Schizopolis

Schizopolis is what I believe to be a movie that provokes thought. It is a movie that you can only potentially enjoy if you try and analyze why some scenes appeared as they were shown. The opposite of Schizopolis would be primarily action movies such as the Fast and the Furious movie franchise, where you can simply watch the action and enjoy everything that unfolds on-screen without thinking too much.

One of the difficulties that I faced trying to understand the movie was the weird way of communicating used by Elmo Oxygen. I did not really understand the relevancy of using a form of communication that the viewers did not understand towards the plot nor was it explained. Also, although we can probably assume that, while what they were saying seemed like gibberish, the words spoken generally meant that the housewives were interested in having sex with Elmo Oxygen it was never thoroughly explored or explained why the housewives were able to understand the nonsense Elmo Oxygen was spouting while the police could not understand what he was saying at the end of the movie.

Another thing that confused me from the movie was what was happening when the main character (Munson) shifted into the consciousness of the dentist (Korchek). I wasn’t sure as to until what part was Munson still perceiving himself as Korchek and when was Korchek being himself. For example, Korchek talking to his friend regarding borrowing his money for drugs was definitely Korchek. However, it was implied in the movie that Munson was able to somehow shift his consciousness into Korchek and learn of his wife’s cheating on him because he was able to see it happen in Korchek’s perspective. I feel like this part of the movie could have been made clearer and seemed to me as if the movie was simply trying so hard to be weird and have a following of people who claim to love the double meanings and “genius” of the movie.

Also, the movie never explained why Elmo Oxygen shot the boss of Munson and who the couple was that followed him around and seemed to hold him in high regard, as seen in how they gave in to all of his demands when he requested for them.

One of the things that I understood was that the repeated scenes were showing the different perspectives of each individual character and how they felt during those scenes. For example, the scenes Munson shared with his wife from his perspective showed a somewhat fake or very routine-like way of conversing and living his life. They were shown talking with simple adjectives that describe what they mean. (i.e. “Generic greeting”, etc.)

On the other hand, Munson spoke in Japanese while Korchek spoke in Italian when the movie repeated the scenes from the wife’s perspective. The movie alludes to speaking in Italian being a romantic term, which I think is the reason for why they portrayed Korchek to be speaking Italian from Munson’s wife’s perspective. Munson speaking Japanese could be interpreted as to how she perceives Munson as someone who mainly focuses on work and does not have much time for anything else, which is what I feel like the stereotype or the generalization is for Japanese work culture.

In the end, while the movie was thought provoking and really made me think about what the movie meant and what it was trying to say, I felt like it was, as I mentioned earlier, trying to hard to be a confusing and weird movie that would develop a cult-like following for being something that only they enjoyed or understood. Perhaps I need to try and watch the film a couple more times, as the film itself suggested, but for now I don’t think I’ll be watching it again.

8 hours. your brother. 15,000.

“TF is happening?!” – Me (2019)

Schizopolis was definitely one of the more peculiar movies I’ve seen recently. Though, it’s even weirder to think that as odd as the movie is, it is seemingly still so familiar.

At first, I was trying to decide how to watch the movie. Is this the type wherein one needs to focus deeply on the minute details and nuances that appears, or is it the type where everything is passively watched and nothing is to be taken seriously (2 ways I usually watch movies). I did not know, therefore I chose to focus and try to capture everything that was happening.
This resulted in a headache. And a couple of laughs.

I did not know what the hell was going on. As soon as I start to see a little light and seem to understand the flow of the story, an eclipse of absurdity and odd happenings always manage to sweep my grasp away from understanding the movie.

To begin with, why were there two Fletchers? How did he become the other Fletcher? How and why did they suddenly speak Italian, Japanese, and French? WHAT THE HELL IS NOSE ARMY?! What did the man in the cubicle (socks guy…also seen at the end) have to do with everything? Why was there a need for a spy? I thought moles and spies were the same? Was everything happening at the same time? What is Eventualism? What was in the pictures? Elmo?

So many questions, not enough answers. I definitely need to watch it again, as the opening speaking man suggests.

Though my misunderstanding, or rather, lack of understanding, is most likely a result of my own ignorance towards the events and the dialogues of the movie, I surprisingly have a vague idea of why things happened the way they did, but can’t seem to fit them all together. It is as though the movie handed me different puzzle pieces from different origins, but is somehow all part of one picture.

