Digger: A Requiem for the World We Find Ourselves In
Jett and Gareth are overwhelmed by DIGGER, a film they see as exhilarating, horrifying and the most important movie of the moment.
How do you make art in a world that too absurd to satirize? Is DIGGER a climate horror movie, a satire, (or farce), a work about our complicity in the systems we condemn or a piece of art about the difficult job of making art itself? All of the above?
This is a spoiler-heavy conversation. If you haven’t seen DIGGER, go see it first, preferably on the biggest screen you can find and then come back.
-
Jett (00:01.28)
Okay, Gareth, hear me out here. Before we start the theme music and we start the show proper, will you indulge me, Gareth and dear listeners? I just wanna read a brief snippet. I'm gonna condense it a little bit, for time.
Gareth (00:40.93)
You're asking after twenty years of doing the show only now will I indulge you?
Jett (00:46.778)
That's exactly right. Thank you for understanding me. You you understand me
Gareth (00:50.346)
After all these years I think yes, you've you've earned the right.
Jett (00:54.34)
Thank you, sir. dear listeners, this is I'm just gonna condense this. This is just a couple sentences. This is a review of the new movie Digger, a review of the new movie Digger from one of the biggest publications in the United States, maybe the biggest, arguably the one with the biggest reach. let me just read this. I'm gonna condense it just ever so slightly. Here we here we go. Digger. With all its attention to detail, a kind of reveling in its own IQ, the movie acknowledges no obligation to validate its conclusion for those, me, for example.
Who are not science fiction buffs. By the end, unreconciled plot lines are simply left there like a Rorschach with murky implications. This is a long step outside convention. Some extra script seems required. I'm sorry, Garris. You know what? I made a mistake. That wasn't a review of Digger. That was the New York Times original review pan of 2001, A Space Odyssey by Stanley Kubrick. Do you see what I did there?
Gareth (01:47.16)
Ha ha ha
Jett (01:54.288)
You see where this is going?
Yeah, then we have the theme music and
Gareth (01:58.712)
Some sometimes my indulgence pays off.
Jett (02:01.948)
Hey there folks. Welcome once again to the Film Talk. It's the twenty year encounting conversation about movies and what they mean. I'm Jet Low.
Gareth (02:10.285)
I'm Gareth Higgins, the conversation never ends. Jet, this is not how I was going to begin this episode, but you said something before the music that I've got to ask you about. Do you revel in your IQ? Despite the culturally absurd notions that underpin the very idea of IQ in the first place. Do you revel in it? Or what do you revel in? What do you revel in?
Jett (02:30.776)
I'm I'm not much of a reveler, with one exception. I revel in amazing cinema. And let me tell you, my friends, Digger is amazing. Why don't you start, Gareth?
Gareth (02:34.402)
Yes.
Ha ha ha.
Gareth (02:41.527)
Digger is indeed amazing. Dear listener, the the joy is not top of mind when I think about Digger, but I will say where joy came in, and that was the experience of watching it without knowing what has been spoiled in some of the reviews and some of the discourse about it. So I want to encourage you, if you haven't seen Digger.
Please don't listen to the rest of this episode until you have seen it. we we'll we'll we'll spoil the episode, but not the movie, by saying Digger's an extraordinary achievement that both of us were overwhelmed by, and we urge you to see it. But from here on in, for us to be able to talk about it meaningfully, there'll be spoilers. All right.
Jett (03:27.812)
That's right, folks. Stru strap yourself in, please. And I'm gonna reiterate what Gareth said. If you have not seen Digger, for the love of God, for all that is holy, do not revel in this episode. Stop listening. Go see Digger and then come back. So I'm gonna wait a second. I'm assuming he stopped. Now they've come back. Gareth, I guess you could describe the plot of Digger. Is that necessary? I'm not even gonna play a cliff because what is the what is the point?
Gareth (03:50.72)
No, I w I I w I w I will describe it. I will describe it. It's it's it's either two or three films and in one. What we're watching is a play being performed on a stage. I think it's either twenty-five years in the future from now or twenty-five years in the f future from when this climate disaster happens, which you know, looks like it's going to happen soon in the in the films.
universe. We're watching a play about Digger Rockwell, who's a kind of a stand-in for the pioneering US American extractive capitalist big oil man. It's ki it's it's it's you mean you really could see this film as a companion piece to There Will Be Blood. it's tonally very different, although truthfully it is just as horrifying, perhaps even more so. We're watching a play. Tom Cruise is playing an actor who is playing.
This character of Digger Rockwell. He is surrounded by other actors like John Goodman playing an actor who's playing the president, Michael Stuhlbarg, an actor playing the vice president, Sandra Houler, an actor playing Digger's stepsister, Riz Ahmed. If you haven't seen Sound of Metal, have you seen Sound of Metal yet? Go see Sound of Metal. Go see Sound of Metal with no spoilers. so we're watching a play.
