Downsizing (Matt Damon)

(Amazon UK link)

My husband watched the film ‘Downsizing’ on a transatlantic flight. He liked it so much that he put it on his wishlist, and was given it last Christmas. Our adult son was staying for a couple of weeks so we decided to watch it last night.

The blurb on the back gives an outline of the story - that scientists, trying to find ways to reduce environmental damage and to use less of the earth’s resources, discovered a way to reduce the size of animals and people, to a fraction of their original sizes.

It’s rather slow to get started. We see scientists discovering how to make this idea work, for the first time. Then we see the lecture where eminent scientists describe their discoveries, and also show a group of ‘small’ people, no more than 5 inches high, who are living in a community. It sounds idyllic.

Time moves forward, and increasing numbers of people decide to take this option. They sell up their properties and possessions, because in ‘Leisureland’ money goes a lot further. People living in small apartments as regular people can buy mansions once they’re small. There’s said to be no crime, and no need to work unless people wish to. Big and small folk interact in mostly friendly ways; we see dinners and conferences where they chat, and share ideas, and as time progresses the idea of downsizing becomes well-known all over the world.

The main protagonist of the story, once the scene is set - and it’s a bit of a long-winded opening - is Paul (Matt Damon). He is an occupational therapist who is happily married to Audrey (Kristen Wiig) but they’re living in quite a small apartment. She would love to move to a bigger place, but they can’t get a mortgage. So she’s more and more tempted by the promises of luxurious living in Leisureland, and persuades her husband to opt for downsizing.

So they sell up and make their farewells, and travel to the hospital where the procedures take place. It starts to feel quite worrying by this stage. They have to sign all kinds of disclaimers, and we learn that while in most cases the procedure goes well, it can cause severe injury, even death. Moreover, the procedure is permanent. There is absolutely no going back.

I knew something bad was going to happen, and indeed, it does. Far from being hilarious, as the blurb on the back of the DVD stated, or even humorous, the film becomes desperately sad at this stage. It never really recovers from it. It is a slow-moving film throughout, too. There are scenes from parties that go on and on; scenes of nature that are quite pretty, but, again, continue for far too long. The medical parts were all longer than they should have been, as well. An hour into the film, nothing much had happened.

It got a bit more interesting after that, and the story certainly raises some interesting issues. It provides much to think about too, although the idea of downsizing people in this way is so ludicrous (I hope…) that it’s technically satirical rather than dystopian or sci-fi. But there wasn’t any humour in it. There was just deep sadness. At Paul’s predicament - he soon regrets what he has done - and in the essential humanity that means there are slums outside Leisureland despite all the initial promises. There are also people downsized against their will. Later in the film, we learn of the possibility of people, large and small, being wiped out entirely.

Other than being far too long (we all agreed the film itself should have been downsized significantly when it was edited) it was well produced. Matt Damon is excellent in his role. Had we known in advance that it was meant to be a futuristic and very sad film, I think I would have appreciated it more. I suppose there were one or two mildly amusing moments; but they mostly involved misunderstandings and poor English from a wonderful but also very distressing Vietnamese refugee with a prosthetic leg (brilliantly played by Hong Chau).

The 15 rating (R in the more cautious United States) is mainly due to rather an excess of bad language - a particular ‘strong’ word is repeated several times near the end. There is some side-view nudity too, but only in a medical setting. There is also some recreational drug usage, although it did not add anything to the film. As the subject matter is so heavy, I wouldn't suggest that anyone younger than fifteen or sixteen should see it anyway.

I think I’m glad I watched this film, as it certainly gave much to think about. But I doubt if I’ll want to see it again.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews