Schizopolis is a crazy film. Not crazy in the same way that a film such as Mad Max: Fury Road is crazy; Schizopolis is a film that feels like a film that is literally made by someone suffering from some form of insanity. Scenes lacked any logic or real form of sense and most the dialogue seemed to be way out of context. The bare bones of a story were all that could be found in terms of plot. It was a story whose intended audience seemed to be the mentally insane.

A lot of effort had to be placed in the interpretation of the film. I spent half my time actually watching the movie and the other half attempting to piece together a story. Every time I thought I had come close to understanding something, a new element would come in and completely ruin my idea. It was quite frustrating and soon it was all I could think about while watching the film. Attempting to follow the plot eventually became a personal mission of mine. I was determined to beat the director’s attempt to confuse me. I believe this is why I had such an enjoyable time watching the film. I felt like there was some game to be won; a secret easter egg that the filmmakers had put in that would cause the film to suddenly make sense. This game is what led me to my thoughts about the intentions of the filmmakers.

While trying to interpret the movie, I was sure that Soderbergh put in some things just to mess with whoever would watch the film. This does after all; seem like the perfect film for bunch of college students to over-analyze. It’s apparent while watching the film that it does know how to tell a story; it just chooses not to. Instead, much of the film is open (and required) for interpretation. I can’t help but feel that some time ago, back in the nineties, that Soderbergh sat in a room with all his filmmaking friends and brainstormed the most lunatic way to tell a story. Perhaps this is just me self-projecting onto the film because it is 100% something I would do. It feels like one of those films that people would dedicate entire days to analyzing (or entire classes hehe) each and every scene even if none of it is supposed to have any meaning. In the world of film and movies, a movie that has been left open for interpretation is usually treated as an open door for insane analysis or hoity-toity “artistic” people looking for meaning in every scene. A personal pet peeve of mine is people who think themselves above the average person for being able to find “meaning” in a seemingly nonsensical movie. This film, to me, feels like a big middle finger to those kinds of people; an intentionally nonsensical film begging to be over analyzed without any meaning being there. That’s why this movie is something I’m going to recommend to many people.      

Not many films have the power nor the ingenuity to make a meaningful impression in its audience to keep it from fading into obscurity. We have a great number of stories even looking at the same ones through different angles; some genres and plots have become saturated with recurring cliches recycled time and time again its hard to tell one from the other. As its said in the bible:

Ecclesiastes 1:9 King James Version (KJV)
⁹ The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and 
that which is done is that which shall be done: and there 
is no new thing under the sun.

Though religious text and cultural analysis of media are two vastly opposite topics in the spectrum, they have one common factor and that is the critique of the human condition through any given medium. Maybe it be the movies or tv shows we watch or the trends in media and how we consume them. They all boil down to the inherent values our generation portrays.

Schizopolis is just that, a reflection of how we can view our culture and ourselves. Albeit, a reflection on a crude and dusty, old, broken mirror, smeared with in weird smelling stains bought off some swanky garage sale

But there is a reason to why it is the way it is. Contrary to popular belief, Schizopolis isn’t random and incoherent just for the hell of it but it makes a point, obscure as it maybe, an important point that it makes sure we understand even before the movie starts. 

“A movie for all generations and all its people to watch and understand.”

This beginning part seems like a joke, something to build up to a punchline of sorts as the film doesn’t seem to take itself seriously. Funnily enough it does.

The film is everything yet nothing at the sametime, it incorporates every cliche it can and all sorts of plots into one amalgamation. A freak show of every possible over done trope and story everyone gobbles and ingests without a moment’s notice. One might even call this film offensive with the way it presents itself all up in your face, critiquing plots and stories with religious conspiracies, or usual porno tropes, sophisticated love stories with a dash of european to make it seem intellectual, slice of life and action dramas. All these to arrive at a conclusion.

Its all garbage. 

Given though that mixing enough ingredients into a pot and you’ll achieve a vile concoction of God knows what. It doesn’t matter if you have the choicest of spices or grade A meats or the freshest of produce, the film breaks it all apart to the barest of minimum to show and present how all these tropes are absolute trash. It might seem contradictory to what I previously said about this film taking itself seriously, but a good chunk of the film makes fun of itself while trying to make its point. Almost like a circus act balancing on a tightrope of the film industry, and even more importantly the culture as a whole. Think holding a concert to raise funds to sue the top musical artists. 

Honestly, none of the characters or their stories matter as so much as to play their part in critiquing their given genre, trope, or plot. One aspect of the movie shine through out of everything and its the religious group and movement: “Eventualism”. 

