quick succesion

I feel like you can still do this without the act itself being absurd. I wouldn't really begrudge anyone bouncing hard off of any work of art (let alone this intentionally provocative film) and subsequently feeling the need to indulge in repeat experiences to reaffirm their response or just to marvel at how awful it is, so long as they aren't doing so in an outright performative way. People do this all the time with works of art (listening to an awful song, say) that requires less processing time than a film or book, and I think some of the reactions above are biased by the increased amount of time it takes to watch a movie or read a book versus engage in other forms of art. I think colin should probably see the movie.

I mean, I re-read Pierre this year. I knew I was going to hate it. I studied that shit in grad school, so it's not like I wasn't intimately familiar with the novel or hadn't given it a thorough look. But I read it again anyways and hated it all over again, and did it entirely because I ended up talking about the book with Sloper. And I'll probably do it again in another 15 years!

Doesn't sound absurd at all - this reads as though you suffered through adversity with someone else and at least enjoyed the experience of doing so. It sounds like rereading the book gave you something, so why must the experience have been absurd? (None of this is sarcasm or a joke, to be clear).