The concept behind Downsizing might just be the most brilliant movie idea of 2017, and it's not hard to understand why a studio would give this thing the green light after hearing an elevator pitch. This is a social satire about a procedure that turns regular sized human beings into miniaturized versions of themselves, allowing for increased environmental sustainability and massive personal wealth gains. That's a wonderful idea for a movie, and there's so much to explore in a world where small people and large people co-exist together. And then, there's the talent involved- Oscar-winning writer/director Alexander Payne, Matt Damon (this was before he said a bunch of moronic things in the press), Tarantino favorite Christoph Waltz, and rising star Hong Chau. Downsizing looked like a slam dunk, and its inclusion at all three major fall festivals, including the opening night slot at Venice, seemed to indicate that it would be an awards season smash hit.
But the buzz eventually turned sour, and Downsizing became a hugely divisive film on the festival circuit. Venice moviegoers got caught up in the hype, but the vast majority of critics and audiences at Telluride and Toronto gave it a resounding thumbs down. The film's Oscar chances practically evaporated, with only Chau standing as a contender for her performance as a Vietnamese dissident. After a while, the discourse surrounding the film actually turned quite ugly, as critics at subsequent festivals took their chance to pounce on Payne's latest. And after watching Downsizing myself, it isn't hard to understand why this became one of the more maligned movies of the fall season. It has some truly great moments and sequences, and when it leans into the absurdity of its concept, the film even soars. But as ingenious as its concept may be, Downsizing is an idea in search of a story, and the sheer randomness of the narrative is only punctuated by the leaden, heavy-handed conclusion. Considering some of the left turns and jarring twists, it may just be the strangest movie of the year.
In the not-so-distant future (the film never makes its setting clear, despite multiple time jumps), Norwegian scientist Jorgen Asbjornsen (Rolf Lassgard) discovers what he believes to be the only feasible solution to the problem of overpopulation- a procedure that allows for the subject to shrink from normal size to a mere 5 inches tall. This scientific achievement takes the world by storm, and while Asbjornsen frames the discovery as a way to stop the destruction of the planet, corporations and savvy businessmen realize that "going small" is also a way to increase buying power. 10 years after the downsizing process is first revealed, Paul Safranek (Matt Damon) finds himself increasingly unhappy with his life. Paul and his wife, Audrey (Kristen Wiig), both want to move to a bigger house, but their financial situation prevents them from getting the life they always wanted.
And then comes Paul's big idea. At their high school reunion, Paul and Audrey meet up with Dave Johnson (Jason Sudeikis), a former classmate who underwent the procedure and now lives a life of luxury in Leisureland. Dave tells Paul that it's the place to be, and the Safraneks decide that it's worth the risk. They sign up.....and then Audrey bails. By the time that Paul is already 5 inches tall, his wife has decided that she can't go through with it. Paul is furious, but things get even worse when Audrey takes an overwhelming amount of the assets in the divorce. Paul is left with a depressing life in an apartment building, working at Land's End and going on dates with single moms. But all of that changes when Paul stumbles into a party thrown by Dusan (Christoph Waltz), his rowdy European neighbor. In the aftermath of this crazy night, Paul then happens to meet Ngoc Lan Tran (Hong Chau), a famous Vietnamese dissident turned housekeeper. Through these two chance friendships, Paul's life will change in a way he never expected.
Downsizing is a movie of two very distinct halves, but I feel like it's worth emphasizing that neither half really works on its own merits. The film is never anything less than engaging, although it's less a matter of personal investment in the story than it is a sense of morbid curiosity. Downsizing undergoes some of the most random plot shifts that I've ever seen in a movie, so oddly misguided that you probably wouldn't believe me if I told you what happened in this thing. The film almost seems to have an odd degree of self-awareness about how weird things get, but it's still totally baffling when the movie becomes an apocalyptic environmental fable in its final act. It's a ride for sure, and I'm always willing to go to bat for movies that take unexpected risks. But Downsizing feels less risky and more scattered, like the filmmakers just threw their hands up at a certain point when they realized they couldn't crack the story.
Here's the other thing- when you're making a message movie, you gotta make sure you get the message right. If you're looking to see this film, might as well stop reading now because I'm gonna go into spoilers. Downsizing is clearly meant to make a statement about global warming, as the final act is essentially about the creation of a new Noah's Arc at the site of the original small colony in Norway. Asbjornsen announces to everyone that the planet is going to die in a couple hundred years and that we need to move underground to save human life. Paul is convinced by this idea at first, but he abandons his plan after some pleading from Ngoc Lan and Dusan. The world is still ending, but hey, Paul sees the world in a different way now. Not only is its delivery of this message extremely heavy-handed and devoid of anything resembling subtlety, but I think it inadvertently says precisely the wrong thing. In the end, Downsizing doesn't really serve as a call to action or a motivational sermon pleading for environmental conservation. Nope, it just kinda says "Well, the planet's dying, might as well appreciate it while we're here."
