The movie "Downsizing" shows the shrinkage of the humanity to stop the climate change. But in the end capitalism is what counts - not the climate. This is why the movie isn't a valuable contribution for the discourse about the climate change.
(photo by Roxanne Desgagenes via Unsplash)
(Attention – little spoilers)
Thrilled people was shown a half-filled sack of trash at the beginning of the movie “Downsizing”. This thrash is the amount of stuff people produce that you can't utilize. Happy faces and excited applause are the reaction to this small amount of trash, because usually one human produces 440 pounds of trash in one single year.
The soultion for this problem is in case of the movie the method of downsizing. But is this the only opportunity? Do we have to wait for the future – to the time, when we can get downsized, to live as tiny people a life as wasteful as we are doing it now? Only that we are producing small amounts of trash and CO2 as tiny people. The answer is definitely now! Climate change affects everyone right now. Many people are already showing how easy it is to use a zero waste lifestyle. There are even cafes that reduce their waste to a minimum.
The film isn't showing any idea or people, that want to change something. The opposite is the case: The capitalism plays the main role. In the end the environment isn't interesting for anyone in the small downsized city. Way more important is the fact that miniature jewelry is way less expensive than normal or that cigars just costs one dollar if you are shrunken. During the movie it turns out that the fewest people are living a shrunken life for environmental reasons. Either it is boredom, money issues or even criminal offense that has driven them to the downsized life.
At one time the actual reason for the downsizing comes up: the thawing of the permafrost soil that releases methane which is way more dangerous than carbon dioxide. (The protagonist isn't really affected by this fact. The neighbors loud music is way more irritating.) This fact should finally mean the end of the world and the humanity. Downsizing came to late. The human is living is last years on the planet.
We are waiting for a teaching message, a call for action to live a more sustainable life – but this message won't come. Why should it? The fight is already lost – the world will end anyway. So mankind can take the world with it. Yes, maybe the film was meant to be satirical and then there is the critical dealing with global warming. Nevertheless: a didactic connecting factor would have been desirable. A hollywood film with a scope like that could have reached people to do something before it is too late.
In spite of all the film is not a misstep because he gives new images: The imagination of the downsizing gives goose bumps. At the same time it awakes the childish wish to play with doll houses. Especially the role of Ngoc Lan Tran (played by Hong Chau) was well chosen and played. She opens the eyes of Paul Safranek (played by Matt Damon). He discovers that even in the downsized world there are problems of the big world. This references to critics of rassism, class society or refugee issues aren't really meaningful. The movie wants to be comedy on the one hand, drama on the other and satire at the same time. At the end that is a bit to much for film like “Downsizing”.
