Schizopolis was the perfect first film to show the class because it did not try to ease us into the kind of movies that we would be viewing throughout the semester. Instead, the film was as confusing, weird, and, sometimes, nonsensical as the rest of the movies we’d tackle later on in the semester. Schizopolis was a fast paced and sort of bizarre mesh of clips. The plot can be followed, although it is not an easy task to accomplish, because it has a main story that we follow which is the day to day life of Fletcher Munson, who is played by Steven Soderbergh and is also the director of the film. His story is intertwined with other smaller stories such as the exterminator and his reality show or the escaped mental hospital patient that we see for a few seconds numerous times during the film. The actual plot itself talks about how a regular joe in Fletcher Munson lives his daily life and the movie highlights his relationship to his wife. The film delves into the relationship of a married couple whose love life has gone quite stale so she does what a normal married person would do which is cheat on her husband, but the part that makes it confusing is that the wife cheats on her husband with her husband (even though she does not know that the man she’s sleeping with is her husband). If you’ve seen the movie, you’ll be able to understand that weird statement, and that pretty much sums up the kind of movie that Schizopolis is. It is a bunch of peculiar and outlandish scenarios thrown into a plot that actually makes sense, which gives the somewhat boring plot line a more entertaining spin, and it all still works to convey the message of the movie. All in all, I think that Schizopolis’ whacky kind of story telling was a great, although at the same time weird, way to present the narrative with a little bit of extra flair to keep the audience engaged and amused. The way that they presented the “love triangle” of Fletcher, his wife, and his second persona in their different points of view made us see different aspects of each character’s personality and story. Even when they started talking in different languages, it was not so hard to follow because the audience already saw what was happening in the scene, but from another character’s perspective. I also saw the characters talking in another language with no captions or subtitles provided as a testament to the film makers behind Schizopolis because it goes with the old belief that films, even without any audio or lines from the characters, should still be understandable to the viewer if it was well made, and to me Schizopolis is a well made film even with all its quirks. I think that films such as this do not get the respect and admiration it deserves because of how out-of-the-box it is, but I hope that they never stop being made because these are the kind of films that show the brilliance and creativity of film makers.

“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.” This immediately peaked my interest and made me “tune in” per say. The plot, such as it is, is extremely difficult to summarize but any attempt to do so should give the reader some idea of just what they’re up against, a warning they really should be issued with before sitting down to watch this film.

Schizopolis is one of those eclectic, one of a kind narratives that one would not expect out of a typical movie. Though initially confusing to the average viewer due to its non-linear manner in laying out the movie, its redeeming factor is the fact that it is unique and unparalleled in and of itself. The film tackles the issue of a lack of genuine communication that can be seen in societies consumed by advanced technology. Though the issue at hand is one that is cliche, the film takes this cliche and strips it down to its core, emphasizing its importance and relevance in today’s society. While some movies like horror and thriller films are not for the weak of heart, Schizopolis is not for the weak of mind. One can argue that its truest form can only be appreciated by the sharpest of minds, and that not even the most experienced of cinephiles may be able to appreciate the depth of this film. This film pushes viewers to analyze the different facets and dimensions of the satire, which makes it so that is designed only for those who are open minded. This is a kind of film that would be quite difficult to recreate, just how a meticulous piece of artwork would be hard to recreate. However, once one is able to finally grasp the different ideas, themes, and tropes of this film, this seemingly unappealing movie will be waiting to surprise those who are willing to stick through it all.

#Schizopolis #162210

Fixed with a proper suit, acclaimed director Steven Soderbergh strides confidently to the stage and does three things: first, he acknowledges that speaking to the viewers was “unusual”; second, he declares that “this is the most important motion picture you will ever attend”— so important that everyone must watch it, or else the delicate fabric which holds us all together will be ripped apart;  third, he warns viewers that some scenes would be confusing (and the confusion would be the viewers’ fault), thus it would require multiple and repetitive viewing of the film so that one could understand its elements.