Jett (05:11.374)
I have not. I will.
Gareth (05:16.172)
And then we're watching the kind of backstage of the of the play and the actors as quote unquote real people. And then the third part of the film is the very brief, really only three or four minutes after the play is over and the audience leaves the play. And so powerful are those last three or four minutes that they are the thing I am thinking about the most when I think about Digger.
Because Digger is a horror movie about selfishness and tribalism. And in the center of this film, I should say this one other piece about the plot, and then we'll get into it. Because I'm sure we have a clip. I'm sure we have this is one I don't even I don't just I don't believe we don't have a clip. I believe we don't have a clip. Wow. When has there never been a clip?
Jett (05:57.54)
Yes. No. No clip.
We don't need a clip. What's the clip gonna tell us? The clip will tell us nothing. Just like the marketing camp just like the marketing campaign for this film. And don't you pity the poor people marketing this picture? They watch the movie. Can you can you imagine they they got their coffee, they got their Danishes, they're all sitting around. Some of them are on Zoom, they watch the movie and then go, no. What are we going what are we going to yes?
Gareth (06:08.44)
True. True. True.
Gareth (06:15.062)
In the God bless them.
Gareth (06:24.044)
Well, now having said that, did you did you watch the I know you don't watch trailers if you can avoid them. Did you watch the trailers for this film? Okay. Okay, so you've seen that I mean I mean, I think the marketing of this film is part of the experience of the film. It's and I'm sure Inuritu was absolutely in control of the marketing because the trailer mark markets it as Doctor Strangelove. And you go in thinking, I'm watching Doctor Strangelove, and you may feel early on this isn't funny.
Jett (06:31.982)
I did not. I watched them afterwards for this show.
Jett (06:43.224)
Of course.
Jett (06:47.322)
Yes.
Yes.
Gareth (06:53.586)
Or this is this is reaching for something and it's not working. But it's a mistake. And I think this is where the the very negative reviews have have misread things. It's not supposed to be funny, it is not trying to be funny like like Doctor Strangelove is. We're at there's even a discourse between Kurt Curtis and the director of the play about the purpose of humor, and
Jett (07:15.215)
Yes.
Yeah. Well, y you know, there's a whole thing. You're watching the movie and you go, look at you know, the Stoolberg character playing the vice president. What a cliche to have the weak, feckless vice president who has authority thrust upon him. And I thought that while watching, and then later on Tom Cruise's the actress says, Look at this trite bullshit. This is vice president.
Gareth (07:22.699)
Mm-hmm.
Gareth (07:35.735)
Yeah. I know, I know, and he's I mean he he but there's this great moment where he says to Michael Stu Stuhlberg's character, You're a great actor, no offense, it's not it's not your fault. It's not your fault. And I mean I I guess one last thing I want to say about story and and the way the story is told is the aspect ratio changes in in the film. It goes from a more boxy aspect ratio when we're watching the play to
Jett (07:44.152)
Yeah.
Gareth (08:03.56)
A wider aspect ratio when we're watching, let's call it reality, the reality of the film, the backstage, what's going on in the minds of the actors in the play rather than their characters. And that, if I'm not mistaken, that happens throughout the film, with one exception. The scene that takes place in what's supposed to represent like the European Parliament, or a United Nations type environment, or a Roman Senate type environment.
The aspect ratio remains wide when Riz Ahmed, the chief scientist, is telling the truth about not only climate change, but how corporate interests excuse me, corporate interests have denied it and sub and suppressed information about that. And then when Digger gives the speech, which is kind of the
the inversion of the other side of the coin to that speech where he tells people, Yeah, I'm I I don't have any problem admitting that we that we lied to you because you want it to be lied to. Because truth truly, you're just as bad as I am. You actually want the world to be this way. there's there's no mistake. This is not a coincidence. This is this is actually where the fourth wall gets broken the most in the film because I think what Ini Ritu is saying by keeping that aspect ratio this way.
Is this the what do you call it? The spokesperson moment. This is what he wants us to be thinking about. not not in a shaming way, but in a in a deeply challenging way. About what are we doing? What's our complicity in this? What's our responsibility for moving things forward? There's a lot more to to talk about. That's kind of my attempt at naming.
really just scratching the surface of Digger. We haven't even haven't gone anywhere near the fact that Digger explicitly references the death of Robert Maxwell, who who was Rupert Murdoch's greatest rival in the newspaper industry in the nineteen eighties and talks about the power that people who really don't have, let's say, deep levels of emotional or psychological intelligence who end up running the narrative of the world.
