Day 1114
Tonight was date night which was great. I got Chinese food and watched the following film with my wife :)
I do wish I had picked a different movie lol. The film (2073) presents a vision of our future that’s essentially like a restaurant fusion experiment. Combining elements of classic dystopian sci-fi, political commentary, and technological cautionary tales, but like many fusion restaurants, not every combination works.
For those unfamiliar, “2073” takes place in a dystopian future where surveillance capitalism has reached its logical extreme. Society has fractured into monitored zones where privacy is non-existent and AI algorithms dictate nearly every aspect of daily life. The film explores how humanity adapts (or fails to adapt) to this technological nightmare, raising questions about our current trajectory.
The most frustrating aspect of “2073” is its plot structure, which raises numerous interesting questions but offers few satisfying answers. By the film’s conclusion, we understand that “the world went to shit,” but there’s little resolution beyond this bleak observation. The narrative threads are left deliberately tangled, which some might find thought-provoking, but I found it simply incomplete.
What’s particularly disappointing is how the film wraps its political perspective in sci-fi packaging without acknowledging its agenda. I don’t object to documentaries taking clear political stances, that’s expected, but science fiction that pretends to be objective while pushing a specific worldview feels disingenuous. “2073” definitely leans left in its assumptions about technology, capitalism, and government, which colors its dystopian vision in ways that deserve more transparent examination.
Get Chep’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Credit where it’s due: the film’s unflinching examination of surveillance overreach is its strongest element. The filmmakers don’t shy away from calling out real-world parallels from Palantir’s data mining to governmental monitoring programs to China’s treatment of Uyghurs. These references ground the fictional world in contemporary concerns that transcend political divides.
The visual design and world building also deserve recognition. The directors created a future that feels believable and lived-in rather than simply a backdrop for set pieces. The attention to detail in how technology has been integrated into everyday life shows genuine thought about how our current trajectory might evolve.
However, where “2073” ultimately falls short for me is in its overwhelming focus on problems without offering thoughtful exploration of solutions. The film is content to showcase a dystopia without seriously engaging with how we might avoid it. As I left the theater (my couch), I found myself thinking about how technology itself is neutral. A tool that, like a hammer, can either build houses or bash skulls. The film would have been stronger had it acknowledged this duality more explicitly and explored potential positive paths forward.
What really frustrated me was the disjointed structure. The sci-fi narrative added nothing substantial to the plot and actually detracted from the documentary elements. I never felt attached to the main character. Instead, I was mostly confused and annoyed by the constant switching between sci-fi film and documentary about the state of the world. Pick a lane!
For all its flaws, “2073” does succeed in starting conversations about where our relationship with technology is heading, so I give it credit for that. Also the Malcolm X quote “Every defeat, every heartbreak, every loss, contains its own seed, its own lesson on how to improve your performance next time” was great. That’s about it though. I don’t agree with the equality-for-all angle I felt like the film was pushing.
Humans are not equal. Some are better than others at certain things. I can’t beat LeBron in a 1-on-1 game of basketball in the same way LeBron couldn’t beat me in explaining Bitcoin. We are special in our own ways, and I got the sense “2073” was pushing for socialism as the answer which, while maybe well-intentioned, is not it. A film that explores technological dystopia should recognize that individual excellence and specialization, not enforced equality, is how humanity actually advances.
4/9/25
Conor Jay Chepenik