I liked how the actors were pretty much the same people, yet they managed to evoke different characteristics very well. I was deeply invested in the fact that Fletcher and Korcheck were two different people and not the same actor acting two different persons. I didn’t even know that Attractive Woman Number 2 was the same actress as Fletcher’s Wife (lol). I found Elmo Oxygen weird and exciting. That guy has some serious mojo. Korcheck’s letter to Attractive Woman Number 2 was hilarious. I really hoped that she replied to him in the same messed up manner. Though I believe the filing of the (sexual assault?) case was equally funny. Selling Rhode Island to get rid of the national debt wasn’t a good idea, but at least they didn’t sell it to the f*ing Japanese!

Amidst the confusion, I liked the movie (kinda). I think it’s something that grows on you. It’s also reassuring to know that no fish were harmed during the making of the film. I feel like it caters to a certain kind of humor and intelligence, one that’s sophisticated enough (or shallow enough) to notice all the satirical implications that was scattered throughout (not me).
Surely, it is not for everyone’s mayonnaise.

(Though I also think stoners would dig this movie.)

Overall, I give it 7 nose armies out of 10. Beef Diaper. Nomenclature.

Smell Sign.

Unconventional, Unnerving, Unapologetic: Processing Soderbergh’s Schizopolis (1996) by Julean Sagdullas

In my past production class, we were taught the three-act narrative structure, a widely used model of storytelling that takes on several forms: from modestly written novels, to provocative theatrical stages. The first act is the setup to introduce characters and lay out the foundations of the narrative; this is followed by a confrontation to introduce conflict and create tension; finally the story ends with a resolution either with a satisfying ending, or a twist to keep audiences thinking way past the story’s conclusion. In the area of cinema, this framework is typically used in Hollywood film-making, and has expanded its reach to many a commercial film across the globe. It’s safe, comfortable, and most importantly intuitive. That is why films like Schizopolis stick out like a sore thumb in the way that it takes with this idea, and runs with it in the opposite direction

My experience with watching this 1996 Steven Soderbergh movie was different to say the least. Just from the beginning monologue, I knew I was in for something I hadn’t watched before, and then some. On the surface level the film lacks obvious cohesion and is just all over the place; in the first “act” there were too many sharp cuts and segues that one starts to believe that this might be several different films of different stories stringed together into one project (and as the film reaches its close, one is still just minimally convinced otherwise). In retrospect, it seems like a skeleton of a structure is suggested to be binding the whole thing together (as can be seen in the way the film is divided into three “acts”) , but in what shape that takes form, I can’t totally pinpoint. However, with its purposeful and insistent (although at times silly) tone, I’d like to believe that the film knows its limited in the parameters of what a film usually is, but it takes that knowledge and wreaks as much havoc as possible in the same confines. The movie refuses to ask permission, and bulldozes through its entirety, leaving the audience dazed and grasping for understanding.

But the more I think about it, I start to think that there is a thesis to this seemingly inexplicable film. The film seems to be an introspective look at more formulaic film form. It uses visual elements of conventional narrative tropes (such as the office underdog, infidelity, and domestic porn-like sequences) as well as meta writing (the use of generic dialogue placeholders between characters’ conversations) to poke fun at itself, or the industry it belongs it. Although executed in a less than digestible way, Soderbergh seems to remind us that film is art, the ultimate manifestation of creative expression. And in the end, art is what you make of it (even if we don’t know how).

Watching the film Schizopolis is like driving through an unknown highway with no familiar landmarks and no clear destination in sight. Its non-linear and unconventional way of storytelling is as unnerving as it is refreshing Just when you think you’ve got a smidgen of an idea of what is happening, a curve-ball hits you square in the face. But I suppose one can argue that road trips are never really about the destination, in the same we don’t watch movies for their definite conclusions (although Marvel studios might disagree). In these moments of confusion and uncertainty, I guess we just have to enjoy the ride for what it is, and take in the view before us.

If Soderbergh made a 3am thought into a movie

If I could sum up my thoughts on Schizopolis into one sentence, it would be “it made enough sense to not make sense.” It really seemed like a pisstake, but there were elements and themes in the movie that were comprehensible enough to show me that the story had some potential to go somewhere. If I were to watch it again and again, I would probably find even more appreciation for the piece and possibly understand the plot (or the true lack thereof) as a whole. As of now, I can only assume that Steven Soderbergh simply aimed to push his limits in filmmaking and storytelling as far as he could and see until where he could get away with it.