Gareth (10:21.865)
There's a whole lot more I could talk about. But I wanna hear what you have to say, Jed. Tell us what you felt and thought about Digger.
Jett (10:27.93)
Well, there's I felt a lot of things and I think a lot of things and I think this film is so rich, it's so multi-layered, that's so so much of a commentary on the state of our world today. And I would argue maybe one of the most important films or the most important film in the English language, that we've had for a decade. This may be to our decade what the Terminator and Blue Velvet were to the eighties. We can look at any particular scene and find a world of of meaning, of action, of beauty and and horror.
Gareth (10:51.812)
Mm.
Jett (10:56.206)
within it. Even just the scene that you you know you mentioned this a lot of people are talking about the well it sounded a little bit like Trump there. A lot of people are saying a lot of people are you know this the scene we do you may you talk about Maxwell. Well it's no coincidence that that Digger's last name is Rockwell. Rockwell's a big defense contractor but it sounds a lot like Maxwell. You mentioned you mentioned Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch's pejorative nickname is is a dirty digger is digger so there's a combination
Gareth (11:02.755)
Not a people.
Jett (11:22.724)
And then let's not also forget, I don't want get too red string theories conspiracy board here, but folks may not know this or are listening. Robert Maxwell did well, the huge well there's he you know, he died you know semi mysteriously robbing pensions, his huge you know, publishing magnet fell off the boat. whatever happened to his family? His daughter? Well, his daughter is Gislaine Maxwell, who's in prison because she was Jeffrey Epstein's procureur of women. So this is a very,
Gareth (11:26.511)
Sure. The name of the boat?
Jett (11:49.546)
CD business that we're involved in. I do want to mention before I I do have kind of an overarching maybe a theory of the movie or at least a theory of one aspect of the movie because the film is so rich. But boy, that European Parliament scene is amazing with all the color bleached out. And if you look closely, here and there you look at all these people squabbling. Are they effective? Are they doing anything? They're trying to stand up against the evil American, but what are they really doing? And then you notice if you look closely that there's mannequins placed throughout the
Gareth (12:14.851)
Yeah. Yeah.
Jett (12:16.494)
The the the whole hall. They're just sitting there, not even they're not even made up to look like they're engaged, they're not animatronic, they're just kind of slumped over with bad wigs on them. And you talk about telling the truth. You know what another name for that speech could be that Tom Cruise does? You can't handle the truth. You can't handle the truth. When you watch that scene, Tom Cruise is so good, you realize, my goodness, he's of the age now where he could play the Jack Nicholson part.
Gareth (12:31.247)
Tell me. You can
Jett (12:42.168)
And a few good men. And he would absolutely nail that speech because Tom Cruise's performance, his dedication, is astonishing, and especially when you think about the layers of it. And maybe he learned a lot making eyes wide shut. We think about the masks we wear. That when he's performing as Digger Rock, well, he's not. He's performing as an actor named Curtis, who seems to be a well-regarded actor in this world of the future, 25 years of the future. He's playing Curtis, playing Digger, and he is absolutely extraordinary.
Gareth (13:00.846)
Mm-hmm.
Jett (13:10.218)
He burns up the screen, as do I mean everyone is fantastic in the film, but you ca have to acknowledge that he is an incredible, astonishing cinema actor. And it kind of made me sad a little bit going, Wow, we lost we we there's a whole bunch of Tom Cr Cruz performances we don't get, right? Because he's busy doing this Mission Impossible movies when he could have been doing dramas. You mentioned There Will Be Blood. He's so good in Digger. I mean, I would love to see a version of him
where he plays the you know the protagonist, the Daniel Day Lewis character and There Will Be Blood because you can see him pulling it off. Do you know what I mean?
Jett (13:48.562)
okay. Are you still there? Sorry, you froze there. Yeah, okay, I just wanna say one.
Gareth (13:50.829)
Yeah, you y you just cut out there, I heard you say you can see him
Jett (13:54.638)
You could see see him pull pulling it off. But you know what the the first thing that occurred to me, and then I wanna talk we gotta talk about Jesse Plumman's character because that role and the commentary there's just grown and grown and grown, folks. The more the that I've been separated in time from the film.
Gareth (14:07.983)
Sure. And we may we may I'm interested we may differ. We may differ about about Jesse.
