One of the great joys of the film dork is finding a new What the hell is this? movie, one that they can share with their friends as a baffling experience. There are, however, some fine gradations to the uncategorizable surprise that are sometimes overlooked.
There are What the hell? movies that are really two movies put together, and which switch suddenly switch gears, like Audition; there are What the hell? movies that only seem to have no structure, but which are actually about slowly and inexorably increasing the intensity of the strangeness, giving a firm structure to its structurelessness, like Hausu; and a hundred other varieties.
Of those varieties, none are more boring than a movie with a clever idea and nothing else. Who on Earth is Downsizing for? Who wants a high-concept sci-fi/fantasy comedy/drama from the director of Sideways? Why is Laura Dern in Downsizing for approximately 30 seconds? Why is Downsizing suddenly a white-savior movie? Is Downsizing entirely an excuse for some movie producer with a vore fetish? What is this?
It’s necessary to go through this maze of a script beat-by-beat to accurately communicate its complete senselessness. After the customary “scientific discovery” introduction, we are introduced to Paul Safranek (Matt Damon); we are to infer his life is pathetic from the fact that he is picking up food from a chain restaurant.
He is taking care of his sick mother. And then, suddenly, he’s not; after 4 minutes of nothing, it is suddenly 10 years later, and he, looking identical, is married to Audrey (Kristen Wiig). We’re now given half an hour of awkward, quiet marital strife as they attend a college reunion and shop for houses. They wander around, delivering lines in that moderately-awkward Payne style (a style Matt Damon simply does not have enough charisma to pull off).
It is only at minute 33 that we get to the titular downsizing, by far the most fascinating sequence in the film. For some reason, to be made “little,” you have to have your hair shaved and your teeth removed. So, set to an off-brand Danny Elfman-style tune, Paul is shaved, leaving us the image of a hairless and eyebrowless Matt Damon looking like Guy Pearce at the end of Prometheus.
It’s grisly, as we see dentists drill out dozens of patients’ teeth; it’s weirdly poetic in moments, as their hair is shaved off; it is completely, absolutely pointless.
This is the 50-minute mark, and we are almost done with Downsizing‘s preamble. Audrey refuses to get the procedure and divorces Paul, and, through the slow, wandering process by which white middle-aged divorced men fall within the orbit of the kooky non-whites, he ends up neighbors with and attends a party hosted by Dusan (Christoph Waltz, playing a Serbian and speaking in lightly-broken English).
Paul wanders around a party for 15 minutes — at this point, I was half certain I was being pranked — and the real film finally begins. This is actually simply another white savior movie, in which our hero meets Dusan’s housekeeper Ngoc Lan Tran (played by Hong Chau, probably best known for Inherent Vice; here, she speaks entirely in heavily-broken English, which we are supposed to, it seems, find funny).
Past this point, the plot is not worth recapping. Nick purposefully breaks Tran’s prosthetic foot so he can help her take care of those living in the “little” slums. (Is any of the destitution supposed to be some sort of black comedy? In their first scene together, Nick and Tran accidentally overdose a sick friend on Percocet and kill her. Is that supposed to be funny?)
As a backdrop to all of this are references to global warming, and the pair end up being offered a position on a Noah’s ark-style attempt to save humanity. They, of course, reject it to continue taking care of the poor and sick, turning the extinction of humanity into little more than an opportunity for a white man to sacrifice himself.
Man Ray famously said that the worst films he had ever watching had 10 minutes worth seeing. Downsizing has at most eight, with the incredible, inexplicable depiction of the process itself. Outside of that, though, it is a useful reminder of a basic rule of film watching: just because something is bizarre doesn’t mean that it’s interesting.

Where the “
That reckoning won’t happen within the structure of Kanchenjungha. The holiday ends without a marriage (or, for that matter, a divorce). Ray is content to set up the dominoes, and far less interested in knocking them over. The film’s ending is open to any number of possibilities, though, contra Crowther, the long-delayed appearance of the mountain itself isn’t just symbolic of “the emergence of Indian society” (whatever that means). It seems instead part of a continuum, a brute, beautiful fact reasserting itself but transformed; its textual meaning is more a function of the fact that Indranath fails to even notice its emergence … this event that the whole film, the whole holiday in the film, has waited for. He’s lost in thought instead.
The colors coat every surface, to the point where it becomes impossible to tell how much is paint and how much is lighting. They are impossibly, cartoonishly vibrant, almost becoming a form of violence against the viewer. They are so garish one has to turn away from the screen. In their own way, they take the place of the violence typical of the
What strikes me most about Suspiria‘s colors is the way they completely fail to coordinate in any meaningful way. The colors may be technically complementary — the blue and gold so notoriously overused in movie posters make quite a few appearances — but they don’t act as complements to one another, with one breaking up the other as an accent.
The very impossible brightness of the brightest patches and the completely monochromatic design draw our eyes to the shadows and the nuances in a way the typical use of color does not. It is as if we are watching a black-and-white movie, but one in which there are different kinds of white at play.
We know it isn’t because
Geostorm
In the final moments, we are set up for
Frankie is a closeted teen, trying and mostly failing to square the low-rent machismo of his idiot Brooklyn friends with his own desires, which he retreats to at night in chatrooms and, later, in furtive hook-ups. Much of the mood and atmosphere sets the viewer up for some sort of Stranger By The Lake narrative twist, but Beach Rats doesn’t go that route. Instead, Hittman follows Frankie’s journey with a huge amount of empathy and a rare wisdom — it’s not clear whether it will, indeed, get better for him, at least not within the structure of Beach Rats itself. Hittman’s strategy is observational, her images mirroring Frankie’s confusion and desire. It’s tense and undeniably intoxicating.
Newcomer Dickinson is stellar, and so is 



The emphasis, in itself, is nothing new. High art or low, schlock or masterpiece, we’ve been fed a steady cinematic diet of people on the phone. (Lois Weber’s tri-furcated
communication, AI … these are all familiar background elements, the sometimes literal wallpaper of the past’s dreams of the future, which, as
Nerve and Ingrid Goes West mark a fairly radical shift from that construction, though. In Wall Street, the phone is an accoutrement, a capitalist signifier of Gecko’s own power and ubiquity, and those of people like him. In these newer films, the relation is reversed. Our protagonists are creatures of the phone in a way completely alien to a creation like Gecko; the worlds we encounter in Nerve and Ingrid Goes West, the interesting parts of those worlds anyway, largely do not exist outside of the phone. It’s not that the world are fake, as in
Nerve tells the story of a sort of Dark Web interactive game, in which users sign on as “players” or “watchers”. The watchers suggest outlandish dares, ranging from Jackass-style cringe-comedy to life-threatening stunts, and the players seek to outdo each other for the anonymous approval of strangers (and also prize money). Directors
Meanwhile, Ingrid Goes West takes place mostly in a sun-dappled L.A., where Aubrey Plaza’s protagonist, an Aubrey Plaza type, has fled after an unfortunate stint in the mental hospital. She, too, is more an accessory to her phone than the other way around. Consistently refusing to realize that,
How do you identify the off-putting thing about Haneke’s movies? Is it that they’re dour? Sure, but there have been plenty of great dour filmmakers. Is it that he’s preachy? Sure, but most of the things he’s preaching against — racism and the casual cruelty of people with cultural power — are legitimately horrible.
I’m not sure if 2005’s
By placing
All of this makes
The Post tells, once again, the story of
Spielberg is at his best in The Post when he lets the images do the sermonizing for him. The blue-collar materiality of the paper’s production – The Post loves its typesetters, machines, and ink-stained scribes, as noble and unerring as any Gus from
Those complications, and their attendant questions, occasionally threaten to rise to the surface. Do Graham’s socialite friendships with the powerful, or Bradlee’s allegiances to the Kennedys, affect the stories that can be told? What does the development of the Post’s ownership model, or its scoop-heavy ambitions, portend for the kinds of media that would proliferate in the years to come? Is a woman who occupies the most rarefied, whitest, wealthiest echelons of social power really the #MeToo icon the moment demands, a construction The Post goes out of its sappy way to underscore in the cringiest slo-mo shot of the year? Where are all the Black people?
The politics of the plantation are a little blunt and simplistic (the term “neo-liberalism” could be used a lot in describing it), but the film is saved by Radlmaier’s incredible eye for comedic shot construction. As both director and star, he has a Chaplinesque combination of skills, both at framing a shot to tell a joke on its own and at using his tall, lanky body in inherently funny ways.