I can say for certain that I enjoyed the movie, but liking it is something I’m unsure of. A whole chunk of the movie was just me whispering to my seatmate, “what the hell is happening.” Other than those moments, there were points when I would be so proud of myself for understanding a certain plot point in the film, but as time progressed, my theories would always be debunked or found to be inconsistent. With the movie title in mind, all the events, dialogues, and captured moments were purposefully all over the place. From my understanding, I was able to pick up on the fact that it was out of the ordinary for spouses to remain “faithful” to their respective spouses—this is with the consideration of our reality’s definition of faithfulness. In our world, we are expected to stay loyal to our partner and not seek other relationships outside it. In the movie, it was odd to sleep with one’s own spouse because what seemed to be the normal thing to do was exchange wives or pass one’s wife around to the men around the neighborhood. I got that from the scene where the lead greeted his neighbor that was watering his lawn and spoke of having a good time with the other’s wife. Some points in the film also led me to assume that the different chapters or acts served as the points when the perspective would change. The part of the movie where the lead and his wife were conversing using descriptions of their response’s intention rather than an actual response seemed to outline average screenplays and its contained clichés. This perspective may be of the lead’s showing little interest with what his wife has to say or ask. Although, I was able to spot inconsistencies with this theory since, at another point in the film, he wanted to sleep with her. At the latter part of the film, a few of the characters also turned to using foreign languages which, in my understanding, showed how it could have possibly been the wife’s perspective where everything spoken in Italian was meant to sound romantic or sensual while the other languages used were meant to be complete babble because the wife could not understand what her husband was saying. This babbling was also seen in Elmo’s storyline where he and his lover were putting unrelated words together but acted as if what was spoken was extremely sensual. I’m still unsure of what this could possibly mean—if it does actually mean anything—but the most concrete explanation I have for this would be Soderbergh’s intention of poking fun at pornographic content. The words used by Elmo and his romantic interest would be the last ones that would come to mind at times of that nature. Prior to that, I really thought the plot could not get any weirder, but Soderbergh never disappointed.

It was clear that in writing this movie, Soderbergh took the most obvious of film tropes and the most basic understanding of life and human interaction and twisted it all to fit the reality of an alternate universe—or town—by the name of Schizopolis. In this kind of intention, the audience is forced to reflect on the things we may take for granted—those we see in movies and those we experience in our daily interactions. He took out all the things we saw to be ordinary and showed what the extraordinary may look like as functioning ordinaries in this twisted society. Going back to the title, we may also be led to believe that nothing in this film is meant to make sense but like I said, sense can still be found in the nonsensical and this is what the movie displayed for me. As stated by the director in the opening scene, I have no one to blame but myself for the confusion and frustration this movie has caused me to feel. I chose to find overarching themes and a real plot when there really could have been none at all. I do believe that these emotions are what the makers of the movie really intended the audience to feel. It was clear that they had a lot of fun putting on this kind of show for the big screen, but despite me having fun along with them, I wouldn’t say it will be a staple film I rewatch again and again for when I feel like it. It’s far from the lighthearted romantic comedies my summer nights have come to know too well, but when I do decide to rewatch it again, I will for sure be more equipped for Soderbergh’s wild depiction of what is extraordinary and bizarre.

the weird yet wonderful world of schizopolis

From the beginning, I knew that Schizopolis would not be your average comedy. Just by hearing the title alone, I figured that I would be immersing myself in something weird yet wonderful. However, as soon as the last scene appeared, I realized describing director Steven Soderbergh’s 96 minute film as simply weird yet wonderful would be an understatement.

This film is definitely not be everyone’s cup of tea. At first glance, everything would appear to be complete nonsense – from the plot, script, characters, down to the opening scene. Some might even depict the director’s execution of these elements as mere garbage, but I am certain Soderbergh’s humorous scenes hold multiple underlying messages.