Jett (14:14.532)
Abs absolutely. I y my first impression was while watching it, y you know, we're living in a world right now, Gareth, where I I'm recording this right now in the wonderful, wonderful, slightly run down and shabby Palace Hotel in Silver City, New Mexico. I'm not here for a for a photo shoot in Silver City. But it's my point is I'm in New Mexico. Now I'm waking up in New Mexico. I wouldn't be surprised if I look at my Apple maps and it's now called New America, right? Because we have this mad king who's just
Doing what he wants and nobody is stopping him. So we live in a time of great absurdity. And so the question is if our world is so absurd, how does how can you make art about that when the absurdity of the everyday world, if you're trying to say say things clear-eyed, since the world on our our federal level is already so absurd, you can't satirize it. How do you what is the sort of the attack vector? What is the what is the in in order to to make art about our our world? So how does art deal with the present moment? Well to tell you folks there's one solution, one idea.
Gareth (15:04.995)
Mm-hmm.
Jett (15:12.752)
You can call it a trick if you want. You can make a the art about how art deals with the present moment, right? So one aspect of Digger, overarching over all of it, is is a grappling with how do we make work in in the a moment that is that is so absurd. And they and Digger deals with that, I think, quite brilliantly through the the if you want to call it a framing device by saying this is art about art. And then it goes even further. Let's talk about the Jesse Plyman's character, right?
Because you're watching and you go, isn't this nice? At first time, okay, so his nephew is helping fund this art piece. Well, it's made clear in the movie that the original production of the play, fossil fuels, was you know like an off-Broadway thing. Off off-Broadway, two or three people, right? You don't need a big, huge budget. But now this incredibly elaborate, overly produced, you know, cake of a of a production is being funded by the nephew of Digger, and it gives people catharsis in the audience to do like a two-minute hate.
to talk about how to to express our feelings about how much they despise Digger Rockwell. So their energy is put out through through anger. And when we're watching it, it seemed to clear when I was watching in the theater that this is sort of a past tense hasn't happened yet, recreation of how people will feel or how we imagine people will feel when Trump dies. When you're watching all these people applauding and getting excited, you could not help but think about people talking about, there'll be parties and all this kind of stuff.
But then what happens at the of the film? People walk out, they put on their lungs gas masks to deal with the methane. They walk out into a terribly degraded future and nothing has changed. They've gotten out of their hate on on the fictional care, fictionalized version of Digger, and then nothing has changed. So in that way, Jesse Plemens, you know, has an immense bank role. He hires the director because he heard she's good. He doesn't really care about art. He's just moving pieces on a chessboard.
gets people to to expunge their hate and they continue on with their lives and he continues on. And in fact, even Curtis's wife is grateful to him for finding their daughter for locating her. So i it to to me that is a a coruscating commentary about the one about how we deal with one percent and how they exercise their power. Does that make sense?
Gareth (17:17.57)
Yeah.
Gareth (17:27.876)
That is so that's actually recalibrated my my my I was kind of confused about the Jesse Flevens character because at that there's that point where they they find Curtis's daughter and his his his wife says, you know, thank you so much, thank you so much for for what you did. And he said, We didn't we didn't we didn't do much, we just we just helped find her. And I couldn't quite tell, are we seeing this next generation of of Rockwells?
Evolving morally. and I was holding on to that soups soups on the hope, but you've just shattered it for me by saying he is he's he what he's do he's doing he's he's funding this this elaborate production as a lost leader to prov to protect himself from people with torches coming to storm his castle.
Jett (18:02.88)
No. No. Well well
Jett (18:14.766)
Yes. Absolutely. That's absolutely right. And think about what it think about he could have been in any industry, but in the film, it's it's surveillance. He's the he's Mr. Flock. He's the flock cameras. All he needs is a phone number because it's we're in an era of total surveillance. And we see drones right at the end. We have we see a fleet of drones go over. So yeah, no, that that ad to me, that adds a whole nother like the the film I hate to apply metrics to art, but it bumps it up thirty percent.
Gareth (18:26.19)
Yeah. Yeah.
Gareth (18:35.023)
Well it's
Jett (18:41.646)
The more you think about Jesse Planner's and all of that, it completely it completely ups the film. Ooh.
Gareth (18:43.492)
I'm I'm gonna I I'm gonna bump it up 31. I'm gonna bump it th up 31 by saying, is it possible, is it possible, dear Jed, is it possible that when Jesse Flemmens gives Curtis the tie, his gift, he gives him this this kind of presumably expensive tie, that that's a a little oblique Easter egg reference to another movie where Tom Cruise plays a character.
Who is let's say, economically subordinate to the person he's talking to. And the person he's talking to has an object that Tom Cruise's character would like. And when Tom Cruise expresses some some appreciation of this object, the wealthy, powerful, deeply Machiavellian evil character says, I'll send you over a case. I'll send you over a case. Could is it possible that this is an oblique reference to that scene in in
Jett (19:35.16)
It's a it it's an eighteen year old.