This breaking of the fourth wall was unconventional, especially for the era when the film was released, but it set the mood for the film: as some weird type of comedy. Soderbergh’s declarations set my bar of expectation higher: as someone who rarely dares to venture out of my comfortable and safe little bubble of mainstream feel-good films, I felt curiosity and a surge of excitement upon his announcement. I went into Schizopolis (1996) with high hopes and expectations on its “importance.”

Barely a few minutes into the film, however, I was already distraught. The plot line did not feel like a line at all, but rather like an attempt to make a favorite Filipino summertime dessert — halo-halo. It features a variety of elements, most of which are shaky camera shots, nonsensical dialogue, doppelgangers, and straight-up disjointed scenes, but all mixed into something that would eventually make you smile and laugh in enjoyment and confusion.

First, the shaky camera shots gave me a headache. I did not know where to look or what to focus on as it was all a blur, especially car scenes, so I just tried to fix my eyes on a steady spot so that I would be able to bear the scene. Even though these kinds of shots made it difficult for me to remember them or to follow the story, they served to be entertaining in the bigger picture.

Second, the nonsensical dialogue reminded me of three things: Ewoks in Star Wars, Minions in Despicable Me, and Nathan Pyle’s alien comic strip. We really just string together words, sounds, tones, actions, and facial expression in an attempt to effectively communicate with each other. Funnily enough, even if I did not understand a word of — was that Japanese? — I could still figure out the gist of what they were talking about in some scenes.

Third, the doppelgangers were difficult to identify at first. I thought that Steven Soderbergh’s character was just a guy like the character Xu (and Dock and Bushi)  in Avatar: Legend of Aang Book Three: Fire, Episode Three entitled The Painted Lady  — someone who lived life as different people. It was hilarious to me when Mrs. Munson was seemingly cheating on her husband with someone who looked exactly like her husband. After watching the film several times, I still do not know how to correctly understand or interpret the doppelganger situation of Fletcher Munson and Dr. Jeffrey Korchek, but I am certain that it will always, without fail, make me laugh.

Traditionally, I follow a film’s narrative by focusing on a main character and their journey in the film. The characters were ordinary people going about their daily lives; but as the film only jumps from one glimpse of a life to another, I could not follow the story (if there ever was one). Trying to follow the story felt like being in a class where your professor switches slides so fast that you can barely keep up with the discussion. However, despite the disjointed scenes, I came out of the film with a slight idea on what had happened but with a full assurance that I had enjoyed not having a definitive interpretation of it. This was primarily because the film was already difficult to intellectually comprehend at face value so I did not have the capacity to go into an all-out meaning-based explanation.

And that, my friends, is the story of how Schizopolis got me out of my comfort zone and dragged me into a multiverse of (there is no other way to put it) weird films.

The 1996 comedy film by Steven Soderbergh was particularly odd and interesting for me at the same time. Odd because of the way it was filmed, which is really not what our age have gotten accustomed in seeing how movies are made in the present; and interesting because of the message it had behind it that seemed actually highly relevant to how most individuals live their lives today. It really did not seem like a real film but more of a video done to be uploaded on YouTube in my opinion, with its shaky scenes and random cuts that really made you feel like someone’s behind and holding the camera. Majority of the scenes gave me a throwback feel to the days when I was a. little kid and my parents would interview me through their video cameras and ask how I felt during a certain important event.  Yet, despite the way it was filmed, the satirical manner in which it views the society that we live in today made it quite remarkable. People’s failure to communicate seemed to be one of the underlying themes of the movie. This is one of the things that made the movie highly relevant to our society today. Among other things, in the movie, this was embodied by the character of Fletcher Munson who repeatedly failed to communicate with his marital partner. His character portrayed to be a man who was too focused on his work to the point that he lost connection with his wife. This character is highly relatable for many of us today, especially with the prevalence of technology. Munson’s fixed attention towards his work is highly parallel to how most of us are now intently giving all our attention to our gadgets. We are often too caught up in our own world to even include another human being into our consideration. I recall in one cover of the TIME Magazine that we are even dubbed as the ‘Me, Me, Me’ Generation, featuring a lone girl holding a phone up to her face in the front page of the magazine. Truth be told, not to be hypocritical but that seems really sad and depressing. Nowadays, we seem to lose real and genuine connection with the people around us because we’re always behind our gadgets. Even in the most memorable moments of our lives, we fail to take in and appreciate what we have in the moment. Instead, we put up our phones and take pictures and videos to appreciate the moment behind a screen when that memorable moment is no longer within our grasp. Clearly, same as Munson who lacked communication with his wife and therefore, all in all, lost the appreciation they once had for each other’s company. In this day and age, we tend to put ourselves in social isolation due to our high reliance to technology. Maybe it’s because behind the screens of our phones and computers, is where we are most comfortable to be in. Ultimately, the parallelism of the movie with how our society functions in the present and the weird way Soderbergh chose to present his film was what made the film entrancing for me.

