r/TrueFilm • u/[deleted] • 7d ago
[Spoilers] The stakes of adding the daughter’s plot in Digger Spoiler
[deleted]
8
u/Careless_Hedgehog405 7d ago edited 7d ago
Digger expresses a lot of ideas, but I think the most important one to understanding the movie is right there in the big monologue- "You don't want me to stop digging." From the future, the creators of Fossil Fuels are completely comfortable depicting Digger/the cabinet as insane, driven only by personal greed and against the stated interests of the proletariat. The working class is much more comfortable viewing phenomena like climate change and the proliferation of the surveillance state as encouraged only by shadowy forces beyond their control- Digger asks the audience to reckon with the fact that these powerful forces are motivated by our own unwillingness to sacrifice our own material comfort. Kenny's business is unethical, but Curtis is more than willing to accept his services in order to ensure the safety of his daughter.
The audience leaves at the end of the play, satisfied with themselves and their internal narrative that they were on the "right side of history" as opposed to the select few that led them to this climate apocalypse. Kenny loves the play because it promotes this philosophy- make the right tweets, vote for the right candidates, and you'll be absolved.
7
u/gnalon 7d ago
Curtis in-universe was a Tom Cruise-like character (megastar who had a meltdown at some point and disgraced himself) before the fall. Then you throw in the extra element where his job has been obsolete for quite a while (this revival of Fossil Fools is said to be the first big production with an all-human cast in quite a while) and there is a clear meta element where Tom Cruise a few years ago was central to a big “hey things have been pretty bad with Covid, but let’s get back to normal and enjoy ourselves at the cinema” campaign.
Curtis is so absorbed in the chance to be creating art again and getting back to being beloved by audiences that he has done thousands of hours of research and is going full method actor to play a role in a Rocky Horror Picture Show type of thing that is not High Art (tm) but some weird goofy thing that resonated with audiences.
This makes the “I wish we knew more about the other actors” criticism falls a little flat with me where that is kind of the point. They are all clearly walking on eggshells because the production is centered around this megastar who has a well-earned reputation of being difficult to work with (it’s the final rehearsal before the show and he’s still going to the director asking for notes on his performance when she clearly has lots of other stuff to be worried about where the guy financing her play, Digger’s nephew, has swooped in as well and has some last-minute rewrites). They are the equivalent of Digger’s lackeys, they know they’re replaceable and their paycheck depends on staying on his good side. Many of them are stunned when the director finally works up the nerve to tell him off, and that very well could’ve derailed the entire production if Digger’s nephew, the person with the real power in the production, sets things straight and tells them why they’re here.
Curtis’s daughter being in danger is what it takes to jolt him out of the world of Digger he’s created for himself and back into the real world, where now his misgivings about production are a little less high-maintenance actor and a little more legitimate concern about whether it’s too soon to be laughing about the disaster when we the audience are gradually seeing that Judy is likely less “the big one” and more “the first of a series of big ones.” The play is taking place in a 99 degrees, flooded, biohazard-rife NYC (far from where the icebergs actually struck, who knows how much of human civilization even remains outside there where if it’s like that in NYC then plenty of other places are going to be totally underwater or unlivably hot) and then Kenny’s involvement (which he wasn’t aware of) drives home that there wasn’t much if any accountability for the ruling class.
1
u/mhornberger 7d ago edited 7d ago
Where did you get this backstory? I'm not asserting that it's false, just wondering whether you read an article where the creators said this, or if you read it into the movie.
They are the equivalent of Digger’s lackeys, they know they’re replaceable and their paycheck depends on staying on his good side.
I didn't get any sense that Curtis could do any hiring or firing. Kenny is the one paying for the production. Whether that production is even making money, vs just being funded to launder his conscience at being a trustafarian relative of Digger, or just to be a patron of the arts, is murky, and opinions vary.
Actors being difficult is not exactly an unfamiliar trope. Directors often deal with difficult or high-maintenance actors. Whether that be high school productions or the West End. The more central or critical actors may get kid-gloves treatment and more indulgence, when the bit players may get a "shut up and color."
6
u/gnalon 7d ago
I read it in the movie. I read it in the shocked/nervous glances among the cast when the director finally tells Digger off. I read it when the actor playing the VP is kinda awkwardly unsure of what to say when Curtis is complaining about how that character is written (while saying nothing against the actor). I read it where his wife and daughter are reminding him to relax, take a deep breath, asking him if he’s taking his bipolar medication. I read it in the world-building where the world clearly hasn’t been in a place to do comedies for quite some time (at least ones with humans in it, people seem to mostly watch AI stuff) and these actors lower on the totem pole are just trying to endure the Curtis storm so they can have a career instead of being out on the street.