So do you see what I mean when I say that it's like Alexander Payne and co-writer Jim Taylor never found the story? This movie doesn't even seem to know what it wants to say, let alone how it wants to go about saying it. Downsizing jumps from broad comedy to absurdist satire to existential drama without ever really committing to a genre and tone. It moves briskly through its haphazard plot (I was shocked when I realized that it was almost over), while simultaneously leaving the audience puzzled, wondering just how or why these wild turns came to exist in the story. Downsizing's jumpy, unpredictable narrative leaves little room for emotional resonance or dramatic intrigue, something that is disappointing considering Payne's track record. And the performances are all over the map as well. Matt Damon is fitfully amusing as Paul, but his turn here becomes less effective as the film gets stranger. Hong Chau is already being framed as the breakout star for her role as Ngoc Lan, although I'm not convinced that her character has much of a personal arc despite some big time Oscar moments. And finally, I don't know what accent Christoph Waltz is doing in this movie, but someone should have stopped him very early in the process (it's like a mixture of French and Eastern European).
That being said, there are a few clever moments scattered throughout the mess that is Downsizing. The entire procedure scene is a slice of pure genius, fulfilling the promise of Kubrickian strangeness that journalists described after the footage reveal at CinemaCon back in April. Payne touches on some interesting and incisive ideas throughout the course of the film, such as the question of human rights for small people and the impact of downsizing on the global economy. And for all of its overt messages and bizarre deviations from the plot, Downsizing has some intermittently amusing sequences. Payne can often channel a deadpan sensibility that works in an ironic way, and there are a few visual gags that are quite well done.
But Downsizing is both too ambitious and too lazy for its own good- it's dealing with a concept that is big and brainy and unique, yet the execution of its premise is sloppy and thoroughly ill-advised. Payne is a great filmmaker, but outside of the simple idea that forms the basis of this film, there's no sign of the genius that brought us The Descendants and Nebraska. What should be biting and subversive is instead inspirational and downright misguided, making Downsizing a compelling series of genuinely bad decisions. It's undoubtedly a fascinating misfire, but that doesn't make this odd sci-fi comedy any less of a letdown.
THE FINAL GRADE: C (5.7/10)
Images: IMDB/Paramount
But the buzz eventually turned sour, and Downsizing became a hugely divisive film on the festival circuit. Venice moviegoers got caught up in the hype, but the vast majority of critics and audiences at Telluride and Toronto gave it a resounding thumbs down. The film's Oscar chances practically evaporated, with only Chau standing as a contender for her performance as a Vietnamese dissident. After a while, the discourse surrounding the film actually turned quite ugly, as critics at subsequent festivals took their chance to pounce on Payne's latest. And after watching Downsizing myself, it isn't hard to understand why this became one of the more maligned movies of the fall season. It has some truly great moments and sequences, and when it leans into the absurdity of its concept, the film even soars. But as ingenious as its concept may be, Downsizing is an idea in search of a story, and the sheer randomness of the narrative is only punctuated by the leaden, heavy-handed conclusion. Considering some of the left turns and jarring twists, it may just be the strangest movie of the year.
In the not-so-distant future (the film never makes its setting clear, despite multiple time jumps), Norwegian scientist Jorgen Asbjornsen (Rolf Lassgard) discovers what he believes to be the only feasible solution to the problem of overpopulation- a procedure that allows for the subject to shrink from normal size to a mere 5 inches tall. This scientific achievement takes the world by storm, and while Asbjornsen frames the discovery as a way to stop the destruction of the planet, corporations and savvy businessmen realize that "going small" is also a way to increase buying power. 10 years after the downsizing process is first revealed, Paul Safranek (Matt Damon) finds himself increasingly unhappy with his life. Paul and his wife, Audrey (Kristen Wiig), both want to move to a bigger house, but their financial situation prevents them from getting the life they always wanted.