Watching Schizopolis was a new but oddly familiar experience for me. One thing I noticed right off the bat was that the film didn’t even try to make use of the traditional linear narrative. It repeated scenes with minor differences in language or in acting, and interestingly, it was so unapologetically done; as if nothing out of the usual was happening.

In the first parts of the film, I tried so hard to understand everything that was unfolding by mentally connecting the scenes to each other in an attempt to make sense of the plot. But at some point, I gave up and decided to enjoy the film and watch it as it is. I think it’s meant to be seen that way.

However, there were actually moments that felt familiar to me. There was a sequence where the language of the film suddenly changed into Japanese, which that caught me off guard. Still, the feeling of watching something I don’t understand is one that is all too familiar; I’ve done it countless of times. I’m a big fan of K-dramas; I watch new episodes religiously as soon as they are uploaded online. Usually, upon this time, the episodes don’t even come with subtitles. I have to wait a few hours–sometimes even a day–just so I can watch with subtitles. What I do, then, is just watch it as it is, even if I have zero clue on what they’re talking about. I just guess from the characters’ patterns of action and look for context clues in the way they say talk or act. I watched Schizopolis this way. Even if the English dialogues didn’t make sense to me, I just acted as if it’s a different language, and watched the film as if it’s a newly released K-drama episode hours away from being subbed.

I felt like I didn’t need to understand the entire story to laugh at funny moments; they were just funny on their own. Sometimes the scenes are even funnier without proper context. The humor in the movie is somewhat bizarre and far from the norm, but it all the more made me laugh. I laugh because it doesn’t make any sense. The more I didn’t understand, the funnier it was for me.

I don’t think the film was meant to be understood in the first place, anyway. The title itself gives you a glimpse on the kind of film it would be. In the dictionary, schizophrenic is defined as “(in general use) characterized by inconsistent or contradictory elements,” and I think it very much fits the film. Some of the words the characters were saying did not match with their actions and expressions, and there were a lot of contradictions that happened. To me, it seemed like the film was trying to challenge mainstream ways of telling stories, and even if the film “doesn’t make sense,” doesn’t make it any less valid as a story worth telling.

The movie started and ended leaving me confused the entire time. I failed to understand and connect the things happening in the film. Having this movie as the first one we are going to watch for this semester, it is really something I did not expect. I did not really like this film. It was quirky and different from the movies that I usually watch, maybe that is something film enthusiasts would like; but as a person who enjoys the mainstream kind of movies (or one could say just an average person), Schizopolis is not really my cup of tea. Or maybe I simply did not appreciate this kind of movie enough. The movie overall feels like there is no one cohesive plot. There are different things that happen at the same time and yet feel like they are connected with each other. Some people in class were laughing at some scenes but I just spent the whole time watching trying to understand the film. Whenever they would laugh, I felt more lost since I wasn’t really sure what they were laughing at. I hated the feeling of feeling confused the entire time, trying to decipher the situation and what the characters are saying. It was only during the class discussion that made some sense to this movie. One example was the porn-like scene. I would not have realized that until someone pointed it out. I could not understand why the characters in that scene had to talk gibberish? Weirdly enough, I may have understood some things that they were saying, just pure guess out of the context. However, during the class discussion, someone also pointed out how no one really cares about the story of a porn video. This could have attributed as to why the characters were speaking that way. Moreover, the scenes where Fletcher Munson becomes a different person were another part of the movie that confused me. It seemed like Fletcher and his wife had their marriage on the rocks for quite some time and Fletcher’s writing of a speech for his boss seemed like the tipping point. Fletcher was not supposed to be the person who is the writing the speech but his boss gave him the job. It seemed like Fletcher is not really into his work or does not really know how to make speeches since as shown in the movie, he seemed to have a hard time. This seemed to put Fletcher on a ton of pressure that it affected his relationship with his wife. Their conversations had merely become a description of what they were saying, a generic type. It could have been anything based on the description, noting that their marriage is deteriorating into a mere courtesy.