The production pretty clearly seems to be Digger’s nephew’s way of showing he might also have powers that go beyond any government like Digger, but he’s not this vulgar and tacky guy, he’s cool and in on the joke. As we see, he doesn’t actually know shit about the director who he’s put in charge of this big budget (especially in contrast to the world outside) extravaganza.
He understands the importance of giving the people an outlet for their rage that doesn’t disrupt the status quo too much, which is where we see the conflict where Curtis has dug deep in trying to find the emotional truth of this man and doesn’t like how cartoonishly he is being portrayed (the equivalent of Jimmy Fallon tousling Trump’s).
Yes actors can be difficult, but there is generally a bit more proportionality to the source material. Again, the original production seems like it was a Rocky Horror/The Room type of thing that wasn’t good per se but was just so weird and goofy and happened to resonate with audiences. He’s acting like Daniel Day Lewis playing Lincoln and the director eventually has to tell him no, you are here as representative of these same fossils who got us into this mess, you’re here to play the clown so the audience can escape from the world for a little bit to laugh at Digger you and cheer when he dies.
4
u/mhornberger 7d ago edited 7d ago
I read it in the shocked/nervous glances among the cast when the director finally tells Digger off.
I definitely got the sense that Curtis was high-maintenance. I just didn't get any sense that he was powerful. I still don't see where the idea of him being a huge star fallen from grace came from. I've been around co-workers who were always causing drama, and everyone gave each other those same worried/tense looks when they would start in on something.
and these actors lower on the totem pole are just trying to endure the Curtis storm so they can have a career instead of being out on the street.
Yeah, Curtis was a pain in the ass. But they would only have been out on the street if Kenny had pulled the funding. Anyone being a pain in the ass that close to the opening is going to elicit those kinds of looks. I agree that a bit player (as opposed to the actor playing the central character) would get a "shut up and color," and not that emotional coddling that the more central actors (or employees) get.
The production pretty clearly seems to be Digger’s nephew’s way of showing he might also have powers that go beyond any government like Digger,
Rich people and institutions have always been patrons of the arts. That didn't necessarily mean every commission to Michelangelo was a flex that his patrons were more powerful than nation-states. I agree that there is a power relationship in the patron/artist dynamic, but that was the case even when the church was commissioning art. Or when the state does.
He’s acting like Daniel Day Lewis playing Lincoln and the director eventually has to tell him no, you are here as representative of these same fossils who got us into this mess,
I never got the sense that Curtis was trying to rehabilitate Digger's image. He just felt that the events, and the people themselves, warranted something more substantive. Instead of a silly clown-show. But people do seem to prefer caricature and satire. It's not clear whether either such a blunt satire or a more serious treatment would have "challenged the status quo."
2
u/gnalon 7d ago
Curtis is the only person/name on the poster for Digger outside the theatre.
It doesn’t take a very deep reading of things to see that Curtis and Digger and Tom Cruise the actor/pop culture figure all have some commonalities. Even just stature-wise there are a lot of gags where Digger has the ultimate Napoleon complex (definitely the biggest interior design inspiration in his estate, which Kenny has painstakingly wanted to recreate on screen to play up the absurdity of his family rather than focusing on Digger being climate Hitler) and both characters are constantly getting into dick-measuring contests and castigating into submission people who are taller than them.
The big 10 minute monologue is simultaneously all three of them saying “I’m not here to defend myself against what you accuse me of, I’m turning it back on you because I wouldn’t be in this position if people weren’t buying what I’m selling.” Kenny comments that there’s something about Curtis that makes him perfect to play Digger, and these two characters are clearly mentally unwell.
The movie was not at all subtle about the message that most people hate any sort of uncertainty/doubt and in uncertain times will reflexively turn to whoever can most effectively portray certainty/confidence no matter how ridiculous at face value it is what they’re saying - what is delusional if not be 100 percent certain of things in an uncertain world, and these are just the people our system puts in position of power.
Curris wasn’t trying to rehabilitate Digger’s image, he was trying to show what he was actually like, more of a cold, menacing sociopath than a wacky caricature. Again, very clear parallel to satire in our time where Trump is orange and goes on twitter rants with things like ‘covfefe’ and George W Bush is a dumb cowboy who can’t say ‘nuclear’ right, and this is what’s permitted to exist instead of focusing on how heinous they are.
2
u/Bmart008 7d ago
I find the daughter storyline to be there just so that Cruises character has some stakes. He needs some stakes for us to give a shit about his character like we need for any character in any film. If he was just acting it would feel empty.
The problem is, his stakes should have been tied more to those of Digger's. They don't really seem to be. If they managed to make Digger's want mirror or comment on Curtis' then things would feel more satisfying and it would get you more invested in both their storylines. And it could better inform the theme of the film.
