Love in the year 2000

Short Synopsis

Love in the year 2000 is a science fiction short film, set in an alternate history America of the year 2000.  It tells the story of Lucky, a “relationship representative,” who professionally stands in for one of the parties in a first-date situation, and what happens when she falls in love.

Description/Treatment

Love in the year 2000 is a science fiction short film, approximately 18 minutes long, set in an alternate history America of the year 2000.  It tells the story of Lucky, a “relationship representative,” who saves prospective couples the time and drudgery of courtship by professionally standing in for one of the parties in a first-date situation, and evaluating the level of likely interest in the other party on behalf of her client.  In the year 2000, it is a near-certainty both parties are representatives standing in for their respective clients, going through the motions, making mental notes to prepare reports the next morning.  And so, Lucky finds herself in an unusual predicament (and a role for which she never rehearsed), when she is assigned to meet Lena Nigari, a young Native American woman doing something unheard of — going on a date herself.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->Through Lucky’s relationship with Lena, Love in the year 2000 explores this future society at its ground level — its culture, its class system and its politics.  At the same time, it metaphorically explores issues of relationships, class and polity that resonate with 21st century life in America.

Love in the year 2000 seeks to evoke the science fiction of earlier decades, when the Year 2000 represented a distant era of incomprehensible society and technology.  The lineage of Love in the year 2000<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> includes writers such as Philip K. Dick and Stanislaus Lem, and filmmakers such as Jean-Luc Godard, whose speculative fictions certainly contained fascinating, far-fetched ideas, but functioned primarily as an opportunity to explore what it means to be human during times of crisis and upheaval.  In the future worlds of Dick, Lem and Godard, upheaval was inevitably set against the backdrop of a never-ending Cold War.  In Lucky’s world (as in our own) that war is over, replaced by nebulous rebel forces striking paces far away; the rise of the service industry, career-obsessed young professionals, and the increasingly autistic experience of life lived online has created a demand for cheap labor to perform the messy business of normal human interactions.  In Lucky’s Year 2000, love is a job, performed by an entire class of temporary workers who stand in for those too busy or socially awkward to engage directly in what, for our world, would be considered reasonably pleasurable.

While exploring the human emotions implicit in its premise, Love in the year 2000 also uses its setting to explore the America of the Here and Now, in the great SCI-FI tradition of somewhat inappropriate social commentary.  The government in Love in the Year 2000 is omnipresent and anti-individualistic, campaigning — desperately — for family values and community integration, and fighting wars across America and the world, wars which leave the populace in a state of fear.  In fact, the writing of the screenplay at times proves challenging, as current events overtook the satire (in June 2004, Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr. of The Southern Baptist Leader Theological Seminary began a campaign against “deliberate childlessness.”).  The threat of Terror looms over Love in the year 2000, and will certainly bring to mind the current War on Terror — in fact, a news report in the screenplay was adapted from an actual US State Department travel advisory.  But although criticism of this War is both presented and implied, it strikes a balance true to the society and the characters portrayed: the climax is in fact an attack by parties unknown. 

While such themes enrich Love in the year 2000, ultimately these characters exist near the ground of society, where the government and the war exist as abstracts, just a part of their lives.  The central relationship between Lucky and Lena could be considered provocative in this time of controversy over same-sex marriage.   But it is handled matter-of-factly, as a point of context, rather than a turning-wheel of the plot.  

The muting of point of view is an intentionally cultivated strength of the project, which is about the people, not the ideology of the filmmakers.  The characters have been forced by their environment to withdraw from human interaction; through each other, they have reason to learn to re-connect. 

--------------------------

Love in the year 2000 will be shot in color on 35mm film.  Approximately half of the stock needed for the project has been acquired through private donation.  We will transfer to video for an efficient editing process and create a negative cut for a final 35mm print.  In this era of video, 35mm might be considered a luxury for short film project, but for Love in the Year 2000, it is an absolute necessity.  Love in the Year 2000 will utilize lush production values to achieve disconnected emotional emptiness.  Just as importantly as the appearance of the finished work, will be what 35mm represents to this project: vision and epic grandeur.

It also represents an opportunity for the participants, to create a physical, permanent work of art for exhibition, before analog filmmaking becomes a thing of the past.

The project utilizes underserved populations such as lesbians and Native Americans in a way that makes Love in the year 2000 not about being gay or Native American – it’s about characters who are gay, or Native American.  Through Lucky’s relationship with Lena, Love in the year 2000 explores a future society at the ground level — its culture, class system and politics.  At the same time, the film metaphorically explores issues of relationships, class and polity that resonate with 21st century life.  Artistically, this is a culmination of a decade’s work of narrative exploring relationships and society. 

This will be the first short film to win the Nobel Prize.