Downsizing

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Downsizing

    Anyone else get an early screener?

    Would love to talk this one over.

    Very, very odd structure. Seems per the commercials like it'll be a situational comedy, or maybe a be careful what you wish for story.

    Ends up taking a left turn away from that into Lower Weirdville, than another left turn at East Weirdville heights.
    - - - - - - -
    Script consulting still going strong.

    Details and updates here, as always: http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/...ead.php?t=9901

  • #2
    Re: Downsizing

    Yeah, I saw it, also interviewed Payne & Taylor for 3rd & Fairfax (it will probably post next month). The interview was illuminating especially for this film.

    It felt like an "and then" movie to me; just a series of events with no real goals by the main character. He was just along for the ride. In the interview Payne & Taylor said they had a difficult time coming up with an ending, and you could make the argument that they never did.

    I feel like they loved the idea and the world they created but never found a good story for their main character.

    ------SPOILERS-------









    I guess you could say that the film is a melodrama kicked off by a personal tragedy (he loses his wife, and the life he thought he was going to have), and in the end he finds someone else to spend his life with, but that felt secondary to the trouble he gets into and the plot to go to the original colony and all that.

    It wasn't a movie designed to make you feel anything; it was a movie designed to make you think. It's the danger of having a reactive protagonist. I felt like Ngoc would be better off without him.
    Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.

    -Steve Trautmann
    3rd & Fairfax: The WGAW Podcast

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Downsizing

      The premise is very intriguing. Wish I had thought of it myself.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Downsizing

        Alexander Payne has made a bunch of good films and a couple of great ones (ELECTION, NEBRASKA) and you don't expect to see him get completely lost. But this one... it has a great premise, of course, and the first forty minutes is fine. But then it stalls, seems to have nowhere to go, and the ending - which IMO is dazzlingly silly - hands it all over to a bunch of Nordic New-Agers apparently imported from Esalen. I can't recall a film that goes downhill so far and so fast.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Downsizing

          Alexander Payne often adapts novels to the screen. Perhaps that's one of his strengths more so than working from an original concept.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Downsizing

            Same here. I was about to see it for just the premise alone, but got waylaid by its very "meh" reviews. Might have a look if it comes to the $2.50 theater near my house.

            Originally posted by Friday View Post
            The premise is very intriguing. Wish I had thought of it myself.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Downsizing

              Rented it tonight. I thought it was interesting and entertaining. After it was over my wife was like WTH? One of those movies to watch when you want to kill some time.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Downsizing

                What an odd film. There's a great premise that is just completely dropped to switch to another theme entirely. They didn't milk or explore the miniature concept at all after it is introduced, not even for visual gags, except with the saltine cracker, the rings and the traveling bits. After he arrives in tiny town, everything just looks normal, we have no concept of scale. At one point they're sailing down a freaking fjord and again, no scale... how big was this boat? Is it even possible for something that small to safely sail? Wouldn't the tiniest gust of wind make them capsize and drown? Wouldn't a trout just eat them up?

                It could have been a fascinating sci-fi concept to explore and they chose not to, except for maybe the briefly referred to practice of shrinking political enemies. It just felt like a missed opportunity to me.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Downsizing

                  I haven't seen this one yet, but there is something about it from seeing the trailers that always bothered me.

                  Ok, if they are shrunk down that means their lungs are proportionately small as well. But the air they breathe has the same sized molecules as when the people were large.

                  So....how can their smaller lungs and their even smaller alveoli and teeny tiny capillaries do the air exchange when the air molecules are now so much larger in proportion to their shrunken selves???

                  I know it's a fiction film and we have to suspend disbelief, but truly this should be addressed in the film at least. Is it mentioned in the film? Or is it just a given they can breathe the large air molecules post shrinkage?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Downsizing

                    Originally posted by Darthclaw13 View Post
                    I haven't seen this one yet, but there is something about it from seeing the trailers that always bothered me.

                    Ok, if they are shrunk down that means their lungs are proportionately small as well. But the air they breathe has the same sized molecules as when the people were large.

                    So....how can their smaller lungs and their even smaller alveoli and teeny tiny capillaries do the air exchange when the air molecules are now so much larger in proportion to their shrunken selves???

                    I know it's a fiction film and we have to suspend disbelief, but truly this should be addressed in the film at least. Is it mentioned in the film? Or is it just a given they can breathe the large air molecules post shrinkage?

                    The science behind the shrinkage is just one of the many issues that would have been interesting to explore but that was completely ignored. A few other questions that arise:
                    -economics: the notion that everything is cheaper (a diamond necklace for 80 bucks) is brought up, and how much it costs to get shrunk, but then when you get to tiny town, there's a whole working class and underclass: how did these people with no assets to liquidate get there? Were they given money and promises of a good job to be shrunk? There's a whole miniature society at work here, with tiny people that make it run at every level, from maids to construction workers to delivery men to doctors and lawyers. It could have been interesting to get into those details and explore the notion of exploitation. Since the procedure is irreversible, anyone making that decision is essentially giving up their life as they know it. What are the wages like there? How much money does shrinking people make for the investors? Etc. There is one line about what happens to neighborhoods when people shrink and put their homes up for sale, but it wasn't enough to grasp the impact on society in a broader sense.

                    -carbon footprint: the reason the process was even researched in the first place was to make life on Earth more sustainable. This theme is addressed but not elaborated on. Once people started shrinking all around the planet, how did the numbers change?

                    -safety and security: what if a big percentage of the world decides to shrink: how vulnerable will countries become? The tiny people have to protect themselves from beings as small as a bird. An enemy could literally just come in and stomp them to death. No drones necessary, just throw a few stones and cause major damage. They do have a protective barrier, but again, this is an issue that could have been explored and wasn't.

                    Essentially, nothing that happens to these people once we get past the original premise happens to them because they've been shrunk, so the question is, why are they in a movie about shrinking people?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Downsizing

                      The first 30 minutes were actually very entertaining, but boy did it really go downhill fast. They could have done so much with the wealth in a tiny world, living large. In better hands, it could have been both funny and intriguing. (Spoilers) I felt like it went downhill when he met the refugee and for no reason Matt Damon's character is coerced to feed the homeless. First of all, it felt contrived, why would he care that some scrub lady is bossing him around. Then, it descended into this weird end of the world we're about to run out of resources, let's get in a bunker. It's like how many issues can we cram into one movie, without entertaining the audience. And, I kind of cringed at the stereotypes. It felt like they were upping the broken English. No one in real life talks like that. And no one in real life would behave like the Matt Damon character.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Downsizing

                        Just to put a coda on this thread, the interview I did with with Payne & Taylor is somewhat illuminating because they talk about how they don't really outline and just jump into the script. Explains a lot IMO.
                        Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.

                        -Steve Trautmann
                        3rd & Fairfax: The WGAW Podcast

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X