It find it in the beginnings of the film as well as scattered parts of it randomly and eventually in the end. Though it is one of the tropes being picked apart and analyzed like the rest of the elements in the film, Eventualism as a religious movement looks at the philosophy of things happening by drawing out these events into being. Things that will happen will happen. 

This is the crux of how the film presents itself and shows off how it grows and matures into the mess it is. All these things are happening because they can and they will. All possible outcomes are the outcomes that will take place. It is because it can, not because it aimlessly does so but so that it can look at what happens when it does.

And this is where the film finds structure amongst all the chaos it spew out.
Steven Soderbergh went through some cases with his previous films with committees deciding the general direction. Sources have said that this came from Soderbergh’s own pocket and his personal project. And to me this comes shining through like a big F U to the industry that has seem to pollute and recycle the same shite over and over.

To Soderbergh, the film is merely just a reflection of the insanity that is ingrained in our culture and ourselves.

The whole film was confusing, but at the same time very entertaining. A lot of films could be described as such, but Schizopolis is just on a whole different level. I’d say it’s a very experimental take on the usual storytelling in films. In fact, it was too experimental that my mind was left with a million questions when it ended.

In the beginning of the film, Soderbergh himself addresses the audience by saying that the film we were about to watch is “the most important motion picture you will attend.” This scene already gave me the impression that the whole film would be a different experience. Oddly enough, it also reminded me of Sex Drive wherein there were naked women just walking across the screen and being in this whole other dimension that only ever served comedic reliefs during awkward moments in the film.

I recognize that there are three main characters in the film: Fletcher Munson, his wife, who also plays “Attractive Woman #2,” and Fletcher’s doppelgänger(?) Korchek. This is another confusing aspect of the film. Obviously this is on purpose, and I guess the usage of the same actors for different characters benefits the storytelling of the different perspectives seen in the film. I saw Fletcher’s story arc as kind of a mockery of a conventional marriage wherein almost everything’s a routine. It’s almost a satirical take on it, actually. The communication, or lack thereof, was one of the most entertaining parts of the film for me. Dialogues like “generic greeting” and “false reaction indicating hunger and excitement” gave me the sense that it was indeed a mockery of this routine. Another notable exchange of words were the dialogues between Elmo and the woman he fancied—“Nose army” “Mellow rhubarb turbine” “Smell sign.” What the hell do these words mean? They’re actually really funny as they are, especially because the characters delivered these lines with such genuine emotions. However, this is probably the most confusing part of the film for me. Is this like a secret language between Elmo and the woman? I don’t know. I really have no idea. It’s a very interesting way to communicate, though. Then comes Korchek who was also played by the actor who played Fletcher and, not to mention, the director of the film who also spoke in the beginning! Soderbergh’s mind! Korchek’s absurd way of expressing his desire for Attractive Woman #2 was another interesting way to communicate. Lastly, when Mrs. Munson spoke to different men, they replied in different languages. I also do not know why this happens, but my take on it is that maybe it serves to emphasize the differences between Mrs. Munson, a wife, and men in general. We all know miscommunication is a problem that has proven to destroy relationships, which is of course what happened between her and Fletcher.

The film was fucked up, but in a good way. You either enjoy it as it is, or delve deeper and try really hard to understand what the hell is happening during those 90 minutes of experimental cinema. Nonetheless, I would definitely recommend this to friends… without context of course. I think that’d be more fun.

Coming into the classroom, I was excited to learn more about film, wishing to be a film critic/analyzer myself, yet I was unsure of what I’ll be learning in the course. I initially assumed that this course would teach me how to investigate into its profound themes, but upon reading the course objectives, consulting the reading and eventually watching Schizopolis (1996), it turned out that this was not the case. Rather, it was something more curious and arguably more thought-provoking.

 I will frankly admit this right now: Schizopolis was so bad…that it was genius, or interesting to say the least. While it may come off as peculiar and convoluted for a general audience that seeks enjoyment, I got this impression that the film seems “aware” that its purpose was not to please. Nevertheless, it got me thinking: “Why the heck would this be the introductory film of this class?”  

Then, I recalled one of the first quotes from the film, where Steven Soderbergh introduced it with caution.

“In the event that you find certain sequences or ideas confusing, please bear in mind that this is your fault, not ours. You will need to see the picture again and again until you understand everything.”

It was with this warning that I understood how I will be learning in this course over the semester. It is about giving attention to the methods of film narration and focusing on each of these aspects that come together visually and audibly. For the case of this movie, it is the closest to this description of art cinema according to “Film Form and Narrative” by Suzanne Speidel.

