When Asif Kapadia began shaping 2073, he was already known for his ability to create emotionally charged narratives without relying on traditional interviews or voiceovers. With earlier films like Amy and Senna, he had established a technique that emphasized visual storytelling through meticulous use of archival footage. But the creative structure behind 2073 introduced something new: the deliberate use of two separate editing teams, working independently to shape different parts of the film. This strategy reveals a deeper tension within Kapadia’s evolving documentary language—one that privileges contrast over cohesion, fragmentation over unity.
One of the more overlooked aspects of Kapadia’s process is how these editing decisions serve a conceptual purpose. Chris King, his long-time collaborator, was assigned to cut the documentary sequences. In contrast, Sylvie Landra, with a background in dramatic film editing, was brought on to shape the fictionalized elements. They never worked in parallel but handed the project off across stages, creating what Kapadia called “two different creative brains.” This arrangement was not merely logistical; it was foundational. It created a cinematic space where conflicting styles collided by design, reflecting the fractured, nonlinear world the films seek to represent.
Asif Kapadia’s films do not adhere to a single timeline or viewpoint. Instead, they weave through different periods, perspectives, and modes of representation. In Amy, he transformed private footage into a haunting narrative of public collapse. In Senna, he used race broadcasts and personal clips to explore the quiet intensity behind a sports icon. This same technique of juxtaposition is now being used to engage broader political structures. But what makes 2073 particularly instructive is how these editing methods also mirror the splintered nature of contemporary perception. Kapadia seems to suggest that the medium itself must fracture if it is to capture fragmented realities.
What often goes unrecognized is how critical this structure is to audience response. When 2073 premiered in Spain, viewers latched onto its imagery of environmental devastation—floods, fires, and darkened skies. Meanwhile, American audiences responded most viscerally to scenes of political repression and media control. This variability is not incidental. Asif Kapadia often comments that his films change depending on who watches them. By placing different editors at the helm of different sequences, he enables a form of responsiveness within the film itself. The finished product behaves like a prism: what you see depends on where you stand.
The use of LED volume technology further reflects this philosophy of layered storytelling. By simulating environments in a controlled digital space—such as city ruins or underground shelters—Asif Kapadia is able to overlay dramatic content with archival elements in real time. Rather than shoot scenes separately and combine them later, actors perform against immersive projections that already include documentary imagery. This technique collapses boundaries between past and speculative futures, not only within the narrative but within the viewer’s perception. It’s an aesthetic built on simultaneity: memory and prediction occupy the same frame.
Even Kapadia’s use of music plays into this editorial strategy. Working once again with composer Antonio Pinto, he developed a sound design that merges electronic dissonance with orchestral motifs. In previous films, music responded to the emotional tempo of characters. In his newer work, it becomes another editorial tool, signaling shifts in mood or truth status. These choices point to a broader ambition: to construct documentaries that are no longer linear records, but multidimensional experiences. Asif Kapadia is less interested in what happened and more concerned with how we come to feel that it happened.
The long-standing collaboration between Kapadia and King also underscores the director’s preference for partnerships that evolve through experimentation. Over time, they have developed a shared visual grammar that allows for increasing risk-taking. Whether it’s layering video textures or altering rhythm through abrupt tonal shifts, their editorial choices are deliberate tools of storytelling, not afterthoughts. When Sylvie Landra was brought into the fold, it added not friction but contrast—a creative dissonance that enriched the final work. Asif Kapadia does not seek consensus within his team but divergence, mirroring the very world he documents.
Editing, for Kapadia, is not a means of assembling story but of constructing meaning through tension. His documentaries often end without neat resolution, and that ambiguity is by design. The dual editorial structure of his recent work reflects a commitment to form that resonates with contemporary complexity. In splitting the edit between two creative minds, he invites contradiction into the process—because understanding today’s world may require inhabiting its contradictions, not smoothing them away.
Comments are closed.