Skip to main content

Downsizing Positively Looks Up


Ever since the early days of film when pioneers like Georges Melies and Fritz Lang used forced perspective to create an effect of someone being smaller than the average human, shrinking in film has been a popular novelty emerging mostly in B-movies and family films. Though it was always something of a gimmick, and has especially been noticeably so after the technology was seemingly perfected in Honey I Shrunk the Kids.
Enter Alexander Payne, director of such films as About Schmidt, Sideways, The Descendants, and Nebraska. His latest movie, Downsizing, aims to offer a new perspective on shrinking stories, by using the idea as a jumping-off point for a basic exploration of humanity and life. And I have to say I was surprised by no movie this year more than Downsizing!
Set in the not too distant future, Norwegian scientists have perfected an irreversible process called downsizing, wherein people are shrunk down to five inches to live in miniature communities, as a solvent to overpopulation. A sustainable lifestyle with the lucrative attraction of an enormous exchange rate, meaning middle-class people can now live rich, it intrigues Paul Safranek (Matt Damon), a financially insecure occupational therapist, and his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig). After the couple commits to downsizing, Audrey backs out at the last minute, leaving Paul small and alone to re-evaluate his life.
There really is no gimmickry to this movie. Sure there are humourous moments of small people interacting with large people and a joke or two that are mostly seen in the trailers, but the resizing element is at times almost incidental. It’s not like The Borrowers or indeed Honey I Shrunk the Kids, where it’s all based around the novelty of scale -indeed there are stretches where it’s not even visually apparent, apart from a clever detail in the background every once in a while. This is a movie that takes an idea and expands on it by presenting both a real character journey and realistic world within its framework. And it’s an impeccably realized world. This film addresses the medical, societal, economic, environmental, and even political repercussions of downsizing on the world, to the point you believe if it actually were possible, this is exactly what it would look like. There’s satire in this of course, as with many of Payne’s movies, but it’s also coming from a place of earnestness, and fleshing out a concept to its logical conclusion from multiple vantage points.
The story is incredibly unexpected, especially after Paul is downsized and his life takes him in some very new directions. This is where the meat of the film is, and Paul’s journey to find meaning with his new life in this new world. We can all relate to the desire to start over, and this film presents a very appealing satiation of that. But the movie is all about adjustment; to new places, new people, new vocations and responsibilities, new knowledge, and new choices. It’s also about introspective themes about one’s place in the world and what is really worth getting out of life. And Downsizing absolutely achieves its ambition, capturing this beauty of life and raising some remarkable ideas. The ending especially is very foreign to where the movie started, but it has a grand melancholy poetry to it, like those of Her or Close Encounters. For a film that does delve into occasionally depressing material, and some dystopian elements, it is ultimately wonderfully life-affirming.
Damon is good as his every-man protagonist. There’s not a ton that’s distinct about his performance but he performs the character well. Christoph Waltz is very good too as a character who begins as Paul’s neighbour, and Kristen Wiig is perfectly decent in her early movie screen-time. But by far, the stand-out is Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran. I can’t really say much about her character except that she comes to interact with Paul in a very major way. And Chau is magnificent! In the wrong hands this would have been a really annoying character given some of her actions and attitude; and admittedly when she first appears with an accent unfortunately reminiscent of Short Round from Temple of Doom, I was hesitant to follow her. But she really became the soul of the movie, with an immensely sympathetic story herself, and a personality that’s astonishingly endearing. The movie also features Udo Kier, and Rolf LassgÃ¥rd as the inventor of downsizing, amusingly named Jørgen Asbjørnsen, both of whom are good fits. Jason Sudeikis has a minor role as the friend who helps convince Paul to downsize in the first place. And there are cameos from Neil Patrick Harris, Laura Dern, James Van Der Beek, and Character Actress Margo Martindale, most of whom were seen in the trailer over the international characters who have more screen-time and significance.
I hardly expected Downsizing, which from these promotional campaigns, looked like a funny and vaguely interesting but forgettable movie, to be one of my favourite theatre experiences of 2017, but it was. This is a beautiful film. It reminds me a lot Studio Ghibli’s Arrietty, which similarly took the idea of miniature people and weaved a unique narrative out of it. And while that films’ a lot more visually pretty, this one went a little further to distance itself from the typical shrinking story bullet points. In fact, very few of them make an appearance. Downsizing really does reinvent this little sub-genre of science fantasy, using it as a lens to explore greater things. And if only briefly, it convinces us of a process and perspective we all want to have.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....