Out of all the movies I've already watched for the past few weeks of quarantine, I think this is one of the most important. I honestly want to feature a lot of movies so far (and believe me, I have a long pending list) but for this one, I don't think I can wait another week (but I did wait... somehow... because I'm writing this from April 19 but you're most probably reading this from April 25 onwards - I scheduled it that way). I'm a bit frustrated at myself though because I don't know where to begin. I think I need to recollect my thoughts properly so I can get through what I want to say without you guys getting a bit confused. Maybe I can talk about "Downsizing" through scenes in chronological order or maybe I'll talk about the scenes that I felt mattered the most. Let's see...
If you've watched the movie (and I'm assuming a lot of you have already watched it since it's a 2017 movie - but if not yet, WATCH IT!), you'd see how the plot of this movie took its sweet time on the actual portrayal and storytelling. Unlike most movies I've endured watching, "Downsizing" was in no hurry but you wouldn't feel as if it's too slow in pacing. I didn't feel like I was in a rush. I didn't feel like I was following a snail's journey either.
Every scene led to another as if intertwined. I mean, of course, movies should have scenes that almost always intertwine because if not, that would defeat the purpose of the whole plot. It's just that in some movies, they put in filler scenes that aren't really necessary (and wouldn't really matter if removed) because it had no use in getting the point across. They only put those scenes to reach the appropriate length of the film. But with "Downsizing", all scenes had to be there for purposes more important as the story transcends.
Looking at what I've written now, I guess I'm not going to be able to rip the movie out piece by piece (although I would have loved to, but I don't want to waste more of your precious time with an in-depth review - unless you guys want it, I'd be happy to extend, ps: the comment box below is there for that reason)
However, I'd still like to cover a few important elements in the film. One of which is the presence of social status versus survival of the fittest. Downsizing, in the film, was invented to lessen waste in the world so that it could retain humans for the next hundred years or more. That was the original goal of Dr. Jorgen Asbjornsen and his colleague (which I forgot the name of). Downsizing was the "solution" to save the earth in the "best way possible" they could think of - minimizing people to minimize the waste that they made.
But as the plot skips to years later, people resorted to downsizing as a way for people to live a life of luxury while saving themselves from the cruelness of the normal-sized world. And who wouldn't be tempted to live a life of luxury when a few thousand dollars would be computed to millions in "small size"? As the sales clerk from Leisureland said, the money they had now would already last them their entire life when they became five inches small. It did mean that when you're small, you're actually living a life bigger than everyone else who's physically bigger than you. But only after Paul (the main protagonist in this movie) meets Ngoc Lan and sees outside Leisureland does he realize that there are still small people still living small lives.
But as the plot skips to years later, people resorted to downsizing as a way for people to live a life of luxury while saving themselves from the cruelness of the normal-sized world. And who wouldn't be tempted to live a life of luxury when a few thousand dollars would be computed to millions in "small size"? As the sales clerk from Leisureland said, the money they had now would already last them their entire life when they became five inches small. It did mean that when you're small, you're actually living a life bigger than everyone else who's physically bigger than you. But only after Paul (the main protagonist in this movie) meets Ngoc Lan and sees outside Leisureland does he realize that there are still small people still living small lives.
And might I just say, it's amazing how "Downsizing" made its way to multiple conflicts in the story without being too jampacked. From the micro-problem of Paul and Audrey, leading to their separation and divorce to the macro-problem of economy, social status and an even more macro-problem, which was the end of the world. I leave that for you to discover on your own when you watch the movie.
Anyway, I'd also like to commend the attempt of the movie to try and represent everyone of every race, color, country and even age. It didn't feel like the movie was solely focusing on Caucasians. They didn't overdo or underdo the races and ethnicities (like Hollywood does sometimes with the whole "Yeah, she looks closely Filipino but maybe not Filipino enough. Oh well. That's close enough" thing) just to feel like they got representations there. They really did represent well. It felt more inclusive that the whole world is affected of the downsizing.
To conclude, having considered Paul's decision in the end (you'll have to find out about that if you haven't watched it yet), I feel like the movie came across with an end note that just basically says: "An act of goodness, no matter how little, can still affect a lot of people and make a difference in the world."
Comments
Post a Comment