Besides the title, I was extremely intrigued by how the film was first introduced to its viewers. The opening scene of Schizopolis, a scene of Soderbergh himself introducing the film to his audience, was an unconventional way to begin a movie. In conventional films, interpretations are to be made by the viewers. However, in Schizopolis, our first impression is set in front of us. Soderbergh warns us that some scenes may be confusing – forcing us to watch the film repeatedly until we understand its elements. Because of how the opening scene was executed, I suddenly prepared myself for a bizarre comedy.

After the opening scene, one would expect the plot to unfold. However, for this film, there was no linear plot, but instead three separate acts. This is why, for the first 30 minutes of the film, I was very confused. It also did not help that some parts of the script were pure nonsense and camera shots were shaky. The plot only became clearer to me when both main characters, Fletcher Munson and doppleganger Dr. Jeffrey Korchek, appeared in the same shot. However, even when the two narratives were starting to make sense, one did not. The plot of Elmo Oxygen, an exterminator who preys on lonely housewives, seemed insignificant to me. Personally, I felt like his narrative could have been more integrated with both Munson and Korchek’s.

Without the right characters, Soderbergh’s plot execution would not have came about. In this film, I thoroughly enjoyed everyone’s performance. Every actor and actress brought a weirdly enjoyable dynamic to the film. Through their acting, I was able to feel secondhand embarrassment for certain scenes such as Munson’s one to two minute scene of him making different faces in front of the mirror. Since Munson had a doppleganger, it came to a point where Soderbergh had to take on two roles – switching up his personality. Through the use of the same characters and a non linear plot, the film became even more confusing. However, what I loved the most about the characters was that each of them heard their fellow peers differently to some extent – highlighting the different perspectives of the world around them.

Lastly, my favorite element of this film was its script. Throughout the whole movie, I found myself laughing wholeheartedly at how witty the lines were written and delivered. There was this one scene in particular that I was so invested in – the scene between Munson and his wife where scriptwriters replace generic dialogue for that certain situation with literal “generic dialogue”. As I was watching this scene, all I could think about was how accurate these dialogues were in comparison to real life situations. We just string together different words to describe how we are feeling. However, we follow the same formula for a certain situation. When the script was absolute nonsense, such as the first scene of Elmo and a lonely housewife, I would try to decipher the meaning behind their conversations, but eventually gave up. In conclusion, the way the script was written reminded me of meme videos – absolute nonsense yet weirdly entertaining.

Schizopolis is not the kind of film you would expect from the director of the well known Ocean’s trilogy. In fact, it is the complete opposite. This film is filled with pure comedy and satire. It leaves you confused and longing for more. Because of its bizarre plot, script, characters, and scenes, Schizopolis ranks number one on my list of weird yet wonderful films.

I Stopped Trying To Understand Schizopolis

To be completely honest, I quite enjoyed Soderbergh’s Schizopolis. That is not to say that I understood its crazy scenes and incomprehensible dialogue. In fact, I completely agree with the opening statement in the film when I say that I made no effort to look into the film at a deeper level than what I saw. This is probably the reason why I can say that I understand little to nothing about this film, despite what is explicitly stated. However, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. By ‘turning my mind off’ while viewing the film, I stopped worrying about trying to understand it and find its themes, which led me to having an enjoyable experience in viewing it. In my opinion, in order to enjoy the movie to the fullest, one has to stop trying to find the hidden themes within the film or identify what modern phenomena certain scenes satirize when it isn’t already apparent to them. The film must be appreciated for what it has that is apparent to both those who watch films casually and those who perform movie autopsies: its odd, dark, and unconventional humor.

Despite its experimental and avant-garde way of storytelling, this movie is a comedy. That means that its main way of entertaining viewers is by making them laugh. For most contemporary films, this is achieved through witty dialogue, comedic imagery, or a combination of the two. However, Schizopolis takes these elements of comedy and essentially toys around with them.

