Tom Cruise Digs Deep in "Digger"
Review by Alex De Paulis
Expectations were high when visionary Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu (Birdman, The Revenant) teamed up with Hollywood superstar Tom Cruise to create the tragicomic meta-satire that is, Digger.
And, while Digger may have too many cooks in the kitchen at times, with conflicting elements clumsily patched together, it’s the contradictory masterstroke of casting Cruise as a deceptive media figure that ultimately makes the film worth seeing.
Cruise plays ‘Digger’ Rockwell, an ageing American oil tycoon who goes on a damage control media campaign after one of his oil rigs triggers a massive natural disaster. The film has many strengths visually, including the intricate and artisanal miniature sets created by Dennis Gassner and Richard L. Johnson. Not to mention makeup designer, Kazu Hiro’s ground-breaking prosthetics that render Cruise unrecognisable and completely sell that transformation. Digger was also shot on the rare high-definition film format of VistaVision by Oscar-winning cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki (Gravity, Birdman, The Revenant). The 35mm VistaVision filmstock provided an unparalleled level of detail and depth to both the dramatic moments and the film’s dynamic rotating soundstages.
For Cruise, the film reads as a welcome departure from his exceedingly competent action star persona. His volatile, intimidating and brash performance signals he’s finally ‘acting’ again and he’s complemented perfectly by some quirky performances, especially the contained yet outrageous climate scientist played by Riz Ahmed (Sound of Metal). One not-so-quirky addition is Oscar-winning under-utilized German actress Sandra Hüller (Anatomy of A Fall), who plays Digger’s half-sister and feels like a purely reactionary character that exists only to criticize Cruise’s Digger. Hardly the dream part for an actor of Hüller’s calibre.
Another standout supporting actor was Jesse Plemons as Kenny, a mysterious investor. He seems to represent a thinly veiled satire of Skydance film executive and new Paramount/Warner Bros. owner David Ellison (son of tech billionaire Larry Ellison) which is a brave addition to the film, as it addresses the dangers of nepotism and media monopolization.
Iñárritu has a history of blurring the lines between his actors and the characters they play. For Birdman (2014), Michael Keaton portrayed an ageing actor, famous for playing a well-known superhero, modelled after his own career playing Batman. So, the idea that the director would cast Hollywood PR machine Tom Cruise for this story about perception and powerful people in the media seems too specific to be a coincidence.
One memorable scene in the film highlights the parallels between Cruise and Digger, as he addresses an arena-style courtroom to people hurling insults and threats. He contends to the hateful crowd that however inconvenient, his oil-digging provides comfort for their “unsustainable lives”, heating their homes, fueling their cars and charging their phones. In a similar way, Cruise’s audience doesn't care what he does at home. His audience just wants Top Gun: Maverick 2 or Mission: Impossible 12: Dead Ghost Nation Part 3. And due to his own masterful media control, they also don’t care that he is a Scientologist who hasn’t spoken publicly on the subject in over ten years.
Digger fancies himself as a problem solver and saviour for the world’s climate crisis. Not coincidentally it seems, as Cruise himself is widely credited as the catalyst for the Hollywood studios to resume production during COVID, filming Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning under strict health and safety protocols and revitalising the film industry to accomplish the seemingly impossible mission (pun intended).
Overall, this profound yet messy addition to Iñárritu’s filmography is less interested in distinct heroes and villains within storytelling but instead prefers to examine differing perspectives. It begins as a broad but informed climate disaster film and mutates into a deeply layered psychological drama on the malleable nature of truth. It’s a somewhat muddled and divisive narrative but largely supported – and saved - by its talented cast and stunning visuals. The film also sparks debate about the nature of satire in a society where media and art are being blatantly co-opted by corporate entities. However, a 200-million-dollar anti-establishment movie, produced by the establishment, leaves me with more questions than answers.
Comments