Gareth (19:40.113)
Maybe not, maybe, maybe I'm reading too too too much into this, although I do I do have a feeling I do have a feeling that that given the way that Alejandro Gonzalez Iniuritu and Alf al Alfonso Quaron and Guillermo del Toro are often grouped together, which you know that could be kind of condescending, but they do seem to be friends and they do appear together in public and they do have each other's backs. both Del Del Toro and Quaron, I think, have have made statements supporting the film.
Jett (19:40.796)
I I wouldn't I wouldn't put it past the film.
Gareth (20:08.163)
I read that last two or three minutes of this film, in which you realize you've been watching, you may realize you've been watching one of the greatest horror films ever made. There's there's genius in this film that nobody knew it was a horror film. And when I see it a second time, I'm gonna be watching it knowing that it's a horror movie. And that it's an important, like it's an apocalyptic horror movie. It's kind of like a Hebrew Bible prophet warning for the desolation.
of of the city. And the point is not to make us feel terrible and almost annihilated in our capacity to act like those mannequins in in the parliament scene. The point is to wake us up. And those last two or three minutes feel very much like Inirutu is winking at Quaran's film Children of Men, which I've just realized Children of Men is as old as the film talk. Did you know that?
Jett (21:06.596)
Yes, and I think it I think it's had a
Gareth (21:06.959)
Both both both of them, both of them sim similar cultural impact.
Jett (21:11.086)
I was I was just gonna say, yeah, I think it's had b I think it's had a bigger impact, than the film. Yeah, I do.
Gareth (21:15.201)
Do you think is there is there gonna be a is there gonna be a four K restoration of the early episodes of the film talk?
Jett (21:21.678)
Nobody wants to see this, and by the way, dear listeners, if you watch a if you're watching a video version.
Gareth (21:23.313)
Listen, you are aging you're you're you're you're aging like a fine wine.
Jett (21:29.166)
That's very sweet of you. If there is a video version of this we can put on on YouTube, you'll you'll you'll see my gray. And by the way, folks, we do have a a new site where we're putting all of our material if you want it. That's the filmtalk dot net. Yeah, no, I think the film is in conversation with with children of men. There's so many details. I you know, w in that in the last shot the camera just holds. And if you notice, for instance, you see the drones and you see the submerged sea like something out of a JG Ballard short story, you'll notice in the trash heap there's just a bunch of robots.
anthropomorphized robots. As so it seems clear that at some point there were robots everywhere and then people but maybe rebelled against them. And because because there's a human soldier that kind of ducking and he has a really crappy job. He's sort of like the equivalent of someone working for ICE today and he's, you know, maybe someone throws a can at him. But he's not a robot because all the robots are smashed. People are people get tired of it. So but y you know, it's not a lament people talk about being a lament or a requiem. I think yes, you can look at it as the film as a requiem, but f you have a requiem and then you act, right?
So we let's digest this film, dear listeners, Gareth, and then we can act. Because imagine this film as if it's sent, it feels like it's sent from the future. And one of the reasons it feels that way is because it's constantly referencing the past, because the film takes place in the future, and then it's reenacting films that have something that happened twenty-five years before. So we're seeing a a future version. So this gives us a time to act. And and speaking about like real versus false in twenty-five years and all that, one of the most horrifying things I realized.
That came to me while watching the film is, you know, we see there's natural disasters in the movie. Only towards a certain point in the film do you realize, the audience members watching the play, they're watching real footage. The reason why this footage is photorealistic is because in the realm of the movie, this is the actual footage of the real disasters that happened. And people are actually watching it. So there's this extra level of horror when we see the Thames being flooded.
Gareth (23:22.929)
Sure.
Jett (23:24.856)
it's genuine horror. And you must, and you know, you just have sorry to to keep going here, but you have to know that the animators who did this work, they would just like how Christopher Nolan in something like The Odyssey had a giant cyclops made, even though it wasn't actually seen in the film, but you know how to light it. So you build a giant cyclops, you put it on the stage, you put it in the location, so the actors interact with it, but but more importantly, the animators know how to how to how to light the CGI version.
You you know that the animators for those disaster scenes looked at like terrible tsunami footage. And think about the psychic impact of that. And you can feel that in the movie. You've you become psychically affected. You you you become traumatized watching this film.
Gareth (24:00.646)
Well well and you know, I s I saw I saw the film with with someone who lived through the catastrophic experience of Hurricane Helene in Western North Carolina two years ago, and the film deeply upset my friend. Not you know, she's not judging the film negatively, it's so real. Like these things are not fantasies of of the future. These things are already
happening. Some of those scenes, I the scenes of of the of the Thames over overflowing its banks, you know, that that's that's a sp a special effect. But it's not that far removed from realities that are are already underway in as as you say, I mean it's funny, a requiem that leads us to to to act a prov a provocative and I'm gonna use the word prophetic, not in the sense of telling the future, but an interruption into the way things are.
