December 27, 2024
by Carla Hay

Directed by Asif Kapadia
Culture Representation: Taking place in 2073 in the fictional U.S. city called New San Francisco, the docudrama film “2073” features a racially diverse group of people (white, black, Latin, Asian and Indigenous) who portray apocalypse survivors (in the drama scenes) or who are real-life political activists.
Culture Clash: The politically liberal activists who make comments for the documentary predict that an apocalypse will happen in the 21st century due to environmental, socioeconomic and political issues.
Culture Audience: “2073” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of director Asif Kapadia and “end of the world” movies that place almost all the blame on politically conservative people.

Pretentious and derivative, “2073” is a doomsday docudrama that combines dreary apocalypse scenes with left-wing political lecturing. There’s too much whining and not enough talk about practical solutions. The “end of the world” warnings in this movie just add up to a lot of annoying hot air. The so-called experts interviewed for this movie just want to blame the world’s problems on people who don’t share their liberal political beliefs.
Directed by Asif Kapadia, “2073” had its world premiere at the 2024 Venice International Film Festival. The movie made the rounds at several other film festivals in 2024, including the BFI London Film Festival and DOC NYC. Kapadia won an Oscar for the 2015 Amy Winehouse documentary “Amy.” Unfortunately, “2073” is a low point in his filmmography.
Although “2073” is undoubtedly a film that has noble intentions, it has a heavy-handed approach. The movie has an obvious political agenda, but that agenda’s credibility is lowered with the movie using fictional, scripted scenes as examples of the gloom and doom predicted in the movie. Kapadia and Tony Grisoni co-wrote the “2073” screenplay.
The concept of “2073” isn’t very original. According to the movie’s synopsis, “2073” is inspired by Chris Marker’s “iconic 1962 featurette ‘La Jetée,’ about a time traveler who risks his life to change the course of history and save the future of humanity.” As explained in the beginning of “2073,” the scripted portions of the movie take place in 2073—37 years after “the event,” which obviously means an apocalypse. In other words, this apocalypse happened in 2036, which is just 12 years after the release of this movie.
The scripted drama scenes in “2073” are in a fictional city called New San Francisco, which is described as the capital of the Americas. In this bombed-out city, there’s an electronic billboard showing news reports about Chairwoman Ivanka Trump. What entity has Ivanka Trump as a chairwoman? Don’t expect this ridiculous movie to answer that question. The “2073” filmmakers’ obvious intention is to provoke viewers who would get upset at the thought of Ivanka Trump being chairwoman of anything.
The movie’s drama scenes follows the depressing and solitary life of an apocalypse survivor (played by Samantha Morton), whose name is listed in the end credits as Ghost. Ghost, who is a voiceover narrator for these drama scenes, is seen living in a dark and destroyed building while avoiding being seen by other people as much as possible. According to Ghost, her memory was “slipping through [her] fingers, like sand.”
Ghost also says she’s in hiding because one day “they” came for her. “I ran. I’m still running. My life is turning into one of those sci-fi comics I used to read. There are others here—survivors, renegades.” Other scenes in the movie show that the Americas—or at least New San Francisco—is being run by an oppressive government that rounds up “renegades” and tortures them.
Ghost is trying to avoid detection from an artificial intelligence being called Jack. “He listens and watches everything,” Ghost says about Jack. “You can’t trust anyone anymore. People thought the world would end, but the world goes on. It’s us who’ll end.”
It’s all so tedious to watch this watered-down ripoff of Big Brother from George Orwell’s doomsday “1984” novel, which was published in 1949 and predicted a dystopian future. In “2073,” Naomi Ackie has a small and ultimately inconsequential role as a professor character. Morton’s acting as Ghost is adequate by can’t overcome the weak screenplay.
As for the “talking heads” interviews in the documentary sections of “2073,” these comments are presented as voiceovers, presumably not to distract from the movie’s dramatic images of Ghost suffering in a decrepit place where food and water are scarce. In the documentary parts of the movie, the people commenting are politically liberal activists from Europe, North America, and Asia. The documentary doesn’t explain why, in a movie about the “end of the world,” there is no commentator representation from other largely populated continents, such as Africa and Australia.
Almost all of the activist commentators are also journalists and/or writers, such as Maria Ressa, Carole Cadwalladr, Rana Ayyub Ben Rhodes, Rahima Mahmut, Silkie Carlo, Cori Crider, George Monbiot, Nina Schick, Douglas Rushkof, Carmody Grey, James O’Brien, Anne Applebaum and Antony Lowenstein. The other commentators are Amazon Labor Union founder Chris Smalls, computer scientist Tristan Harris and environmental activist Alessandra Korap.
The problem with “2073” is that the documentary parts of the movie are just soundbite compilations that recycle whatever rants these people have already said or written in other movies or media reports. Want to know about Ressa’s crusade for freedom of the press in her native Philippines? There was already an excellent documentary about it: 2020’s “A Thousand Cuts,” directed by Ramona S. Díaz. Labor union leader Smalls is the star of the 2024 documentary “Union,” (directed by Stephen Maing and Brett Story), which chronicles Amazon Labor Union becoming the first union at corporate giant Amazon.
The “2073” doomsday warnings about the environment are very “been there, done that” and were already well-presented by Al Gore in the Oscar-winning 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” (directed by Davis Guggenheim), as well as in many other documentaries and news reports about climate change. And that why it’s so boring and basic to hear political strategist/security expert Sherri Goodman say in “2073” commentary: “We are truly in a climate emergency.”
Other concerns brought forth in the documentary parts of “2073” have to do with government surveillance, civil rights and the erosion of democracy. The essential messaging of “2073” is that (1) anyone who’s involved in conservative politics is contributing to the end of the world; (2) only progressive political liberals are smart enough to tell you that; and (3) if you don’t believe the commentators in the movie, then you must be an idiot. It’s a very condescending tone that can be an absolute turn-off to people (even liberals) who are open-minded and intelligent enough to make up their own minds about how they feel about world issues.
It’s appalling that so many journalists are interviewed for “2073” but their comments in the movie are not really about investigative journalism but are just soundbite rants that say nothing new. By not presenting anything substantial to prove that opposing viewpoints are wrong, “2073” fails at being balanced and is actually quite didactic in its “political liberals are always right” messaging. For a more informative look at the world’s problems and effective ways to deal with these problems, progressive liberals can watch MSNBC or read Mother Jones and don’t need to watch “2073,” a misguided movie that is unrelenting in its paranoia and political divisiveness that don’t give any logical and hopeful solutions.
Neon released “2073” in select U.S. cinemas on December 27, 2024.