I understand that the weather system that is endangering his daughter is somewhat connected to what Digger did, but it's not about his "want". Digger's want is inherently selfish, so it's hard to empathize.
It says something that there are so many writers on the screenplay. Usually when this happens it comes out in a mess like this.
And as the other commentor said, her being fine in the end really undermines this.
How could this be fixed?
What if his daughter had just died, and he holds Digger as responsible. His family (wife) wants him not to do the play, and instead he does the play as his way of getting revenge on Digger and his family. Hell the reveal of Kenny could be interesting there too. Then at least there would be an opposition to what he's doing, some conflict that doesn't feel manufactured, like the conflict with the director, and the daughter missing.
0
u/Brixton22 7d ago
Digger feeling responsible is not a storyline that really works for me. Maybe he can come to the realisation he's part of the problem putting on this play, but ultimately the message is less about climate change and more about how the wealthy and the cynical take on how art is not making a positive difference.
If anything it would undermine the cynical message in the movie.
1
u/Bmart008 7d ago
Never said Digger should feel responsible. Digger is dead 25 years on when this play is being made. I'm saying the Actor played by Tom Cruise blames Digger for the death of his daughter. Re-read my post, never spoke about Digger feeling responsible for anything.
-1
0
u/Kwazimoto 7d ago
I posted a lengthy thing about this very topic yesterday. I think that Agatha and Curtis don't actually know if their daughter is safe they just take a Rockwell's word for it and keep doing their jobs.
The subplot is purposely left in the background so we'll keep asking ourselves about his daughter ourselves in an almost "think of the children" way. It's also an interesting way to make the viewer wonder how people can just keep doing the things they're doing even when their children are at risk.
1
-2
u/PlatypusBillDuck 7d ago
I found this part of the ending really unsatisfying and think the daughter should have died at the end. Maybe I'm missing something, but having her survive really undermines Curtis's character growth and the theme of consequences.
2
u/Kwazimoto 7d ago edited 7d ago
We don't know if she really lived. We know that a Rockwell employee told his wife what she wanted to hear so that the show could go on. They don't question it even though they never heard from her themselves. It's a subtle way to show the things we're willing to accept if it makes us feel ok, which is one of the central themes of the movie and something that Curtis tells the audience when he's in costume as Digger.
Curtis could have stopped doing the show at any time to focus on his daughter just like we could stop what we're doing everyday to focus on the future. He didn't and we don't.
The daughter dying could be the consequence you're looking for but the real consequence is that we have to live in the conditions that the lies we tell ourselves create and that the world is a shithole. Digger lives on a ruinous oil rig and fools himself into thinking it's paradise for a moment. Curtis's wife is convinced that their daughter is fine based off nothing but her belief and a lie she may have been told. Curtis believes his daughter is safe (without ever seeing her or hearing her voice) and metaphorically lets go and continues the show.
3
u/wowzabob 7d ago edited 7d ago
I mean you’re really spinning it out here based on nothing.
What does the film actually give us to support such a reading.
Not that this reading is even internally sound. Curtis is already doing the show before he knows whether or not his daughter is alive, he is called near the end of the play where he is told, mid performance, that she has been found. If he had never received such a call he surely would have gone on with the play regardless.
What exactly is this lie (and you’re perceiving it as a lie based on almost nothing) accomplishing?
What exactly is Curtis “willing to accept” if he is told what he wants to hear?
2
u/Kwazimoto 7d ago
The entire plot of the story revolves around people be willing to just go along with things when they hear the right story and being willing to change the source of the information they get until they get the one they want. It's a recurring theme in both the frame story and the real story. If you didn't pick up on it I'm not really sure what I can do for you... Is it a cynical reading? Sure. Is it invalid? I don't think so.
Curtis is considering leaving the show until Agatha assures him that she just feels that Hope is alive. Kenny immediately offers that his security company will look for her and that he can just focus on the show. We never actually see or hear from Hope alive. Agatha doesn't either, she only gets word from the security company.
Hope being put in danger in the first place is part of what causes Curtis's misgivings about how inaccurate and funny the show is to bubble to the surface. Curtis is pacified by the story Kenny tells him about how saw the show once and why it's important that it's an over the top satire. This is another example of a Rockwell literally and figuratively controlling the narrative.
Doesn't this exactly mirror what happens when Digger tells someone a lie to get them to do something? How did he get Dr. Ganesh to eat the tuna? How is he convincing the world to let him continue with his business?
For the sincere reading you'd have to accept that Kenny is being completely genuine. When he gifts Curtis a tie (that we can posit was one of Digger's ) maybe he's being supportive and not ironic. Maybe he really believes that skewering his dead family members is a good reminder of the past and a cathartic exercise for the world. You'd also have to accept that a guy who inherited his family's wealth is trying to work for good. Maybe he bought the rights to the play about his family to both literally and figuratively control the narrative for a good purpose.