Overall, watching the movie for the first time did not really make me appreciate the movie. If I were given the chance to watch it for the second time, I might be able to understand it a little bit more than the first. Watching this kind of movie would require me at least to watch it twice before I can comprehend anything that is happening in the movie.

Schizopolis is an absurd and confusing film. From its characters to its scenes, the movie is entirely ridiculous. You would think you get what’s happening at specific times during some scenes but then it just surprises you by making the scenes completely different and unrelated the next. If that’s the goal of Steven Soderbergh for his 1996 comedy film, then he succeeded.

The opening scene shows Soderbergh informing the audience that if they do not understand the movie, it’s probably their fault. From then on, I knew this was going to be different. I expected a lot from it because of that opening scene and it didn’t disappoint. Since the movie as a whole didn’t make sense, I was forced to focus on the imagery or symbolism of the individual aspects such as the scenes, dialogues, and the characters just to understand and get something from the film.

Confusing as the film is, the scenes are surprisingly telling the same story but in different perspectives, wherein they are divided into Acts [1, 2, and 3]. Fletcher is introduced as the main characer. As he progresses through his day, other characters are introduced such as his colleagues at work and his family when he went home at the end of the day. His day at work is the literal definition of boring. It started to look like a documentary of what it is like to have a typical corporate job by having a boss that overworks the employees by demanding a lot and is not always easily satisfied, colleagues that are annoying and are trying to undermine each other almost all the time just to get a rank higher, and tasks that are mediocre and repetetive which don’t seem like they are for the greater good of anything. When Fletcher goes home, his dialogue with his wife were all descriptions of the phrases and sentences couples usually tell each other. This depicts how their relationship, and maybe most couple nowadays, don’t communicate to a deeper level anymore. As the film progresses, this is confirmed when his wife cheated on him with the excuse that she feels like Fletcher doesn’t talk to her about things anymore. Another main character in the film is Elmo Oxygen. During his first few scenes, he is seen acting on camera wherein his dialogue with the housewives are all gibberish. All of their dialogues are made up by random words that are just strung together making them completely illogical and nonsensical. Their actions during the scenes are understandable but the dialogue isn’t. When Elmo Oxygen switched to another project, his dialogues are now understandable but not his actions. Up until now, I still don’t understand what he was trying to do in all those scenes or what they were supposed to mean unlike Fletcher’s scenes. The third main character is the guy Fletcher’s wife cheated on him with. Dr. Jeffrey Korchek is a dentist who falls in love with every single girl she meets as his patients. The film becomes more ridiculous when Fletcher started acting as Korcheck, and it becomes more confusing when I realized they are played by the same actor–Steven Soderbergh.

Overall, I loved every second of Schizopolis. I still don’t know what the scenes, characters, or the whole movie is about, yes, but I’m not complaining. It is entertaining and it is not a waste of time probably because it is unique. As this is the first movie shown to us by our professor in class, it made me wonder if all the films we have to watch are as ludicrous and mind-boggling as this. If that’s the case, I cannot wait to see more.

Schizopolis (1996) is one of the strangest films I’ve seen to date.

When I watch a film, more often than not, I obsess over what each and every scene means, searching for insightful reviews online that show me things I might have missed. I usually associate the feeling of confusion with the feeling of dissatisfaction. Coming out of the classroom after seeing Schizopolis, though, I was extremely confused – but I wasn’t mad about it.