The dialogue and the imagery in the film are so ridiculous that I could not help but laugh during certain scenes, despite having little to no idea as to what was going on. Perhaps one of my favorite scenes where the film’s kookiness is showcased is in the first act, where the main character comes home and is greeted by his wife and daughter. Instead of having a generic “Honey, I’m home” scene which can be seen in almost any film where the main character is a married, 40-something Caucasian male, it becomes the cookie-cutter “Honey, I’m home” scene by replacing generic dialogue with literally “generic dialogue”. In this scene, by stripping the dialogue to its bare-bones version, it satirizes similar scenes in other movies, and in the process, ironically becomes more memorable than any of them. The visual comedy in the film is also noteworthy, but the sheer randomness of the scenes is what really made them funny to me. The pants-less man being chased by policemen, the exterminator destroying stuff and beating people up for seemingly no reason, and the sudden interjections of news on the television where the anchor is saying some sort of ridiculous thing are all scenes illustrating the sheer randomness that happens in the movie. Though, these scenes do not add much to the film’s main storyline, they still add to the enjoyment of the film by being funny. These scenes served more as a reminder that despite its experimental way of storytelling, it doesn’t take itself too seriously.

In reflection, a lot of the times when watching movies, I forget that I’m watching in order to enjoy it. I try to look at the different elements such as use of color or music, or try to understand characters and character motivations. I’m not saying that doing these things while viewing a film make it less fun, but it’s just sometimes I can get a little too wrapped-up in watching a movie, that I forget to take it for what it is. Through its sheer randomness, I gave up trying to understand the film on a deeper level very early on, but that allowed me to enjoy the film completely for what it is.

Though the film does go a little too over-the-top at times, it’s still an enjoyable movie. Though I’m sure it has deep and underlying themes that can be interpreted from its nearly incomprehensible dialogue and non-linear storytelling, it doesn’t have to be in order to be enjoyed. Admittedly, it’s not a movie for everyone, but it’s something to watch if one is either looking to dissect a film and extract its deep meaning, or have some dumb fun.

Schizopolis

Schizopolis (1996), as a film, appears to be quite strange. What really bothered me was the disorganized plot line, as the scenes would jump from one to another without any context whatsoever. The constant introduction to new plot lines stirred up the film a bit — providing a feeling of discomfort and uneasiness during the screening of the film. Watching the film was like peering into the mind of a person whose ideas have a touch of creativity, however, scattered or all over the place. It was in short, a creative mess. The film was structured in a sense that the story was told from three different perspectives and subdivided into three acts but each scene appeared to be unrelated to each other. Nonetheless, Schizopolis gave an accurate depiction of suburban America and the routinary lifestyles of the people living there.

I found the way the characters engaged with each other through dialogue very confusing and disorienting. One of the languages used by the actors and actresses was gibberish, and thus, it was quite difficult to understand the dialogue, as well as the point of the conversation between the characters in the film. I kept trying to find out if there was some hidden message particularly in the conversation between Elmo Oxygen and the housewife. As these characters conversed, they used non-sensical language that caused me to be confused as to what message both characters wanted to come across. Typically, when watching a film, I would tend to try to find a connection between the characters — all contributing to a larger story. However, in Schizopolis, I found that there was no relation between certain characters and I soon realized that the scenes were independent of each other. The exterminator named Elmo Oxygen and the main character Fletcher Munson/Dr Korchek for one, did not interact throughout the duration of the film. Despite this, they serve as examples that help convey the overall message of the film and provided a touch of comedy, which entertained and confused viewers at the same time.

Personally, I enjoyed the particular scene where it is revealed that Dr. Korchek is the mystery man that Fletcher’s wife is having an affair with. I found it funny and clever since Fletcher’s wife is attracted to another man, Dr. Korchek, who is the dopplelganger of her own husband. The satirical aspect of the film is clearly evident in this particular shot of the movie.

At the start of the film, the main actor and director of the film staged a disclaimer saying that Schizopolis would be the most important movie that viewers would ever see. Although I did not find the film to be the most relevant movie I have ever watched, I could say that Schizopolis changed the way films are supposed to be. It was unconventional, it broke down the walls that enclosed viewers to the orthodox kind of films. Just as Soderbergh said at the start of the film, in order to understand and appreciate the film to its entirety, viewers must watch it multiple times.

Schizophrenic Schizopolis

What I expected Schizopolis to be like was a humorous but philosophical movie about an individual or society with schizophrenia. Now I am debating with myself personally if it displayed both aspects or failed to do so. What my gut is telling me is that there probably are patterns and symbolism that do make up the humor and philosophy aspect. Research however told me that the humor in the film was too over the top that some scenes like the news headline were completely useless and had nothing to do with the film. Afterwards you realize that the main way to watch this movie is to take a modicum of focus to see the odd kinds of symbolism but a general mood of dullness to enjoy the odd humor presented in the movie.