“Just as story is put in service of character, it is also subordinate to plot. Art cinema prioritizes the question of how narrative is presented rather than what is told.”

How can this be exemplified? Among the various elements that could be tackled here, in relation to the description above, two connected features stood out and can be briefly discussed: the dialogue and the characters, and they were utilized in two ways.

Firstly, the mannerism of their speech notably would contrast in the three acts probably to give focus to certain characters of the act and to disclose his or her perspective of situations. For instance, the stark differences in dialogue in the exact same scenes perhaps presented how it wants to portray the characters’ apathy or lack of concern towards one another.

Take, for instance, the conversations between Fletcher Munson and his wife where the same setting is told in opposing dialogues, revealing an unhappy marriage.

Act I
“Fletcher: Generic greeting.
Wife: Generic greeting returned. Mmm.
Fletcher: Mm-wah. Mm-wah. Imminent sustenance.
Wife: Overly dramatic statement regarding upcoming meal
Fletcher: Ooh. False reaction indicating hunger and excitement.”
Act III
“Fletcher: (In Japanese greeting)
Wife: Hello.
Fletcher: Mm-wah. Mm-wah. (Asking for dinner in Japanese)
Wife: Oh, spaghetti and soft rolls. Your favorite.
Fletcher: Ooh. (Expressing excitement in Japanese)”

This can likewise be seen in the funeral scene where the pastor leading the burial spoke the eulogy both in pessimism and sympathy.

Act I
“Lester Richards is dead…and aren’t you glad it wasn’t you? Don’t you wish you felt something? How many men here are attracted to Shelly, his- his lovely wife? She’s a babe. And how many women here wish that their husbands would drop dead and leave them a big, fat insurance policy? Yes, I thought so. Hell, it’ll be years before you figure out what Lester’s death really means. So, let’s forget the blah-blah-blah and go have a drink. Amen.”

Act III
“Lester Richards was a man beloved by family…friends and colleagues. A man who leaves behind a legacy of love, good work…and a sincere and genuine interest in other people’s lives. But why not find inspiration from this sorrowful event? Inspiration to say the kind words and do the good deed now…immediately upon thinking them or feeling them. Time is in glorious abundance to those who procrastinate.”

Another was perhaps the dialogue was used as a method of catching attention, albeit confusing the audience, and focus more on the characters’ other mannerisms to look into his personality. Elmo Oxygen the pest exterminator best exemplified this. At first, it seemed distracting for the audience to listen to his weird choice of words like “nose bunny” or “mayonnaise” but the patterns in his behavior reveal that he is promiscuous (presented in his having an affair with one of his customers and taking photos of his genitals) and ambitiously egotistic (as seen in his breaking the fourth wall by leaving the main narrative and beat other people, saying “Is that good enough?”)

(Disclaimer: It’s important to take this analysis with a grain of salt, as these methods could have been interpreted differently.)

Overall, to view Schizopolis was perhaps the “worst” way to introduce the course because it was all over the place, yet it was also perhaps the best way to do so because of that certain quality. Truly, there are plenty of devices to cover and delve into, but when you look at it one at a time, you better comprehend its processes in storytelling onscreen. It admittedly sound challenging, but it makes film discussion as engaging as learning profound themes.

Yours truly,

JoMar Fernandez a.k.a. JMCthefilmystan (160805)

The first time I saw Schizopolis, the only words that ran through my head were “what” and “the” and “fudge”. I had no idea what I was looking at but at the same time, I was inexplicably fascinated by what was being presented right before my eyes. It was like an acid trip on steroids but dialled down to somewhat soothing levels of enjoyment. Looking back, that doesn’t make sense to me, but so does majority of the film so maybe it is a perfect description. 

When the film rolled its credits, I was intrigued by it’s nature and how it seems like it does not care whether or not the viewer understand what they just saw or not, which was basically explicitly said in the start by the director/ main actor, Steven Soderbergh. Thus began my journey into the mind of the filmmaker. I figured I needed to understand how he is as a director and maybe, just maybe I can decipher what he’s trying to say. After countless video essays and watching the entire film again with Soderbergh’s commentary in the background, I can confidently say that Soderbergh is an absolute nut job, but a brilliant one. 

People tend to hate what they don’t understand. It’s a cliché to say but it is very applicable to Steven Soderbergh as a director and Schizopolis as a film. Soderbergh uses unconventional means in his films such as jump cuts and a tendency for the camera to prioritise unique perspectives placing the viewer to feel like they are viewing the events from a distance or a certain angle instead of immersing us directly to basic closeups and setup wides. He also tries to subvert expectations with his characters. There’s almost never a one dimensional person in his films, there is always a catch to their existence. In terms of technical speaking, Soderbergh also gets whatever cinematic cliche he finds in the book and turns it over its head such as editing, camera work, sound design, etc.

