The problem is, of course, the scale of the project. Estimates of the production budget vary depending on the source: some put it at around $125 million, whilst others suggest between $160 million and $180 million. On top of this would be a marketing campaign costing up to $100 million. In the worst-case scenario, *Digger* would therefore need several hundred million dollars in box-office takings to break even. Estimates are already suggesting a potential loss of $150 million, or even more.
The result is all the more striking given that Warner Bros. had hoped for a North American opening of around $18 to $20 million. With $8 million, *Digger* has recorded one of the worst openings of Tom Cruise’s career and his lowest since *Lions for Lambs* in 2007.
But to reduce the failure of *Digger* to mere figures would be to miss what makes this case particularly interesting. Iñárritu has not made a new *Mission: Impossible*. On the contrary, he uses Cruise’s heroic image to subvert it. The actor plays Digger Rockwell, a powerful oil tycoon faced with an environmental disaster that he himself helped to cause. The film is a black comedy, a deliberately disorienting ecological and political satire. It deliberately rejects some of the very mechanisms that have turned Cruise into a blockbuster machine.
Perhaps this is where the paradox lies: Warner Bros. has financed a film at blockbuster cost that possesses neither the narrative simplicity nor the commercial promise of a blockbuster. An original, provocative and hard-to-sell film can, of course, reach a wide audience. But when it costs well over $100 million even before promotion begins, it is doomed to attract a massive audience. *Digger* seems to have been conceived with a franchise-style budget for a potential arthouse audience.
The reception hasn’t helped matters. The film has strongly divided critics, and American audiences have given it a CinemaScore of C+, a worrying result for a film that needs massive word-of-mouth. Iñárritu, however, embraces this radical approach and defends a film designed to provoke reactions rather than seek consensus.
Tom Cruise, for his part, also continues to defend the project. The actor has stated that he is very proud of the film and has publicly thanked the team who worked with him. This choice was also significant for his career: after years dominated by *Mission: Impossible* and major action blockbusters, *Digger* marked his first major role outside a franchise in several years and could, in theory, have put him back on track as a serious actor.
The irony is cruel: Digger may ultimately go down in history less as the film that was supposed to bring Cruise renewed artistic acclaim than as a demonstration of the economic limitations of the contemporary star system. Even Tom Cruise is no longer necessarily enough to turn an extremely expensive original project into a global event.
We must, however, avoid jumping to conclusions. Poor box-office takings do not automatically mean that a film is bad. And the Hollywood industry would have a great deal to lose if the failure of *Digger* led studios to conclude that they should no longer finance original films or provide significant resources to distinctive filmmakers. The real lesson might be exactly the opposite: artistic audacity remains necessary, but it becomes extremely vulnerable when subjected to the financial constraints of a blockbuster.
In a few years’ time, *Digger* may well be forgotten, rehabilitated or regarded as a fascinating folly. For now, one thing is certain: when you bring together Tom Cruise, Alejandro González Iñárritu and over a hundred million dollars, even a flop becomes a cinematic event.
