Orwell: 2+2=5

A new documentary about the British essayist and novelist is positively disturbing. And that’s a good thing

A scene from the documentary “Orwell: 2+2=5” (Velvet Film).

These days there are at least two ways to be disturbed by what is going on in the world. One is the common habit known as “doomscrolling,” the act of spending excessive time online reading negative news or distressing content, often leading to feelings of anxiety or sadness. Apparently, doomscrolling became more prominent during events like the COVID-19 pandemic, as people sought to stay informed about troubling situations, but is arguably one of the many negative effects of the prevalence of social media. I do not recommend doomscrolling.

The other, more constructive, way to be disturbed is by reading a good book, reflecting on an insightful long-form essay, or watching a film that provides you with some broader context for “what is going on,” so that you may be able to better understand it and, perhaps, actually do something about it. This essay is concerned with the disturbance part, the next one, coming out in a couple of days, with how to turn it into something useful.

[I realize that most people don’t want to be disturbed, that they seek ataraxia, or tranquillity of mind, the very same objective sought by the ancient Epicureans and Pyrrhonists. That’s a major reason I’ve never been attracted to those philosophies. I think we have a duty toward ourselves and toward humanity to be properly disturbed, so that we can be spurred into action and do our part to make this world a little less miserable for everyone. </sermon>]

A splendid example of what I’m talking about is a recently released documentary on the British novelist and essayist George Orwell, he of “1984” fame. The documentary—more of an op-ed piece on the nature of tyranny and propaganda, really—is by Raoul Peck, Oscar-nominated director of “I Am Not Your Negro.” The documentary, titled “Orwell: 2+2=5” (a reference to a famous scene in 1984, see below), was presented at the Cannes film festival earlier this year and was released nationwide in the US on October 10th.

The idea is simple yet extremely powerful: the entire thing is narrated by actor Damian Lewis, who simply reads Orwell’s own words, chosen from his essays and personal correspondence. While Lewis speaks, the audience is exposed alternatively to scenes from Orwell’s life and to stark reminders of the actions and words of the major authoritarian figures of the 20th and 21st century. It’s a who’s who of those under whose boot you really don’t want to find yourself: Franco, Hitler (of course), Modi, Pinochet, Putin, Trump, Xi Jinping, and other assorted villains.

Peck also splices in scenes from different movie versions of “1984” and “Animal Farm,” at one point showing a modern shopping mall with the three mottos of Big Brother projected on the floor and walls: “Freedom is slavery,” “War is peace,” “Ignorance is strength.” These are classical instances of Orwell’s famous concept of Newspeak, that is, state-controlled language, which the inhabitants of his dystopian society learn to juggle by way of “doublethink,” the ability they develop to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time.

While 1984 (the year) has come and gone, not just 2025, but the whole of the past several decades has certainly presented us with innumerable examples of both Newspeak and doublethink. And then there is the phrase that gives the title to the documentary: 2+2=5, an example of mathematical nonsense, of course, but in “1984” the scene in which we encounter it symbolizes the oppressive power of the Party over reality and individual thought. Winston Smith, the protagonist, is tortured and manipulated in the ironically named Ministry of Love. O’Brien, a Party member, insists that the Party can control truth and reality, forcing Winston to accept the absurd notion that 2+2 equals 5. The moment highlights the themes of totalitarianism, psychological manipulation, and the loss of personal autonomy, powerfully illustrating how the Party seeks to dominate not just actions but thoughts and beliefs. The statement has become a chilling representation of the power to enforce loyalty and obedience through the denial of objective reality.

Unfortunately, this is no longer fiction. Back in October 2004 Ron Suskind wrote an article for the New York Times Magazine entitled “Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush.” An unidentified aide (believed to be none other than Karl Rove) told Suskind that journalists like him were in “what we call the reality-based community,” defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” The aide went on to say: “That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

The quote became notorious as an example of the Bush administration’s arrogance and dismissive attitude toward empirical analysis and fact-based journalism, and it’s frequently cited in discussions about post-truth politics.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ But things only got worse during the intervening two decades. Much worse. We now live in an increasingly manufactured reality made possible by a combination of blatant lying, threats against media and universities (and comedians!), and AI-generated fantasies.

Speaking of AI, in an interview with the LA Times, Peck said: “[Orwell] wrote about it without knowing it would be called AI. He said someday you’d be able to write whole books and newspapers with artificial intelligence—exactly what’s happening now.” ChatGPT was released as recently as the 30th of November 2022 and we already live in a world where it is becoming next to impossible to tell deep fakes from real world photos and videos. AI may be a lot of things, but it most certainly is an incredible gift for authoritarians the world over.

Which reminds me of another disturbing movie, this one—thankfully—fictional: Look Who’s Back. The story begins with Hitler suddenly and mysteriously coming back to life in the 21st century, awakening on top of his underground bunker, where he took his life. No explanation is given of how this was possible, but that’s beside the point. The movie is an increasingly disturbing exploration of what Hitler would do under such circumstances.

Initially, the former Führer, played by Oliver Masucci, is understandably confused and disoriented. You almost feel bad for him. But then he begins to assert control and things rapidly go from bad to worse. One of the pivotal scenes has Hitler discovering the new mass media technology, at which point he comments (I’m paraphrasing, since I’ve seen the movie when it came out, in 2015): “If only I had had this sort of technological means when I was in power.” Imagine what he would have been able to do with social media, talk radio, and Faux News. No, wait, you don’t have to imagine it, because a series of montages of contemporary authoritarians in “Orwell: 2+2=5” actually shows it explicitly.

Orwell died in 1950, and his reputation has waxed and waned depending on how others have interpreted or exploited him. For instance, the CIA, back in 1954, funded an animated version of Animal Farm for purposes of Cold War propaganda, and without a trace of irony, Donal Trump praised Orwell during his recent visit to the UK, on the occasion of a banquet at Windsor Castle.

But Orwell has never gone away, and he is, if anything, more relevant now than he has ever been. In what is arguably one of the most tense moments in Peck’s film we see a series of current examples of newspeak, including: “Collateral damage,” “Illegals,” “Peacekeeping operations,” and—most controversially—“Antisemitism 2024,” the latter a reference to the fact that “antisemitism” has now become code for any criticism whatsoever of the current Israeli government, ironically exploited by political forces on the Right that have historically been, and arguably still are, truly antisemite.

Does any of this leave room for some modicum of hope about the future of democracy and free speech? Again, it’s wise to turn to Orwell himself, one of whose lines in 1984 says: “If there is hope, it lies in the proles.”

The “proles” are the working-class majority of society, making up over 80% of the population. In the novel, they are largely ignored by the ruling Party and are considered unimportant, yet they possess a degree of freedom that the Party members do not have, which gives them potential for rebellion. As a colleague of mine reminded me recently, Malcom X once said: “We aren’t outnumbered, we’re out-organized.” Indeed. Time to get organized again?

[Next issue: How to deal with the bleakness of times.]