‘Digger’ is confounding, difficult, grating — yet endlessly fascinating and innovative

The oddly structured dark comedy features quality direction and a superb performance by Tom Cruise

By JONAH BERMAN – arts@theaggie.org

In a cinematic landscape where viewers are inundated with more choice than ever, it’s a great challenge to craft something so flawless that it immediately separates itself from the pack. Few films each year can boast that upon release, they were instantly heralded as a classic beloved by all. 

“Digger” is not one of those films.

Directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu, who won the Academy Award for best director for both Birdman (2014) and The Revenant (2015), “Digger” stars Tom Cruise as the eponymous Digger Rockwell, an oil baron whose ignorance of looming disaster causes catastrophe for the entire world. Sandra Hüller features as Digger’s sister Emma, while Riz Ahmed plays assistant Dr. Nirav Ganesh; John Goodman plays the buffoonish United States President Compson.

Well, sort of. After only a few scenes, Iñárritu executes an indisputably bananas narrative rug-pull by revealing that what we have just watched is, in fact, the play “Fossil Fools,” being rehearsed at some indeterminate time in the dystopian future.

The rest of the film thus alternates between the play itself and the production surrounding it. Jesse Plemons stars as a mysterious investor, and Sophie Wilde excels as the play’s dedicated and passionate director. In addition, it’s revealed that Rockwell is, in fact actor Curtis Marksen.

“Digger” has incinerated the goodwill of many American critics, along with about a quarter of a billion dollars of Warner Bros.’ money. Given little to work with, the film’s promotional team has now pivoted to asking audiences to decide for themselves whether the film is high-quality, usually a foreboding sign. 

The film’s detractors certainly raise fair points. At its worst, “Digger” is an awkward and confusing play trapped inside an overwrought and undercooked film that hits the viewer with the bluntness of a falling anvil. The confusing plot structure, lack of clean character arcs and emotionally unsatisfying ending build a frankly grueling theater experience that can feel longer than its runtime.

And yet, I can’t say that I hate it. Or even that I dislike it (and no, I haven’t been compromised, although I share a surname with one of the screenwriters).

That’s because, at its best, “Digger” is a deeply affecting piece that elevates all of Iñárritu’s best instincts to garish heights. Upon a rewatch, more and more of the film’s meticulous attention to detail becomes clear. The set designs are immaculate, vast and intricate. The washed-out color scheme fits the satirical tone excellently, and the VistaVision cinematography is brilliantly done by legendary Iñárritu collaborator Emmanuel Lubezki. The blocking, especially during Rockwell’s central 10-minute speech, is jarringly effective.

When the film’s usually distant and mannered camera work switches to handheld shots and close-ups, the effect is visceral and stirring. Specifically, Wilde and Plemons have successive monologues later in the film, discussing how the play needs to be farcical and amusing even when the reality it depicts is so utterly terrifying. While the movie centers on Cruise, both of these characters are arguably more important to the film’s thesis. Even with relatively limited screen time, both characters display fascinating perspectives on the play’s production.

Moments like the dual monologues signal Iñárritu’s desire to comment on how we process tragedy through art, while also acknowledging the severe limitations of doing so. This kernel of an idea is so ingeniously communicated that it makes it easy to (at least partially) forgive the film’s missteps.

Small yet brilliant details shine through as well. For example, Curtis’s dressing room features a poster of “To Be or Not to Be” (1942), a beloved comedic film about a Polish theater troupe’s resistance to fascism as Nazi Germany invades their city. These details serve to amplify the film’s commentary about how comedy and satire specifically can be deeply cathartic tools for audiences, even when the tone of satirical works necessarily conflicts with the utter horror they depict.

Cruise is excellent as well. Not only is this film an immense swing artistically for the actor, but it also represents a welcome departure from his recent emphasis on franchise films; this is his first role in an original film in nearly a decade. 

As Rockwell, his physicality and line delivery are second to none; his chemistry with the “Fossil Fools” ensemble allows for the narrative within the narrative to remain cogent, despite some structural flaws. Meanwhile, Marksen’s concern for his daughter, a sincere yet slightly underdeveloped subplot, is performed with sincerity, and Cruise executes the balance between this dual role with aplomb.

Furthermore, despite its didacticism, “Digger” never looks down on its audience. Its apparent cynical attitude, ostensible at first glance, gives way to an ultimately empathetic stance by the film’s end. 

“Digger” will not tug at your heartstrings or leave you feeling more hopeful about humanity’s ability to address looming climate threats. It’s a film that’s challenging to sit through, but impossible to forget. Don’t go into the theater expecting neat and tidy answers; instead, brace yourself for a whirlwind of brilliant sound and production design that pulls you into an off-kilter world eerily reminiscent of our own. Regardless of the current consensus, the ambition on display guarantees that it will keep people debating, pondering and digging for answers for generations to come.

Written by: Jonah Berman — arts@theaggie.org