And amazingly enough without wanting to d dilute the power of the thing, an incredibly entertaining piece of cinema. it's it's it's pr yeah, I mean just a v well is is entertaining the right word? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I was captivated and horrified throughout.
Jett (25:23.824)
Absolutely. I wouldn't use the word entertained, but I was absolutely mesmerized. Did you engage this is a film you have to engage with. You have to focus and watch. And it's shot on VistaVision. To me, it's the the the actual film images have an incredible amount of information. So you can look all around these in these incredible sets and and feel engaged. It's more immersive. And so it's more like an immersive ride because it is so detailed.
Gareth (25:27.301)
Yes.
Gareth (25:36.305)
Sure.
Jett (25:49.149)
And also because it's you could s you know, if you wanna put a dock on it say it's mannered, but again these are set des the set designs are are for a for a play and and then yeah, it's well again it's a yeah, we're in we're in different worlds. What
Gareth (25:55.537)
The point. It's the point. It's the point. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's like that's like with some when somebody told me they thought the usual suspects had a lot of plot holes in it. And you know, the usual suspect is a story being told by a liar. Like it's it's not supposed to be consistent. I do I want to ask you about Sandra Sandra Sandra Huller. great actor. I was kind of left wondering.
You know, you know, she's she's been cast in a number of things, this and Project Hail Mary because she you know, she'd been around for a while, but she really became prominent with Anatomy of a Fall a couple of years ago. and and I the the her role in Digger really like I I don't want to say it's beneath her. There's not much to it, and I kinda wondered.
Jett (26:37.518)
Yeah, great film. She's amazing then.
Gareth (26:50.99)
had any read to cast her because who doesn't want Sandra Huller in their movie but that it was long after the role had been written. There's really not much for her to do except kind of rant a bit and and and play the role of another wealthy character who's kind of greenwashing their their power. She's got a foundation that's like allegedly doing positive things for the ecosystem. We don't see much of her and I just I just wondered it it's
if that was if that role was was written deliberately as thin or if that's kind of just the way the cookie crumbled because it had been written well before someone of her talent was hired and
Jett (27:34.99)
You know, for me watching it, that was the weakest part of the film. Whenever she whenever sh as soon as she came on, I was like, this is not working. Like her over the top is farcical. We're watching a f I guess there's a whole argument that Curtis actor has with the director about satire f bad satire versus farce. And for me she didn't work at all. And I and the performance didn't work at all. And could that have been corrected if you want to have your cake and eat it too? Or you would just need to have a line when they're
Gareth (27:37.765)
Uh-huh. huh.
Gareth (27:46.682)
Yes. What's the difference between a force and a satire?
Jett (28:00.12)
You know, backstage w where she talks about the role being underwritten. But I'm with you a hundred percent on that. She's not that great. Or is she is she like is she the director's girlfriend or something? What is she doing in this movie? Because because
Gareth (28:03.854)
Or or where somebody says she's she's kinda not on her A game or Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Right, right. And it's not I mean it's not about her talent. It's I really do think it was about, frankly, the way the role is written.
Jett (28:19.598)
Yeah, that's the one that's the w
Gareth (28:19.78)
In the movie, in the in not in the movie within the movie, but the movie outside the movie within the movie. Within the play.
Jett (28:27.354)
Do you wish that there was a zoom out at the end the end credits and it ju it was just us talking about the movie? No, it was just us on screen.
Gareth (28:33.114)
And Snow Globe? Yes, that is that's what's coming next. That's how do you know? How do you know, Jet, that that's not how do you know that that's not what I've been doing all along? Have you ever thought more deeply about the fact that Children of Men and the film talk began in the same year? What does that tell ya?
Jett (28:50.778)
You know, this has sort of become the the show episodes like the love child of Borges and Philip K. Dick here. and I mean that in the in in the in the best in the best possible way. But getting back to Sandra no, that was the the one we it's the flaw in the Arabic rug, right? That is the one the one thing that I that would did not work for me. And then whenever she came on screen, I my heart sunk a little bit. Because whenever I'm watching movies that are so brilliant as this, I'm always worried, like, are they gonna stick the landing?
Is it gonna how is this thing gonna end? And of course I mean it ends brilliantly. We haven't talked about the meta commentary. That when you're in the audience, and if you haven't stayed for the end credits, folks, I feel bad for you because Yeah.
Gareth (29:19.121)
Yeah, yeah.
Gareth (29:24.382)
my goodness. This is another spoiler. If if you've gone and seen the film but then you left before the end credits ended, you need to stop the episode right now. Go back and watch the end credits. Okay? It's safe to say it. It's safe to say it. I mean I
Jett (29:35.183)
Yes.
