Something in the Dirt

Another original film by the duo Benson/Moorhead. But this time was more focused on drama and character development by the two lead protagonists/directors. The mystery of the phenomenon had me pretty interested throughout the movie but at certain point I kinda gave up on it since the accent was put so much more on the effects and the relationship between the two guys rather than the story or the origin of the phenomenon.

BUT, this film also gave me strong Resolution (2012) vibes. Resolution too was a movie about two dudes in similar situation but with very different relationship and backstories, then years later The Endless (2017) explained in glorious way the questions we had about The Resolution back in 2012.

It may be silly to assume, but we miiight just get another sequel/prequel regarding the unanswered backstory of Something in the Dirt.

Not even sure what to make of this. I'm told this was conceived and initiated during Covid and I applaud Benson and Moorhead for keeping the creative spark alive during this difficult time. But this film, frugally shot with sparse cameras, small cast, and minimal sets, falls bizarrely flat in the second half after a promising and intriguing start. An interesting and unexplainable phenomenon occurs, which could have led to multiple potential legit sci-fi storylines. Okay, I'm hooked. But soon, the tale dissolves into confusing pseudo-science banter, and wild conspiracy theories, with a side dose of anger and paranoia. In the end, nothing is really resolved and the whole event could just as easily have been explained away as the result of a lengthy acid trip. I think I'll just say "weirdly unsatisfying" and leave it at that.

Justin and Aaron's masterpieces came early in their career (Resolution, Spring, and The Endless), so as fans we expect to get that type of storytelling and movie making every time. We expect greatness every time, so when it's not, we're literally disappointed, and maybe even saddened. This movie may be great, this review is based on one viewing, but as of now I was totally letdown. It had all the elements of a classic Benson and Moorhead production, and until we got over the 1 hour mark, I still had hope (Remember, not much happened in the first half of Resolution), but as the movie was getting closer and closer to the end, I knew this wasn't going to make it to their "Mount Rushmore" of films. I love conspiracy theories and sci-fi, but the movie provided no definitive answers, and honestly became hard to keep track of the more the movie progressed.

This sounds like a hit piece, it's not meant to be. I'm just a huge fan overly expressing my disappointment with the movie not being another "Resolution" or "The Endless" (although I counted 5 Easter eggs to The Endless in this movie). These guys will always be in my top tier of movie makers and writers and I will always be a huge fan. I will still continue to get excited for EVERY movie they make.

If you ever had an argument with a true believer in some wacky conspiracy theory, you know that logic, reason, evidence and fact get you nowhere with these people.

There is a different approach to confronting them, one which is rarely practiced because it is difficult to pull off both convincingly and usefully. Let's call this approach "amplification": instead of trying to reason with this crowd, you try to one-up them in the most ludicrous way which still maintains a hair of plausibility (at least to those already deep into a conspiratorial mindset). So, every detail that even the conspiracy theorist overlooked becomes important, every theory they come up with is explained by a yet deeper theory, which, if they inquire about it, has its origin in yet a deeper theory, all based on a vast collection of seemingly random facts and events.

The point of amplification is to fight absurdity with even more and outrageous absurdity, in the hope that at some point the conspiracy theorists realize on their own how ridiculous it all is. It is irony on steroids. A real-life example, albeit created more for the sake of satire than refutation, is the "birds aren't real" movement.

I feel that SOMETHING IN THE DIRT is the cinematic equivalent of amplification. Two struggling co-tenants happen to come across a supernatural phenomenon and decide to try to turn their luck by making a documentary out of it in order to win money and prizes.

The conceit of the story is that every single thread they follow, no matter how random or stupid, turns out to have some eerie significance in terms of connecting to other random or stupid threads. Their world is, in short, a conspiracy theorist's paradise, a universe in which nothing is random, yet at the same time nothing can mean anything because the meaning is always deferred to the next connecting thread.

As the movie uncompromisingly follows the two protagonists' voyage deep into the head-spinning rabbit hole, we understand less and less what is causing the original supernatural phenomenon. At the same time, though, we gain a better understanding of the flaws that predisposed the two characters to become conspiracy theorists coming from vastly different backgrounds. Their flaws rob them of success in their venture, but not of their humanity, and so the characters are a mirror to the current age of Qanon and other stupid conspiracy theories.

Reading some of the reviews, I feel that many viewers have misunderstood the movie. At the end, the phenomenon and many other strange connections are left completely unexplained, and it seems many people did not like this.

But the movie really could not have done otherwise without compromising its integrity because offering a resolution to the mysteries the characters encounter, any resolution at all, would have undermined its central aim. It would have turned the film from an anti-conspiracy theory movie to just another conspiracy theory movie. I am not a big fan of open endings in movies, but in this case I can understand that it was absolutely necessary to make the point.

The technical aspects of the movie are fine, and the central premise is ingenious. The greatest challenge this movie faces, I think, is to convey to the audience what exactly it is about, a challenge rendered all the more daunting by the fact that there really isn't any other movie like it. Movies with a message have to thread a fine line between being too obvious and preachy and being too obscure and mystifying. I think if DIRT had erred a little less on the side of being obscure, it could have communicated its message more clearly, a message which is more important now than ever.

Diverting enough flick written and directed by the stars. Two thirty-somethings, who can barely swing the monthly rent on the dives they live in, are neighbors in an apartment building. As they introduce themselves they find that perhaps they are too different to hang. Then, an ashtray starts to float in a halo of light. When they come to terms with the floating and glowing of things they realize that have to film this. This is proof of ghosts, or aliens, or afterlife, or whatever it is. They have to film it, edit it into a cohesive documentary, and get rich quick. So that's what they set out to do, aside from and around their arguments. As they argue and insult they uncover truths and each other's pain in life.