If you ever had an argument with a true believer in some wacky conspiracy theory, you know that logic, reason, evidence and fact get you nowhere with these people.
There is a different approach to confronting them, one which is rarely practiced because it is difficult to pull off both convincingly and usefully. Let's call this approach "amplification": instead of trying to reason with this crowd, you try to one-up them in the most ludicrous way which still maintains a hair of plausibility (at least to those already deep into a conspiratorial mindset). So, every detail that even the conspiracy theorist overlooked becomes important, every theory they come up with is explained by a yet deeper theory, which, if they inquire about it, has its origin in yet a deeper theory, all based on a vast collection of seemingly random facts and events.
The point of amplification is to fight absurdity with even more and outrageous absurdity, in the hope that at some point the conspiracy theorists realize on their own how ridiculous it all is. It is irony on steroids. A real-life example, albeit created more for the sake of satire than refutation, is the "birds aren't real" movement.
I feel that SOMETHING IN THE DIRT is the cinematic equivalent of amplification. Two struggling co-tenants happen to come across a supernatural phenomenon and decide to try to turn their luck by making a documentary out of it in order to win money and prizes.
The conceit of the story is that every single thread they follow, no matter how random or stupid, turns out to have some eerie significance in terms of connecting to other random or stupid threads. Their world is, in short, a conspiracy theorist's paradise, a universe in which nothing is random, yet at the same time nothing can mean anything because the meaning is always deferred to the next connecting thread.
As the movie uncompromisingly follows the two protagonists' voyage deep into the head-spinning rabbit hole, we understand less and less what is causing the original supernatural phenomenon. At the same time, though, we gain a better understanding of the flaws that predisposed the two characters to become conspiracy theorists coming from vastly different backgrounds. Their flaws rob them of success in their venture, but not of their humanity, and so the characters are a mirror to the current age of Qanon and other stupid conspiracy theories.
Reading some of the reviews, I feel that many viewers have misunderstood the movie. At the end, the phenomenon and many other strange connections are left completely unexplained, and it seems many people did not like this.
But the movie really could not have done otherwise without compromising its integrity because offering a resolution to the mysteries the characters encounter, any resolution at all, would have undermined its central aim. It would have turned the film from an anti-conspiracy theory movie to just another conspiracy theory movie. I am not a big fan of open endings in movies, but in this case I can understand that it was absolutely necessary to make the point.
The technical aspects of the movie are fine, and the central premise is ingenious. The greatest challenge this movie faces, I think, is to convey to the audience what exactly it is about, a challenge rendered all the more daunting by the fact that there really isn't any other movie like it. Movies with a message have to thread a fine line between being too obvious and preachy and being too obscure and mystifying. I think if DIRT had erred a little less on the side of being obscure, it could have communicated its message more clearly, a message which is more important now than ever.
