By Nadia Ranaputri
 |
| Image credit: IMDB |
Director: Simon Stone
Cast: Ralph Fiennes, Carey Mulligan, Lily James, Archie Barnes, Johnny Flynn, Ben Chaplin.
When I was around nine or ten years old, archeology was something that I actually wanted to learn. What drove me to be interested in it was because of films like Jurassic Park and Indiana Jones. I wanted to be a part of that, to witness a piece of history right in front of my eyes. I read several books on it, and it raised my fascination even more. However, I didn't end up studying archeology, though I can't help but wish that I did sometimes. Nonetheless, I'm happy with where I am, but my general interest of archeology still stands, mainly because it has a lot to do with history, something that I was also captivated by. Which is why when a film like The Dig comes into the fray, it immediately appealed to me.
The Dig revolves around the real-life Sutton Hoo excavation that took place in the eve of World War II, and tells the story of Basil Brown (Ralph Fiennes), a self-taught excavator who's brought in by Edith Pretty (Carrey Mulligan) to examine and excavate the grounds of her property, which she speculates to have something hidden in the depths. Soon, Brown and Pretty get more than what they bargained for, as Brown discovers pieces of a ship much older than the Viking age (Anglo-Saxon, to be exact, as Brown assumed in his early findings of the treasure). While this discovery draws many eyes, including more excavators and representatives of the British Museum, it also brings the question of ownership, recognition, and credibility.
The Dig is quite a stoic one for a film about archeology, but I enjoyed that stoic pace most of the time. There are no curses that come in the way of unearthing a buried treasure, just constant excavations and the excitement of finding little pieces of the past. Despite it being revolved around archeology, it's a self-contained film with other themes built around it. It is a slow burn film, but I certainly don't mind it. That slow burn really sets the stage for the revelation of the buried treasure. With the excavation and reveal of the treasure, the film's first half displays its peak aspects, where it becomes an engaging drama with a touch of historical charm. The fact that this was based on a true story about the Sutton Hoo excavation makes it all the more intriguing. This is the kind of film for those who enjoy period pieces and of course, archeology, because it does play out like your typical period drama. I'm not usually a fan of period piece, unless it involves some sort of major historical event (like World War, or in this film's case, the excavation of an ancient relic), so what this film brought to the table was enough to get my attention and I was invested most of the time. The second half however, is where it starts to show its cracks, and we'll get to that later on.
 |
| Image credit: IMDB |
In addition, it introduced its characters well, and it lays the film's main plot fairly well. From their long walks and excavation process, the film leaves handy little snippets of backstory and motivations, particularly that of Basil Brown and Mrs. Pretty. As someone who was once interested in the field of archeology, I wasn't surprised that I was drawn to both Mulligan's Mrs. Pretty and Fiennes' Basil Brown. Being the self-taught excavator that he is, Brown is easy to like, he displays warmth towards both Mrs. Pretty and her son, in scenes that gave the film an elevated charm. His passion for excavation is made clear, "I’ve been on dig since I was old enough to hold a trowel," Brown says. Edith Pretty returns the sentiment, "My interest in archeology began like yours." The chemistry between the two characters are also charming, building on a work partnership that eventually becomes a lasting friendship. Of course, this is especially helped by nuanced and endearing performances by Carey Mulligan and Ralph Fiennes. They click off incredibly well, and it was quite delightful to see the progression of their relationship. If the whole movie revolved only around Mulligan and Fiennes, I would be more than happy.
But I feel like it held itself back, only really discussing the surface of its themes. Once you brush the archeological aspect aside, the film points out themes like the struggle for ownership, or perhaps the bigger picture, what legacy we leave behind once we're gone, and the fear of loneliness. The latter is the one that's discussed the most, but even then, you don't get a lot out of it. Then there's the World War II aspect. This should have been the perfect opportunity to utilize that aspect for meaningful scenes and raise the stakes, but it doesn't do that. Instead, it's merely something shown in the background, the only sense of urgency being a passing RAF aircraft as the excavators make a short comment on the ongoing war. If you're going to bring in something as dire as World War II, or Mrs. Pretty's fear of decay and loneliness, you might as well use it as means of giving the film more depth and stakes. Unfortunately, the film falters in achieving that. It seems that the film is trying to balance all these themes, but never really delving into them. These themes had the potential to really raise the film to be a deep and poignant piece, it certainly leaned towards that at times, but then it suddenly swerves away from that point before it even got to the finish line.
 |
| Image credit: IMDB |
Moreover, the romance arc between a neglected wife and a photographer in this film felt unnecessary. It was thrown out of nowhere, and left in the film to burn out as soon as it appeared. There was no clear resolution to it, and it felt like the film really stepped aside to give what little time it has to it, when they could have used it to give the story something more than what it end up being. Because once the film turns into a romance, it doesn't feel like it belonged in the film. It's placed awkwardly somewhere between the end of the second act, and towards the third act, and it wasn't even treated like a main plot point, just something lurking in the background while all the other interesting things are happening. It's like if someone took notice of the background extras during a big scene between the main characters, then gave these background characters a close-up on what they're doing as our main characters are off progressing the plot. What these background characters are doing ends up taking the attention away from the main plot, and it's given little to no care to the point where it has no impact to the film. That is the romance arc of The Dig in a nutshell. It's the kind of arc that when taken away, it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Flaws aside, The Dig isn't a terrible film, it's not even close to a bad film, not in the slightest. It just felt disappointing, considering how much potential it had to be a riveting film about archeology and how a piece of the past connects to life in the present. I don't mind it's stoic feel, but I expected much more from a film that presents these themes that had all these things to make it truly soar, especially when it has Ralph Fiennes and Carey Mulligan as the leads. As a matter of fact, the performances are the ones that drive the film together. If it weren't for the standout screen presence of Fiennes and Mulligan, it probably wouldn't have even taken off at all, even if it still ended up a little one-note. Despite being far from the age of the real Edith Pretty at the time (Pretty was 50 years old during the excavation), Mulligan brought life into what could have been a detached and uninteresting character, yet she made it work. And Fiennes brings a hearty performance as the humbled Basil Brown, and you would probably get the most out of his character. So how would I wrap my thoughts on it with nice little bow? A film with a lot potential, but also lacks the enthusiasm to bring its potentials to fruition. The word "potential" seems fairly overused, especially since I too use it a lot here, but that's one of the few ways I'd describe the film, and that's all there is to it.
 |
| Image credit: IMDB |
Overall verdict: The Dig isn't the most outstanding film, but it's a fairly harmless film that you could watch on a cold day with a steaming cup of tea and a cozy sweater. It very much plays out like a standard period piece, so it won't appeal to everyone. However, the archeology aspect was what drew me to this film in the first place. It had an intriguing setup that established the film in an interesting way. The film really soared in the first act, crafting the goal of the story and setting up a soulful character dynamic between Fiennes' Basil Brown and Mulligan's Edith Pretty. Furthermore, the fact that it's accompanied in a World War II setting should have made all the more compelling, but it never gets to that point, and that's where the film starts to lose its footing. Sometime during the second act, the archeological element of the story are presented with other aspects like death, decay, loneliness; all terrific themes that would have made the film to be much more than it is, yet the film barely scratches the surface on those themes, instead sidelining them in favor of a romantic arc that had no point being there and wasn't even fully developed. But for what it's worth, it's the screen presence of Fiennes and Mulligan that prevented it from falling flat on its face, even if it still ends up inches away from doing so. Overall, The Dig is not a terrible film by any means, it just strayed too far from the very potentials that could have made it so much more than what it turned out to be.
Stars: 3/5
The Dig is available to watch on Netflix
0 Comments