There is a certain deranged pleasure that comes in watching films made many decades ago that supposedly predict a future we have already bypassed – while those set in the distant future tend to be quite compelling, the most fascinating are those that look slightly closer to reality, as is the case in 1. April 2000, one of the many films that set out to predict the changes we would see in at the turn of the millennium, the terrifying prospects of the year 2000 laying ahead, far enough for artists to make some bold speculations, near enough to keep it relatively close to reality. Wolfgang Liebeneiner, who directed this film from a screenplay written by Rudolf Brunngraber (an Austrian journalist) and Ernst Marboe, had quite a task ahead of him, and while 1. April 2000 may not necessarily be the most refined or logical image of the future, it does function as an absolutely uproarious comedy, a delightfully irreverent piece of storytelling that combines science fiction and political satire in a way that shows very little restraint, but instead intend to infuse a quaint story with deep and unsettling commentary on the path the director and his cohorts saw the world heading in. It’s not a perfect film, and it is understandably quite obscure, especially in comparison to other films that were far more successful in establishing a clear tone and sense of direction – but as a strange and captivating work of unhinged satire, there are few films more enticing to those with an alternative sense of humour, and a penchant for the incredibly strange, than this bewildering glimpse into a future that we obviously know isn’t true, which is always aiming at making a statement, even when it isn’t as particularly successful as it intended.

The film is set, as the title suggests, on the 1st of April in the year 2000 (a year that existed as an omnipresent concept in most of 20th-century science fiction). The world is supposedly at peace, but somehow a rumour has started to spread that there is disharmony in Austria, which motivates the global council responsible for maintaining peace, to venture downwards into Vienna, to confront its citizens about its supposed disruption of the peace. This leads to a fierce battle of the wits between two parties – the council, headed by the President of the Global Union (Hilde Krahl, who is absolutely wonderful in the role of the benevolent but ferocious leader of the world, her presence evoking a deep feminist message that was ahead of its time), and the Prime Minister of Austria (Josef Meinrad), who are dedicated to proving their particular opinion is the correct one. This leads to a series of long, elaborate demonstrations on both sides – for the former, she intends to prove how Austria has betrayed the well-regarded treaties and conventions that allow for harmony, while for the latter, he needs to prove that his nation is one that isn’t only peaceful, but important in terms of art, culture and history. They’re motivated by the consequences that would occur if their particular position isn’t defended – if the Global Union succeeds, Austria will be destroyed and its people evacuated to live in other countries that are deemed more harmonious, while of the President succeeds in defending his nation, Austria will continue to exist as it has all these centuries. It comes down to the most intimate details, which eventually converge in a personal battle of the wits between the two entities.

The minor controversy surrounding 1. April 2000 is related to the circumstances surrounding its creation – the jury remains divided on whether this is a work of pure originality, or if it was (as rumours suggest), commissioned by the Austrian government as a way of re-establishing their place in the world after the disastrous Second World War, which placed them in a compromising position. For some viewers, this may mean that 1. April 2000 is a work of gaudy, inappropriate nationalism, a form of glorified propaganda that stealthily strikes the viewer in immoral, inappropriate ways. However, others may consider this a bold and valiant work of satire, an attempt for a government to put in the effort to change perspective on their nation by giving audiences, both at the time and in the future, the chance to laugh along with them as they explore and exploit their various foibles and quirks in a way that is mostly harmless. Regardless of where one falls on this spectrum of opinion, it’s difficult to look at this film and not admire the gall that went into its creation – on a conceptual and tangible level, 1. April 2000 is a daring work, a science fiction satire that came about at a time when such subjects weren’t nearly as popular in art. The Cold War was still in its earliest years, and paranoia was present, but still far from reaching the peak it would in the 1960s, at least in terms of how cinema represented these tensions. Taking these fragments of real-world detail, and layering on an abundance of curious commentary relating to issues of the day, filtered through the perspective of supposedly telling the story of the future, Liebeneiner creates a vivid and captivating portrait of Europe in the year 2000, where even the most absurd flaws and inaccuracies are somehow endearing.

Nothing dates quite as poorly as a badly-made piece of speculative fiction – as a species, we are naturally curious about the future, and many of us have wondered where our world will be in a matter of years, whether within our lifetime or in the distant future. 1. April 2000 manages to circumvent many of the problems that come with the genre by actually paying attention to the small details, rather than the enormous artistic liberties many other filmmakers at this time would tend to take in order to represent a very different future. Considering this film was telling of a world that we’d seen in less than half a century, it very cleverly avoided making too many far-fetched assertions, keeping it to a few interesting ideas, but still situating it in a recognizable world. Films about the future rapidly change meaning once the year it portrays is very close or has passed – in the years prior, it’s a matter of wondering if we’ll truly reach the point represented here, while the years after are spent being amused by how much these people got wrong, both of which are interesting experiments that make for solid entertainment. 1. April 2000 never really tries too hard to be the definitive text on the future – in the end, absolutely nothing can ever attest to being an actually serious piece of predictive fiction. However, for everything it got wrong, the film certainly maintained a sense of humour throughout, and it is at least fun to think back on it in retrospect, where we can happily laugh at the endearing errors that were made, especially since it’s clear they were never meant to be taken all that seriously anyway.

1. April 2000 is a decent effort that certainly had its heart in the right place, even if a lot of its major concepts were proven hilariously wrong. However, we can’t really view a film like this from a contemporary perspective, since purely depending on our own present knowledge, and how it disproves many of the ideas integral to this film, is an unfair advantage on our part, since it positions this film, and everything it represents. This is the kind of film that should be considered through as much of a theoretical lens as we can, with the benefits from looking at it as a product of its time, rather than a purely predictive piece, only increasing our enjoyment. It’s a wonderfully well-made film, filled with some interesting ideas, and a few questions that are far more provocative than the effervescent tone would lead you to suggest. It’s not a particularly complex film in terms of its story (which is quite rare for films set in the future, where their general purpose seems to be all about complicated portrayals of things to come), but it has a genuine proclivity for pushing forward and trying to take a progressive view, which is absolutely admirable and something that should be noted, even in the context of how it so wildly deviates from what we know to be true. As a whole, 1. April 2000 is quite entertaining, and a work of very meaningful satire, as seen through the lens of abstract science fiction, which only makes it an even more enjoyable experience.