Everyone Hates ‘Digger.’ It’s the Perfect Climate Movie
Alejandro González Iñárritu’s film *Digger*, starring Tom Cruise as an oil billionaire, uses a climate disaster satire to examine who gets cast as the villain and whether telling the truth can change anything. Its central argument is more bleak than *Don’t Look Up*: even when people know fossil fuels are driving climate change, their dependence on oil can make that knowledge seem powerless.
The story begins with an oil platform accident that breaks loose an iceberg and causes a major methane leak, prompting Digger to alert the president as the iceberg heads towards Europe. The apparent farce is revealed as a play, *Fossil Fools*, staged in a future dystopia about events from decades earlier. Digger’s environmental expert, Dr Ganesh, exposes the company’s ignored warnings to European Union leaders; Digger then admits oilmen knew the risks, arguing that society remains reliant on oil for energy and products, including the technology used to seek solutions.
- *Digger* questions whether climate truth can matter in an oil-dependent world.
- The film reveals its disaster satire is a play staged in a dystopian future.
- Digger admits oilmen knew their product could drive runaway climate change.
New here? Start with this
Oil, gas and coal are called fossil fuels because they formed from ancient plant and animal matter. Burning them releases gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, driving climate change; methane, which can escape during oil and gas operations, is also a powerful warming gas.
Oil companies extract and sell these fuels, while governments set rules and make decisions about energy. Scientists and environmental experts study the risks and advise on them, but oil is woven into transport, heating and the manufacture of many everyday products.
That reliance makes climate change difficult to address: knowing the risks does not by itself remove the need for energy and materials. The debate involves how quickly societies can reduce fossil fuel use, what can replace it and who should bear the costs.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The film’s bleakness may be an honest way to show why climate knowledge alone rarely changes behaviour: fossil fuels remain woven into energy, industry and everyday products, so responsibility cannot be placed solely on a few villains. By making the story a play staged in a future dystopia, it can also prompt audiences to question whether exposure and truth-telling are enough without broader changes in dependence and power.
The case against
The film’s emphasis on society’s reliance on oil could make responsibility seem so diffuse that the choices of companies and governments fade from view. A satire that treats warnings as powerless may also encourage fatalism, when exposing suppressed evidence and identifying who had the power to act can help build pressure for change.