But going back to Schizopolis, I must say after all I’ve learned about the director, I still don’t see myself fully understanding his vision for the film. There are certain aspects of it that I did enjoy and saw how much of a big wink Steven gave the audience such as the obvious parody of the porn industry with the plumber character going into houses of bored housewives hoping to get some action. All is fine and good until you hear them speaking to each other, pure gibberish and none sense. This is an obvious reference to the famous internet saying “who watches porn for the story anyways?” The parts between the husband and wife also become very tongue and cheek with their exchange evolving into “generic greeting!” Instead of using actual words normal human beings use for conversation. An obvious attack as to how relationships become mundane and cyclic for some people already. 

Steven Soderbergh presents these scenarios in such an absurd way, you would be too distracted to trying to understand the other before even fully comprehending what’s on screen. On surface level, it sounds like a film that’s all over the place that just seem to be pasted and hacked together without much thought but one could also view this as a mirror to how our society works and how we fail to understand our world in its entirety since we’re too preoccupied trying to comprehend one thing from another. 

In one of his interviews, Soderbergh mentions how he doesn’t necessarily care about what critics think and how he wants to be different form the other filmmakers out there. Looking at his career now and especially with Schizopolis, I would say he achieved this with flying colors. To this day I still don’t fully understand what in the world Schizopolis is trying to say in its whole runtime but something tells me that Steven never really intended for us to in the first place. Some scenes still stand out to me making me fully question whether or not the makers were on crack when they shot that on set that day but here’s to thinking art only truly belongs to its maker and however anyone else chooses to see it and study it will be up to them already.

With a title like “Schizopolis,” you would think to expect the film to explore issues on a medicated society, schizophrenia, or anything about mental health. Instead, we got, well, Schizopolis. There really is no other way to describe the film besides using itself, because I’m pretty sure there’s no other film like it.

From its first scene, we can already see that. We see Soderbergh breaking the fourth wall by addressing an empty audience, claiming that Schizopolis is “the most important motion picture you will attend.” From this scene alone, it appears that the film doesn’t take itself particularly seriously. In hindsight, this should have been my first clue to not treat Schizopolis as any other movie because it greatly affected how I watched the film on first viewing. I learned to treat movies on their own terms, and that’s what I hope to do in this blog series throughout the semester.

Schizopolis is unique in its own right. It lives in its own world where it makes its own rules, telling the conventions of movie storytelling to take a hike. For example, Elmo Oxygen’s dialogue with women throughout the movie appears nonsensical to us, yet the characters themselves understand each other.

Another example would be Soderbergh and Brantley playing dual roles of Fletcher Munson & Korchek and Mrs. Munson & Attractive Woman #2, respectively. While dual roles aren’t unheard of (my first example that comes to mind being Cliff de Young playing Brad Majors and Farley Flavors in “Shock Treatment”), you don’t necessarily see them being utilized in such experimental ways such as through Schizopolis’s dialogue. In fact, Schizopolis’s usage of dialogue is quite fascinating because it forces the audience to think beyond what is being said to what is not being said, i.e. the actions and context of the dialogue taking place.

However, as inventive Schizopolis is with its own style, there is still a kind of recognizable structure we can make out. It has a three-act narrative structure which, upon watching act 3, we come to realize follows the lives of their characters from three different perspectives, namely Fletcher Munson, Korchek, and Mrs. Munson. For Munson, for example, we can recognize that his dialogue with his wife (“generic greeting,” “imminent sustenance,” and “semi-innocent query”) illustrate that he feels the mundanity of the routine of his life. As for Mrs. Munson, her dialogue with other men, wherein she speaks in English and they speak Japanese and Italian, is meant to illustrate the point that the men around her “speak different languages,” i.e. that they’re not on the same page.

Perhaps it is through the dialogue wherein the schizophrenic element (if we were to forget Elmo Oxygen’s random assassination attempt) behind the name “Schizopolis” comes into play: its removal from reality in terms of film conventions. And yet, we still (somewhat) understand what is being conveyed at times. You can tell from the way it was constructed that Soderbergh put in the considerable time, effort, and attention to detail to make sure that, while on face value it seems like nonsense, in terms of continuity and narrative structure, it actually does.

Or maybe I’m overthinking it and he just wanted to make a really weird film because he wanted to make a really weird film. Who knows? At least I enjoyed it.