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.