And then comes Paul's big idea. At their high school reunion, Paul and Audrey meet up with Dave Johnson (Jason Sudeikis), a former classmate who underwent the procedure and now lives a life of luxury in Leisureland. Dave tells Paul that it's the place to be, and the Safraneks decide that it's worth the risk. They sign up.....and then Audrey bails. By the time that Paul is already 5 inches tall, his wife has decided that she can't go through with it. Paul is furious, but things get even worse when Audrey takes an overwhelming amount of the assets in the divorce. Paul is left with a depressing life in an apartment building, working at Land's End and going on dates with single moms. But all of that changes when Paul stumbles into a party thrown by Dusan (Christoph Waltz), his rowdy European neighbor. In the aftermath of this crazy night, Paul then happens to meet Ngoc Lan Tran (Hong Chau), a famous Vietnamese dissident turned housekeeper. Through these two chance friendships, Paul's life will change in a way he never expected.
Downsizing is a movie of two very distinct halves, but I feel like it's worth emphasizing that neither half really works on its own merits. The film is never anything less than engaging, although it's less a matter of personal investment in the story than it is a sense of morbid curiosity. Downsizing undergoes some of the most random plot shifts that I've ever seen in a movie, so oddly misguided that you probably wouldn't believe me if I told you what happened in this thing. The film almost seems to have an odd degree of self-awareness about how weird things get, but it's still totally baffling when the movie becomes an apocalyptic environmental fable in its final act. It's a ride for sure, and I'm always willing to go to bat for movies that take unexpected risks. But Downsizing feels less risky and more scattered, like the filmmakers just threw their hands up at a certain point when they realized they couldn't crack the story.
Here's the other thing- when you're making a message movie, you gotta make sure you get the message right. If you're looking to see this film, might as well stop reading now because I'm gonna go into spoilers. Downsizing is clearly meant to make a statement about global warming, as the final act is essentially about the creation of a new Noah's Arc at the site of the original small colony in Norway. Asbjornsen announces to everyone that the planet is going to die in a couple hundred years and that we need to move underground to save human life. Paul is convinced by this idea at first, but he abandons his plan after some pleading from Ngoc Lan and Dusan. The world is still ending, but hey, Paul sees the world in a different way now. Not only is its delivery of this message extremely heavy-handed and devoid of anything resembling subtlety, but I think it inadvertently says precisely the wrong thing. In the end, Downsizing doesn't really serve as a call to action or a motivational sermon pleading for environmental conservation. Nope, it just kinda says "Well, the planet's dying, might as well appreciate it while we're here."
So do you see what I mean when I say that it's like Alexander Payne and co-writer Jim Taylor never found the story? This movie doesn't even seem to know what it wants to say, let alone how it wants to go about saying it. Downsizing jumps from broad comedy to absurdist satire to existential drama without ever really committing to a genre and tone. It moves briskly through its haphazard plot (I was shocked when I realized that it was almost over), while simultaneously leaving the audience puzzled, wondering just how or why these wild turns came to exist in the story. Downsizing's jumpy, unpredictable narrative leaves little room for emotional resonance or dramatic intrigue, something that is disappointing considering Payne's track record. And the performances are all over the map as well. Matt Damon is fitfully amusing as Paul, but his turn here becomes less effective as the film gets stranger. Hong Chau is already being framed as the breakout star for her role as Ngoc Lan, although I'm not convinced that her character has much of a personal arc despite some big time Oscar moments. And finally, I don't know what accent Christoph Waltz is doing in this movie, but someone should have stopped him very early in the process (it's like a mixture of French and Eastern European).
That being said, there are a few clever moments scattered throughout the mess that is Downsizing. The entire procedure scene is a slice of pure genius, fulfilling the promise of Kubrickian strangeness that journalists described after the footage reveal at CinemaCon back in April. Payne touches on some interesting and incisive ideas throughout the course of the film, such as the question of human rights for small people and the impact of downsizing on the global economy. And for all of its overt messages and bizarre deviations from the plot, Downsizing has some intermittently amusing sequences. Payne can often channel a deadpan sensibility that works in an ironic way, and there are a few visual gags that are quite well done.
But Downsizing is both too ambitious and too lazy for its own good- it's dealing with a concept that is big and brainy and unique, yet the execution of its premise is sloppy and thoroughly ill-advised. Payne is a great filmmaker, but outside of the simple idea that forms the basis of this film, there's no sign of the genius that brought us The Descendants and Nebraska. What should be biting and subversive is instead inspirational and downright misguided, making Downsizing a compelling series of genuinely bad decisions. It's undoubtedly a fascinating misfire, but that doesn't make this odd sci-fi comedy any less of a letdown.
THE FINAL GRADE: C (5.7/10)
Images: IMDB/Paramount
Comments
Post a Comment