Thursday, September 3, 2015

Digging for Fire

Watching Digging for Fire, it’s clear almost immediately that this is the film Joe Swanberg has been leading up to. The movie has a maturity to it that is undeniable. The camera is often dead still, absent of visual flourishes. The frame is captured with smooth control on gorgeous 35mm by Ben Richardson, who did photographical wonders as the DP of Beasts of the Southern Wild. The score, by Dan Romer, who also worked on Beasts of the Southern Wild, is a synth-infused marvel, giving depth to scenes that may otherwise have little. And then there’s the cast, of which there isn’t a false note to be found. The opening credits read like a call sheet of the finest talents currently in the game.

These are all things I assessed about Digging for Fire five minutes into its breezy 85-minute run time. I didn’t know what the film was about or where it was going, but I knew it would be wise to care.

Plot isn’t a big part of Swanberg’s films. Actually, very few of his 17 features have any plot at all. Instead, Swanberg’s films are about character, and story. Famously, Swanberg shoots his films with only a brief outline of what the movie will be. The actors improvise all their dialogue, and the footage is edited together (typically by Swanberg himself) to form a coherent narrative.
At its core, Digging for Fire is about a shifting marriage. Though Tim (Jake Johnson) and Lee (Rosemarie DeWitt) seem happy, it’s clear that they’re both, individually, battling the purpose of their matrimony. The couple are house sitting in a glorious abode in the hills around L.A. After a night together, Lee takes their son, Jude (Swanberg’s own son, stealing scenes here as easily as he did in Swanberg’s last film, Happy Christmas), to her parents’ house so that Tim can do their taxes in solitude. The wife is going to watch the kid, the husband is going to settle the taxes. Simple.

Yet neither of those things happen. Instead, Tim finds a bone and an old pistol in the yard, and begins digging for more artifacts incessantly. What could he possibly be looking for? And why? Lee dumps the kid with her parents, and sets out for a night alone, looking for purpose, a connection. When Tim isn’t digging, he has friends over to distract him. There’s Ray (Sam Rockwell) and Billy T (Chris Messina), loners who bring the party to the party, including women (Anna Kendrick and Brie Larson). There’s Phil (Mike Birbiglia), who tries and fails to hold Tim accountable for his potential misdeeds. Lee meets up with people too, including her friends (played by Ron Livingston and the ever-great Melanie Lynskey), who argue about nothing in front of their friends because, well, welcome to life.

These are the people who consume Digging for Fire. The people you’re asked to care about, even if it’s just for a scene. The people you’re supposed to empathize with, to understand, to relate to.
Relatability is a big part of film criticism today. Not a week goes by when I don’t read “Well, I didn’t like the film because I couldn’t relate to any of the characters…” in a review. I’ve never understood that particular brand of criticism. I don’t relate to many of the characters in many of my favorite films, but I still love those movies. Jules Winnfield and I have nothing in common (okay, we both say “motherfucker” a lot), but I still adore Pulp Fiction. I pride myself on sharing no similarities with Hannibal Lecter, but The Silence of the Lambs is still a great film. If you don’t like a movie, you don’t like a movie – fair enough. But not liking a movie simply because you have nothing in common with the characters is shoddy criticism, at best.

I mention this buzz word – relatability – because it’s something Joe Swanberg’s films are criticized a lot for. His characters are too vapid, too whiney, too privileged. Fair points, but just because you may not be any of those things doesn’t mean the entire film is a bust. I often can’t personally relate to Swanberg’s characters. I like some of his films and I dislike others. Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. Not being able to relate isn’t necessarily bad, but, inversely, being able to relate is always good.

That was Digging for Fire for me. I’ve been these characters. I’ve been the friend with little responsibility who brings the party to the party. I’ve been the couple who awkwardly find themselves in a quiet argument in front of friends. I’ve been the accountable friend who cautions his buddy against temptation. I’ve been the person walking around the city alone, looking for purpose, a connection, something. And I’ve certainly been the guy digging in the ground, trying to find something to latch onto. What was the point of all that digging? What could I have possibly been looking for? Hell, maybe I wasn’t even digging at all. A-

18 comments:

  1. I totally agree with you on this one dude. I think this is Swanberg's best film to date (and it's really felt like he's been getting better with each film recently imo) and it's just full of lovely, naturalistic performances.
    Your last few paragraphs remind me of a somewhat recent conversation between Bret Easton Ellis and Alex Ross Perry when the latter was on the former's podcast. They were talking about how some people didn't like Perry's film Listen Up, Phillip because they couldn't relate to the main character and how that really didn't do a whole lot in terms of actual conversation (whether or not people actually enjoyed the film on other levels - technically, in terms of writing, etc.) and I, for the most part, have always felt like Swanberg is a film maker who's characters are relatable. Perhaps it's because a decent amount of his films take place in Chicago, in and around neighborhoods and districts that I've been to or know - so I kind of feel like I know these characters a little bit better maybe than people who don't come from the same areas.

