I don’t think George Orwell would have liked the documentary ‘Orwell 2+2=5‘ that Raoul Peck wrote, directed and dedicated to his biography and the relevance of his writings and especially the novel ‘1984’ in today’s world. I saw the documentary and I remained with many question marks. Orwell’s work is not written in the style of a political manifesto and does not target single-color totalitarianisms, but all regimes that oppress personalities and enslave language and thought. Above all, however, Orwell rejected absolute truths and their imposition – not only by force but also by propaganda. The script written by Raoul Peck and the way he chose his message bearers seems at many moments to be more of a collection of empty sentences than an invitation to debate. Orwell is always relevant and today more than ever. The subjugation of its messages in selected directions, ignoring their universality, is, however, un-Orwellian.
The novel ‘1984’ was written in the last two years of Orwell’s life, which were also years of mourning after the death of his wife and years of suffering due to the illness that was crushing him and that was to end his life so early. George Peck combines fragments from three of the films that brought cinematic versions of the novel to the big screens screen with letters and diary pages read by the actor Damian Lewis. The biographical presentation is non-linear, the other period that is covered in more detail being that of his adolescence and youth, which includes the five years spent in the British colonial service in Burma, decisive years in terms of life experience and confrontation with the dark aspects of an oppressive system. Much less is covered, however, precisely the period of his intellectual maturity, of his literary debuts, of his wanderings and ideological awakenings. Those who know Orwell’s biography well (and there are some remarkable books that can be consulted) know that he did not hesitate to correct the wrong paths he had taken in his youth and to criticize extremist ideologies, but also the authoritarian tendencies of the systems to which he had once adhered. Orwell was a man who researched and doubted, who rebelled against the social and intellectual environment from which he came, who asked himself more questions than he gave answers. The biographical part seemed well done to me, but with significant gaps.
Raoul Peck is certainly an experienced and talented documentary filmmaker, but also a man with clear convictions. Unlike the hero of his film, he seems to have more answers than questions. What particularly bothered me in the film was the way in which details from Orwell’s biography or elements from films depicting his era are programmatically attached to critical political statements, coming from a single direction, towards aspects and tendencies of today’s totalitarianisms and authoritarian tendencies in contemporary democracies. The selection of the critics’ targets is very focused and quite one-sided. There is no reference to the Orwellian aspects of Islamic theocracies or post-Stalin communist dictatorships (except for a single reference to the Khmer Rouge). Other connections are forced. Are technocratic oligarchs really more dangerous than fundamentalist religious preachers or than the ideologists of contemporary totalitarianisms? Historically, any reference to communist propaganda and oppression (from language to torture) practiced for half a century in Eastern Europe is completely missing. While I may agree with many of the critical positions expressed in the film, I find equally significant what the script chose to omit. The great ideological debate of the world today is that between totalitarianism and democracy, between truth and its falsification through lies and omissions. Orwell cannot be enlisted in a plea for half-truths.