What's behind the pile-on for 'Oscar contender' and stinging satire, Digger?

What's behind the pile-on for 'Oscar contender' and stinging satire, Digger? Imagine being at the top of your game in Hollywood after a lifetime of hard work and using that privilege to create one of the most daringly original art-house satires since Dr. Strangelove. Then imagine being in an era of online film criticism in which reviewers can appear eager to take the wind from the sails of a high-stakes project the moment it's launched. Digger director Alejandro González Iñárritu and the film's star, Tom Cruise, must feel stuck in the doldrums. With accusations of "auteurist grandstanding", being an "insufferable slog", and an obsession with opening weekend box office takings, words such as "flop" have been bandied about as if Digger was a terrible "misfire". What it is, however, is a brilliantly executed modern take on the satire that will almost certainly be nominated for several Oscars, and one with a sharp sting that will ache long after you've left the cinema. That's my subjective view, of course, and Digger is not without flaws. But I wonder if some critics unable to objectively credit the craftsmanship at work here — whether they liked the film or not — had something else on the mind. Indeed, a large divide has already appeared between published reviews and audience feedback. Aggregator sites such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are giving the film audiences score of 7.2 and 76 per cent, respectively, compared to aggregated critic scores of 46pc and 53pc. There has also been a surge in passionate defenders of Digger on social media as people encourage others to ignore the commentary and see it themselves — a request Warner Bros (in damage control) has also adopted while urging viewers to "decide for yourself". "There definitely seems to be a push for the film to fail, with reports immediately surfacing about much the film is losing after a less than stellar opening weekend," Adelaide University's Peter C Pugsley said. The School of Communication, Media and Journalism associate professor said "attention-seeking headlines throw around figures like a '$250-million loss' without indicating the film's important messages about the excesses of corporate greed, political corruption, and our willingness to stand by as environmental devastation occurs". "Some critics write at length how 'awful' the film is, but then engage in some serious fence-sitting about how it might be a worthy Oscar contender." Ben Affleck has likened the phenomenon of the pile-on to "high school bullying" and "cultural schadenfreude" or, in regular speak, tall poppy syndrome and taking pleasure in seeing prominent figures fall. So what is going on? A 'sport' in trashing big budget films Melbourne Cinematheque president and RMIT University Associate Professor Adrian Danks said the film's trailer may have contributed to animosity because it was largely seen as being misleading. He also said it was becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between professional reviews and "the much wider ecology of film reviewing and commentary". "That said, there is a trend to treat some large budget Hollywood films in this fashion," Dr Danks said. "There is a tendency to be critical of high-budget, seemingly somewhat personal films that might seem something of an overstretch, and in this case starring an actor hardly beyond criticism … in the social media age, once this process starts, it's hard to stop." He said it was not uncommon for the public to occasionally round on Cruise, usually for his wider public profile rather than his acting. "This is also something of a sport," Dr Danks said. "Think of the many films that have suffered this fate, for one reason or another, dating back to at least the 1960s and including films like Paint Your Wagon, Heaven's Gate, which is probably the closest parallel, Waterworld, etc." Dr Pugsley said prosthetics made Cruise mostly unrecognisable in Digger but, because his role was necessarily "over the top", some critics might have seen it as "blatant Oscar-bait appeal for him to finally win Best Actor". "Or is it a case of rewriting Iñárritu's legacy of films like The Revenant and Birdman, the latter described disparagingly by one critic as a film defined by its 'splashy theatrics'?" he said. "Quite the accusation. Has that critic seen Barbie, perchance?" There have been plenty of highly favourable reviews published about Digger, of course, and they continue to emerge. But for now, at least, they remain outnumbered. Is it group think? Dr Danks said the early negatively that emerged was unlikely to be a case of group think, but rather a matter of needing to get a review or opinion "out there as fast as possible". "We are a long way from an era where longer-form criticism — say, the writing of Pauline Kael — could make a significant difference, as a film was released in stages," he said. "But there is also some glee in playing the game that the major studios play, where a film is made or broken on its first weekend." Dr Danks also pointed out that there were "far fewer paid reviewers" today, and that the modern mode of criticism was often dependent on "less measured reviews". "Most reviewers are required to give a star-rating and, I imagine, encouraged to be a bit more polarising, in keeping with the wider culture," he said. It's worth pointing out that another satire that took aim at political failures and corruption regarding climate change mitigation, 2021's Don't Look up, was also panned by critics on its release. Like Digger, it shares a disparity between critic responses and audiences': 49pc and 6.6 respectively on Metacritic, and 56pc and 78pc on Rotten Tomatoes. On that occasion, however, there was a sense some media agencies didn't like how the film held a somewhat unflattering mirror to their faces. Newsrooms are packed with big egos, after all, and having their image bruised by a film like Digger, in which Cruise's character sinks a cowboy boot into society's hypocrisy over its addiction to oil, is unlikely to win it friends — even if it's true. "The negative reviews all seem to touch on the same 'problems' with the film, including that it is too 'heavy-handed' in its critiques of capitalism," Dr Pugsley said. "To take a more conspiratorial stance, one could argue that the owners of the mass media are increasingly willing to take the sides of the mega-rich and the fossil fuel industries, adding pressure on critics or editors to downplay such a revolutionary film as Digger." As well as Affleck, a growing list of celebrities and artists including Anne Hathaway, Jane Fonda, Neil Young, Tom Waits, Guillermo Toro, Ron Howard and Alfonso Cuarón have come out publicly to defend the film. They've warned that when daring, big-budget films such as Digger are rejected, it results in less risk-taking by studios and more homogenised films (think Marvel and tired superhero franchises). "I think a stand is also being made here, by people like Affleck and Young, that we do need to support films like this emerging from the mainstream, films that are outside the norm, ambitious and socially critical," Dr Danks said. He said many films suffering the fate of Digger found supporters and were often reassessed at a later date. "I would say it's generally true that we don't really know the true value of a film until much later," Dr Danks said. "Many of the films we celebrate now, particularly from Hollywood, were much less successful, financially and critically, when first released." This includes classics like Blade Runner, John Carpenter's The Thing, Fight Club, The Shining, Vertigo and Metropolis. Regardless of your tastes, a cultural phenomenon is underway in our cinemas. For me, Digger is a level-four — sorry, four-star — film at least, and I'll probably see it again, if I can convince someone to join me.