Okay, we'll give him a few seconds. They're back. Yeah. So yeah, you're in the you're you're in the audience and now you're in the audience for the play. So with this with by saying it's been a level four. Did you
Gareth (29:46.354)
I jumped. I jumped when I heard that boop boop. like and y you know, it's operating on these two levels of on the one hand
This this really is horrifying. And on another level, I'm going. This is really, really extravagantly great filmmaking here. This is ext like like you you you kind of chuckle to yourself at the genius of it, but also I hope you feel the horror more than the genius. Cause there it is, it's always the right time to do the right thing.
Jett (30:11.364)
It is on all levels.
Gareth (30:24.592)
We do feel so overwhelmed by the challenges facing the world. Unless like the film is I read, you know, one one of the one of the better reviews that the film talked about it it being something like an x-ray of the psych of the psyche of our times. And I would say it's an x-ray of half the psyche of our times. Because this film is not about goodness. This film is not about the the things that are working. This film is not about courage. and it doesn't need to be about that. but you could be forgiven.
coming away from it thinking quite nihilistically about the world. You know, you know that that's not the way I I don't know, I was gonna say that's not the way I think. It's not the way I want to think. I have to train my my my my mind to consciously pay attention to the good because I have a tendency toward melancholia. Which I think a lot of film critics do as well. There's not, you know, if dear listener, if you've ever been to a film festivals or press screenings, there's not a lot of peppy at attitude going on.
in in the lobby afterwards, you know. So so I yeah, I I when I go back to see it again, I will be watching it knowing it's a horror film, but I'm also going to be relaxing into I'm gonna use that word again, the joy of the experience of a truly great movie.
Jett (31:45.328)
Well, it's wonderful seeing people fire in all cylinders. We're not just talking about the director, we're talking about the cinematographer, the sound design, the production designer. I cannot stop thinking about the fake waves on the oil, Derek, that are made out of looks like alumin aluminum sheets or like they're made out of foil. Yeah. They're so so beautiful. So folks, if you've I mean you've already seen the film, I hope. I hope you're not listening to this without having seen it. Go see it again.
Gareth (31:48.816)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Gareth (31:56.227)
yeah. Yeah. With some saran wa rap, you know. Yeah.
Jett (32:10.424)
in the theaters. It's it's something. When I went I myself and my wife, we were the only I didn't go to a critic screening. We were the only ones in the theater. And I think a lot of people are having that experience. Like a private screening. It's worth it. Go go see it again.
Gareth (32:17.107)
Yeah.
Well so so before before before we end, like in all seriousness, like this film has fifty one percent on Rotten Tomatoes, and I want to say two things about that. First of all, that just points up the absurdity of using statistics and averages to evaluate art. of course the the kind of it's the objective reality here is a film can get fifty one percent on Rotten Tomatoes, and that could mean that literally half the critics think it's a perfect film.
Jett (32:23.748)
Yes, sir.
Gareth (32:49.275)
so it tells you nothing. The the only in my my view, the only ratings on Rotten Tomatoes that actually tell you something meaningful about a film that you can trust are if a film has 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, you can probably trust it's a pretty good film. And if it has 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, you can probably trust it's not a pretty good film. Strangely enough, the audience rating for the film is in the mid 70s at this point. And usually when an audience rating is higher than a
Than a critic's rating, it's because the film is populist. This is not a simplistic film. This is not trying to reach the most mainstream audience. I'm interested, Jet, to know what what you think. Why do you think that the let's call it professional critical response has been so negative? And it appears that the audience response is is significantly better.
Than the professional critic response. I mean, I've read some reviews by critics I respect, critics I usually resonate with, or critics I often disagree with, but at least they make an argument that that's cogent. The a lot of the negative reviews I've read for this film, I'm looking at them going, I don't think we saw the same film. I is there a group think going on? Is it simply the horror that the film is presenting? We're so inured to that now that.
It it doesn't feel surprising enough. I don't know. I don't know. What do you think?
Jett (34:21.946)
What it shows, and it's really interesting to me, is it shows how brittle and non-flexible these critics are. The critical response of from the major publications has been shocking. And you read the reviews, and you know what it seems like. It really seems like, again, these are people that are steeped. This is their full-time job. They're steeped in the movies, they're steeped in the trailers, in all the marketing material. They've all seen the trailers over and over again.
They all know people who've met Tom Cruise if they haven't interviewed Tom Cruise themselves. They're steeped in this one, the same thing with director, production design, and cinematographer. These reviews, these negative reviews, they seem to be reviewing the play Fossil Fools. They don't seem to be reviewing the movie because they're, for whatever reason, they are creatively boxed in and brittle. They did not allow themselves.