To begin, I’ll start out discussing particular scenes in the movie that strikes me with meaning. The movie does not have a linear plot so it does not matter to talk about the scenes in a chronological order. A scene I found striking was the events of him arriving home and greeting his family. He talks to them in a bare minimum effort which shows lack of attention towards them to the point of them just describing what they are saying. Shows that he knows what he’s required to by reality but does not want to do so because his mind is stuck with work. The wife eventually has an affair but with someone who looks exactly like her husband. This also shows the logic of how reality would be but shows an odd symbolism of how the guy is exactly the same person. In act 2, it shows the life of the dentist who was having an affair with the first character. He gives more care and effort for the wife to the point of telling her to live in with him. However the guy eventually gets attracted to his patient who looks exactly like the wife he is having an affair with. He goes after the girl with a letter and shoos the wife away only for life to bite him in the butt in a series of successions. For me, this personally also has a symbolism reflecting towards the detachment to reality. In act 3, it shows scenes the same as act 1 and 2 but this time with the perspective on the wife who is having an affair and weird twists to the movie. The doppelgangers speak in various different languages. Which again I believe leads to a symbol about reality.

With all of the patterns showing a symbolism, I would like to guess that the movie has something to do with schizophrenia. For me I realize that the movie is about reality and what happens in the real boring world but at the same time displaying characters that function oddly for us even though it is thought to be completely normal in the movie. It shows that we as a society function through reality in a very detached way. To name a few, the main guy’s reality is to do well in work and take care of his family but he habitually gives them generic words, the wife cheats on the dentist who is exactly the same guy just different setting like job which is similar to the dentist, and how the wife sees the difference between the dentist and the husband as merely language. Like us, they do not notice the odd things that they are doing but maybe the same can be said for us. Which makes me feel the movie is implying that maybe everyone has schizophrenia.

Thoughts on Schizopolis

Schizopolis seemed like a very weird movie right from the start. There was man speaking in front of an audience (which turned out to be an empty auditorium) saying things about the movie and that they have to understand it or else the movie will have to be repeated. From the opening scene to the end of the movie, I never really understood what was the plot of the movie. There were three people however that I thought was the main focus which were Fletcher Munson, Jeoffrey Korchek and Mrs. Munson.

For Fletcher (working for Schwitters’ company), it seemed like he was the typical employee at an office with a demanding boss (that yells his name) which makes Fletcher pretend that he is doing work. Fletcher’s job was to write a speech for Schwitters which he constantly slacks off. At the same time, he has a co-worker named Lester who seemed like the typical laid back and weird co-worker who would talk to Fletcher. There were some points in the movie that I did not understand the topic or the point of their conversation but I felt like they were close friends in the company they work at. Afterwards, he has conversations with his wife in a weird language. Although it is in English, the words they are using have no sense at all which I believe is one of the weirdest scenes in the movie.

For Korchek, he was a dentist that had two patients which one of them makes him fall in love. He sends a letter to the woman but was charged for sexual harassment. One scene that got me really confused was when Mrs. Munson started seeing Dr. Korcheck and he said that he was having an affair with his wife. Initially, I thought Dr. Korcheck and Fletcher were two different people but after seeing that scene, I became really confused throughout the whole movie.

Lastly, for Mrs. Munson, Dr. Korcheck and Fletcher started talking in different languages. I ended up being the most confused I have ever been watching a movie because one scene just seemed “normal” where people were still talking in English then the next thing I knew was Fletcher talking in Japanese and Dr. Korcheck talking in Italian or French (I think). At that point I did not understand what was going on anymore except for the fact that it was the same scenes but from a different point of view. I have to admit that I did not understand the whole point of what the movie was trying to show at that point but I tried understanding it as much as I could. Not to mention the guy with goggles wearing an orange outfit and a man running around naked being chased by two people.

In the end, the man wearing an orange outfit shot Schwitters and was interrogated. I did not understand again what was going on. In the end it was Fletcher reflecting and narrating the events that happened in his life which follows up to the man talking to an empty auditorium. I thought there would be a plot at some point of the movie but I realized in the end that maybe there was no plot at all. Maybe it was just a story being told on 3 different points of view. Overall, it was a very weird experience but not to the point where it was cringy or disgusting.