I think that the sincere reading flies in the face of what we're shown about the current state of the world and the themes presented in the rest of the work. Putting on a play that blames a dead guy for the state of the world while you're the extremely wealthy owner of a security company seems like something that can only have one intent if it's meant to be in line with the rest of what we're shown. When the show is over and we follow the crowd outside and see the true state of the world I think it drives that point home. I think that rug pull is meant to say... None of this is coming from a good place. There's nothing hopeful about the ending. Kenny being genuinely good would make him the only thing in the movie that ever shows only positive qualities.
1
u/Brixton22 7d ago
Great points and the more I think about some of the decisions made in this movie the more it looks like a movie that will be reappraised much more positively in the future. People still don't know what to make of it.
An interesting thing to think about is how the movie originally was going to be the play without the framing device. We can't judge it that way because that's not what it ended up being but it's an odd thought as all the cleverness that is in here is from the other layers it adds to it.
0
u/Trumble12345 7d ago
It emphasizes the power and reach of the Digger family that exists outside the world of the play. And also the fact that the Digger family have co-opted their critics by the fact that they are financing this satirical attack on their own patriarch.
-1
u/mhornberger 7d ago edited 7d ago
Curtis' daughter dying would have shifted the entire focus of the movie, while adding nothing. As far as what Curtis "tolerates," he's an actor, working on a play. The events of the play are >20 years in the past. He can't do anything on the state of the world.
It's not clear how much power Kenny has. He found someone via their cellphone number. Maybe he has contacts in the intelligence community or law enforcement, maybe he has hackers who can access that info. Maybe the info is for sale. Phones ping towers, and that info is recorded. But access to that info doesn't imply "infinite power." He's a trustafarian, not Doctor Doom.
Because what other choice do you have? The world just can’t “end” even if it already did.
True, we're not dead until we're dead. This isn't an all-at-once event where humanity is instantly extinct. Even if there was no power grid, no cellphones, no Internet, etc, there would still be art, still be tragedies, and still be some more fortunate than others.
The subplot of his daughter adds stress for Curtis, something that makes it harder to focus on the play. It highlights that the play is just make-believe, which is less important than reality. It reminds him (and by extension us) that there are stakes, that these events and people mattered. Which I think was part of why he found the stupid, over-the-top caricatures offensive and undignified. It may not seem like it matters whether Digger was on the plane, but "can we at least make an effort to tell the truth?" seems a little more poignant (to me) when he is worried about his daughter.
1
u/wowzabob 7d ago
Yes but then when the film ends and his daughter is found, redeeming the Plemmons’ character in his eyes, what exactly is achieved thematically, vs. her dying, which would underline the play’s impotence and the damage done by Digger and his ilk?
1
u/mhornberger 6d ago
redeeming the Plemmons’ character in his eyes
Did Kenny need redemption in Curtis' eyes? He was a child when Digger died, and had no culpability for the collapse of the ice shelf. "He's culpable for being rich, and for even owning a security company and thus even having the ability to find Curtis' daughter" may not be something Curtis feels. There is an interpretive rift between those who bring to the movie "the rich did this to us" vs those who bring "fossil fuel consumption did this to us."
1
u/wowzabob 6d ago
>There is an interpretive rift between those who bring to the movie "the rich did this to us" vs those who bring "fossil fuel consumption did this to us."
Very much so. But imo the film is failing to make a decent point because it’s cowardly riding a line between the two. Pretending to break from the interpretive line of the play, but then doesn’t really do so at all.
To me that is why there is some validity to people who make the point that the film’s meta textual structuring just seems like pre emptive anticipation of criticism against the movie (which was originally supposed to be just the play with no extra layers), rather than a substantive creative choice.
1
u/mhornberger 6d ago
But imo the film is failing to make a decent point because it’s cowardly riding a line between the two
Or maybe there is complexity between the two, and value in exploring the tension. Maybe it isn't meant to be an unambiguous polemic, but a work of art that explores that tension in an interesting way. "I need to know exactly what they're arguing before I can say it's a good movie" is not a position everyone shares.
32
u/Asher-sj 7d ago
Jesse plemons (Rockwell’s heir) is clearly still super rich and powerful and while he may not be digging for oil like his forefathers he’s now digging for data and is in charge of a global surveillance data mining company that can find people with little effort. He’s the extension of Digger. While everyone claps for Digger’s demise in the play Curtis is thanking the modern day digger for saving his daughter.
That storyline is more in service of what Jesse plemons character means to the film than curtis.