Gareth (35:05.225)
huh.
Jett (35:17.808)
To realize that they're watching something different than they thought they were gonna get. Because when you do watch the trailers, when you are steeped you go, look at this, this is a farce, this is Doctor Strange Love. It doesn't look that funny. It looks like and they keep they keep you keep seeing the same phrase over and over again: a swing and a miss, a swing and a miss, a swing and a miss that people are that's fossil fuels. That is this bloated, overproduced play by Digger Rockwell's nephew.
Gareth (35:38.279)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Gareth (35:46.003)
Wow. Yeah.
Jett (35:46.606)
That's what they're reviewing. They're not reviewing the movie. And that's really interesting. And it shows a it shows a a a brittleness there. Now, you know, I did have my little funny bit of business where I I had Adler's New York Times pan of 2001. Originally I was gonna read Andrew Service's review of 2001, because he panned it as well, but then he later reconsidered it, right? He reconsidered it. So my question to these critics, are they and surely they're seeing online that people are are saying this is a masterpiece, right?
Gareth (36:05.608)
Hmm. Hmm.
Jett (36:16.494)
Now, of course, the algorithm is giving you what you want, but you know, my threads my threads algorithm is full of person after person after person saying, What what's wrong with the critics? This film is incredible. Which critics out there are brave enough to go out there and admit, you know what? I I was wrong. This is actually an an an incredible film.
Gareth (36:32.724)
To reconsider.
Yeah. Well and we it it shouldn't have have to take bravery because we shouldn't be slagging each other off. And like I I wanna I wanna encourage my my critic friends, go see this again. Give it a bit of time, let it breathe a bit, go see go see it again and and and let's talk. I mean, I've often changed my view in the other direction when I've seen a film a second time that I really liked the first time around, but often that's because the im the just the sheer impact of a movie, before you know anything about it can can
Jett (36:43.406)
Hmm. Yes, yes.
Gareth (37:06.216)
can can I think it can add twenty pr we we're getting in into the numbers. I know I know you really like statistical averages applied to art. It can kind of bump up my love of a film by twenty percent. And then when I see it again it starts to temper itself and and I mean over time I think you can't really say something about the ultimate value of a film until it's been around for at least 10 years. but at any rate, this one is around right now, dear listener. The review that said
It'll feel the same way on HBO Max as it does in a movie theater. I I with all respect to whoever wrote that review, I think that that review is mistaken. And I think that this this is a film. It's been such a s a wonderful year for theatrical releases. The Odyssey, Disclosure Day, great big canvas movies. This is the biggest one of all because it's about the whole world. It's about the whole world that we're living in. And it manages to be
entertaining and horrifying at the same time. Please see it in the biggest screen available to you and don't hesitate. Don't hesitate to to to do that. and and yes I I I I'm I'm I'm stuck with your use of the f of the phrase brittle, bloated and overproduced, which could be could be a tagline for some of the early episodes of DFT, but not today because we learn
Jett (38:28.556)
wh why why why why end on a s on a sour note here? This is the this let's let's not let's not that's like my second marriage. Let's not let's not look backwards. Let's look forwards to the future, my friends. This movie is a requiem. Let us digest it and then let's act. Let's act.
Gareth (38:29.768)
We go back and we revisit and we relearn. I didn't say which one of us was was brittle bloated and overproduced.
Gareth (38:38.6)
Cause I want to be entertaining and horrifying at the same time.
Gareth (38:44.636)
I don't okay.
Jett (38:57.078)
I believe in you, Gareth. I believe in myself and I believe in the listener. Just as I believe you can go to the filmtalk dot net to get access to all of our previous episodes. Listen, I love talking about this with you, Gareth. It's been fun. I don't know what happened with that weird detour right there at the end. Don't be so self deprecating. You do good work. You d I know you're f dear listener, a little inside baseball, Gareth is hold on. Hold on. Hold exactly. Gareth
Gareth (39:16.67)
Better to be better to be brittle bloated and overproduced in the past than that for that to be looming up ahead.
Jett (39:22.34)
Gareth is working on his latest book and he's published many tomes, many volumes. And I think he's feeling a little down about where he's at with the book. Gareth, I'm sure your book is great. I cannot wait to read it. Folks, thank you so much for listening. We've enjoyed talking. I can't wait for our next show. We're going to talk about Exorcist II, Colin the Heretic, the amazing John Borman film, and the new documentary or a documentary, Borman and the Devil, which talks about the production of it. Anyway, folks, this has been a great conversation, Gareth. Thank you so much. I've been Jedlow.
Gareth (39:32.772)
Okay.
Gareth (39:51.22)
I've been Gareth Higgins and we will keep talking.
Jett
Next week.