Digging for Fire

Tim (Jake Johnson), his wife Lee (Rosemarie DeWitt) and son spend some time in her client's hillside home. Tim finds a gun in the yard but the cops are uninterested. Lee and her son visit her parents while Tim is suppose to finish his work. Instead of work, his friends Phil (Mike Birbiglia), Ray (Sam Rockwell) and others come to hang out. The guys start digging up where Tim found the gun and they find a bone. They are joined by others to do drugs. Tim and Max (Brie Larson) find a shoe and they continue the dig the next day finding even more bones. Ben (Orlando Bloom) rescues Lee from a drunk at a bar.

Director Joe Swanberg continues to make his improvisational indies. The idea of digging and discovery does infuse the movie with an obsessive quality. It works well to keep the intensity up. It does mean that Lee has the lesser half of the movie. In fact, the movie would work better pointing the focus at Tim. There are lots of ways the dig could go. The cops could actually come. The owner could come home early. However Swanberg seems more interested in the couple's relationship.

I don't really like Joe Swanberg and his improvisational style, but I keep watching his movies because of the casts he assembles (plus they're usually super short and hardly painful or anything). There are a ton of good people in Digging for Fire (also Orlando Bloom), perhaps too many. Several have little to do. The plot here is borderline nonsensical, and, like the other Swanberg films I've seen, it doesn't amount to much in the end. Jake Johnson and Rosemarie DeWitt star as a married couple with a 3-year old. They have been asked to housesit for one of DeWitt's rich clients (I think she's a yoga instructor). While exploring, Johnson finds a gun and a bone half buried in the backyard. DeWitt immediately forbids Johnson from informing the police (as any normal human being would), and a second argument about their son's preschool sends her to the home of her parents (Judith Light and Sam Elliot). Meanwhile, Johnson throws a party (where Sam Rockwell, Mike Birbiglia, Anna Kendrick, Chris Messina and Brie Larson show up). He and Larson are intrigued by the mystery and start digging further. Later on, DeWitt will run into Orlando Bloom and both members of the couple are sexually tempted. The whole body in the backyard thing is just symbolism, but the police really ought to have been called.

Another chill Swanberg movie, where likable, real characters talk about life's problems, or talk around them (it's not mumblecore anymore I guess). This one is driven by maybe his most straight-forward storyline yet; ostensibly it's about re-kindling a marriage through both a literal and figurative "Digging For Fire."

A great cast, character-driven humor (who knew Orlando Bloom would be a fit in something like this?) and a coked up Sam Rockwell -- would someone please give this man a seriously great role?

I liked it quite a bit, like I like most of Swanberg's stuff, but I'm still waiting for that breakthrough experience from him. The kind of humanity and minor profundity of Linklater or someone like that.

This is a movie about nothing. That's fine for a half-hour episode of Seinfeld, because it's amusing and entertaining. This movie is neither. It's humorless, tedious and somewhat painful to watch.

I like slice-of life movies. I don't need action. I don't need anything to really happen as long as I experience something I normally wouldn't experience in everyday life. This movie is anyone's very ordinary everyday life with some amount of coincidence and absurdity added. Rather than creating interest, though, these devices only prevent anything genuine from emerging.

Only one of the two main characters is believable, and both lack color and depth. That's a serious flaw in a movie where almost nothing happens. A transformation of sorts does take place, but it feels contrived. The events leading up to the transformation don't in any way suggest that it should occur, or why.

I'm giving the movie 4 out of 10 because someone might get something from it, and because there are a few brief moments that I liked. Also, the acting is at least adequate.The movie is inferior, but not horrible. Observing everyday life on a long walk would be a better way to spend 90 minutes, though.

I greatly enjoyed a couple of Joe Swanberg's previous films, 'Drinking buddies' and 'Happy Christmas.' In both those instances I think Swanberg's largely improvisational style of film-making served the pictures very well, as the loose framework of the narrative allowed the casts room to really explore the characters and the dynamics between them - and that was all they needed to be to succeed. That notion isn't one that necessarily works for every story concept, however, and I wonder if this isn't an example of a movie that isn't served as well by Swanberg's usual method. I still like 'Digging for fire,' but it's distinctly less engaging, and the viewing experience is one that comes and goes without making much of a mark.

The scene writing, such as it is, provides some fine scattered ideas. As the cast obviously had a substantial role in shaping what each scene ended up being, I think all are too be commended for finding a thought for each in turn that was meaningful, like sparse seeds that each could grow into something bigger. For that matter, I really like the cast, an ensemble filled with recognizable names, and all play their parts very well. Dan Romer's music is also lightly flavorful - nothing super remarkable, perhaps, but a nice touch layered on top of the proceedings. And from a technical standpoint, and concerning all those contributions from behind the scenes, I think this is pretty solid.

The issue I think have is that the very concept in this case portends a more specific, linear, crafted narrative, and Swanberg's improvisational approach is best suited for material in which characters have personal discoveries and the actors can probe the spaces in between it all. In 'Digging for fire, "the discovery of a bone and a gun send a husband and wife on separate adventures over the course of a weekend." That's not to say that the actors and characters can't also have like experiences in the manner Swanberg is known for, and sure enough that is definitely what we get in some measure amidst interesting story ideas. Still, this feature comes across as less focused, and with what feels like less leeway to do and be what they will, each moment comes off as a tad forced, or maybe contrived. All the great ideas that collectively form feel imbalanced and uncertain between standing individually as seeds of potential, and fitting together in the construction of a whole; between being organic manifestations and revelations of improvisation, and structured, deliberate machinations of a course laid in. The end result feels divided.

I repeat that I do actually like this, and I think in totality it's stronger and more enjoyable than not. I earnestly appreciate everything that Swanberg, Jake Johnson, the huge and admirable cast, and the crew poured into it. There's substantial skill and intelligence all throughout, and even kernels of outright brilliance. "Substance" is a key term, however, for this struggles with wanting to be both an assemblage of characters and actors in a singular space, discovering what emerges, and a carefully plotted delineation of separate rooms (scenes) that complete a definitive course of events. For all the value herein, it feels less meaningful. When all is said and done I think this is a title that's absolutely worth checking out if you're a big fan of someone involved, or just looking for something a bit more out of the ordinary. All the same, set aside the recognizable names and faces and 'Digging for fire' isn't necessarily anything special, and the recommendation it earns is a soft and casual one.