    Also - Brie Larson OMG dude.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Awesome man, glad we agree here. I think, for the most part, the chronological progression of Swanberg's career correlates with the strength of his material. Though Drinking Buddies did nothing for me, but that's okay. I loved that BEE/ARP interview as well (that's my favorite podcast). I actually forgot they discussed the whole notion of relatability , but that's a great pull on your part. Spot on.

      Dude, Larson... my god.

      Delete
  2. Joe Swanberg films are a hit or miss for me, but I'm looking forward for this one. The cast alone seems fantastic. Great review!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! They're typically hit or miss for me as well (didn't like Drinking Buddies, loved Happy Christmas. But this one, thanks much in part to the superb cast, is definitely worth while.

      Delete
  3. Great review! I've only seen Drinking Buddies and Happy Christmas, but I really liked both of them. I didn't know this was Swanberg, but the second I saw Rosemarie DeWitt and Melanie Lynskey's names in the cast, I knew I must watch it.

    I really admire what you said about characters being relatable. I'll admit though, there are some movies that I found myself unenthusiastic about or indifferent towards but appreciate, like Top Gun (though Take My Breath Away is a song I'll never hate). Still, I think as I've grown older, I've made a more conscious effort to be more open minded while watching films, which I think has been really beneficial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can you possibly go wrong with DeWitt and Lynskey!? I adore both of them so much, two of my favorite actors currently working.

      Thanks for the kind words. And to be clear, not liking a movie is perfectly fine. I don't like Top Gun either, but that has nothing to do with the fact that I don't relate to the characters in any way, you know?

      Delete
  4. I haven't seen anything by Joe Swanberg. Then again, I haven't seen much of the whole mumblecore thing. I tend to avoid trends though Swanberg does interest me. Any idea of where to start as far as Swanberg is concerned?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had trouble getting into mumblecore as well, but there is some minor gold to be found in the movement. If you watch Swanberg's last 5 films, you'll have a very good idea of the type of filmmaker he is. They're all short and very easy to consume.

      Drinking Buddies, Happy Christmas and Digging for Fire are the more popular of the bunch, but I really like All the Light in the Sky, and I think you would too. There's some fantastic melancholy in that one, some minor Three Colors: Blue. 24 Exposures is sexploitation - you'll either like it or detest it. Drinking Buddies did nothing for me, but I like Happy Christmas and loved Digging for Fire.

      Delete
  5. There's a certain comfort in your posts, AW, I always enjoy them.

    I'm not the biggest fan of Swanberg's work, as in, I haven't seen too much of it, but I certainly appreciate the approach. This one sounds like something I'd enjoy, and the cast is f--king killer.

    It's interesting what you say about relatability, and I initially disagreed. Strongly.

    But, after considering it, you're right. Most of my favorite movies feature people in situations I will never f--king experience. If I could relate to these people, more movies would be about uninspired jerks. And nobody wants that.

    I think critics (myself included, I suppose?) confuse relatability with likability. I've got very little in common with The Dude, but I f--king like that guy. A lot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks bud. I was nervous about diving into the relatability stuff, because so many critics/bloggers use that criticism as a crutch. It isn't my intention to offend anyone, but I've always felt that was lazy criticism. Your comment about The Dude is perfect. Very few functional, working adults have much in common with him. Yet we all love him.

      Delete
  6. I'm not going to read this before I watch it but I'm so glad you gave it A- because I expect it to be great and your ratings are always bang on for me personally. So I'm expecting to love it ! :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Awesome! Can't wait to hear what you think of it!

      Delete
  7. I only saw Drinking Buddies, but I loved the laid back characters and dialogues.

    Criticism like 'didn't relate to the characters' seem a bit subjective IMO. But all opinions are a bit subjective, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Opinions by design are subjective, for sure. I just don't find that to be telling criticism at all. I'll be interested to hear what you think of Digging for Fire if you see it.

      Delete
  8. I loved the naturalism of Drinking Buddies and Happy Christmas, so I'm watching this very soon. Glad you liked it!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Life experience is the best tool for filmmaker right? That is what i thought after reading this review (:

    ReplyDelete