In the moments when I thought I knew where the film was going, I would be thrown off by what seemed to be an uncalled-for dialogue or random switch-up. Much of my confusion came after the first act, when we see Dr. Jeffrey Korchek being played by the same guy who played Fletcher Munson. (I later found out that the actor was Steven Soderbergh himself). I didn’t know whether or not the Korchek narrative was connected to the Fletcher narrative, and when it was revealed that he was having an affair with Fletcher’s wife, I honestly thought that it was just some weird role-playing thing. This still baffles me – are they really two different people? Did I miss something?

Perhaps this speaks of my inexperience with experimental cinema, but even after having some time to think, I find myself unable to grasp the movie as a whole, to see any semblance of a “bigger picture.” This is not to say that the film didn’t have any praiseworthy scenes. I personally loved Elmo Oxygen’s scenes in which some sort of gibberish dialect was used to seduce housewives. As I watched Elmo gallivanting around the neighborhood, I thought that this use of language was just some funny gag. The more I heard the random phrases he said, though, the easier it was for me to follow along. It felt like re-watching a K-Drama without subtitles. I could identify some of the most basic words (“nose army” for hello, “smell sign” for goodbye), but I depended on intonation and facial expressions to decipher the rest of the conversations. Once I understood Elmo’s main goal was to sleep with people, I recognized the gist of the situation, but not the specifics.

Soderbergh continues to experiment with communication and language throughout the film. Some of the most effective dialogues were in the interactions between Fletcher Munson and his wife, in which words such as “hello” are replaced with “generic greeting.” I recognized that Fletcher’s relationship had turned into a routine, so predictable that an outsider could know what was happening with close to zero context. The film continued to play around with these scenes between Fletcher and his wife, cleverly devising an unfamiliar way to illustrate the familiar narrative of a love that has ceased to exist. Although we will never be one-hundred percent sure what exactly Soderbergh intended to do by creating Schizopolis, the film in its entirety feels like an endeavor to find brand new ways to tell the stories that filmmakers tell over and over again. Maybe that’s why the narratives that we were presented with were half-baked and barely intelligible – we’ve seen all these these things before, but never in this way.

At first glance, Stephen Soderbergh’s Schizopolis (1996) might not seem like the kind of movie most people would enjoy – at least, for the same reason they enjoy your typical blockbuster hit. This wild, experimental satire pushed the limits of what I thought I knew about cinema and how to experience it. While it’s unclear what the film really talks about because of its hilariously obvious lack of a linear plot, it does follow a structure in the form of acts – the whole film is divided up into three main acts that follow the same plot, but through the perspective of three different characters.

 The first act looks at the life and experiences of Fletcher Munson, an office employee of the cult-like company called Eventualism who wants to go far with his work. He feels trapped in the everyday routine of his life, and this is seen in the way he fails to pay much attention to and properly communicate with the people around him, including his family. We immediately see the recurring idea of miscommunication in the way both Fletcher and Mrs. Munson resort to generic greetings instead of having an actual conversation. This situation is further aggravated by Fletcher’s decision to take on more work, which eventually leads to Mrs. Munson having an affair with the main character of the next act, Dr. Korchek. His life as a dentist is similar to Fletcher’s in its mundane way, but he seems to enjoy his work and find real pleasure and meaning in it. His communication with Mrs. Munson throughout their affair is clear and comfortable, and they seem to genuinely like each other’s company. This changes, however, when Dr. Korchek falls madly in love with one of his patients and – in true Schizopolis fashion – is shot dead. Lastly, we have the third act focused on Mrs. Munson. Her perspective of the story clarifies many things that seemed weird at the start. She continues to speak in different languages with both the men in her life, anchoring her problem to the overarching theme of miscommunication. She feels unwanted, unheard and mostly unloved, and its painful to see her go from happy to heartbroken to hopeful to resigned all within the span of a couple of minutes. It was the closest thing to real the film ever got, and I appreciated that momentary dip into relatable human emotion and experience. This turned out to be my favorite part of the movie because it confirmed the themes that I had suspected at the start and provided the whole story (or lack thereof) with some kind of resolution. There are other aspects of the film that confused me, like the disturbing subplots of Nameless Numberhead Man and Elmo. They were welcome comedic breaks, and while it initially led me to believe that they were going to be irrelevant parts to the main story, I was pleasantly surprised to be proved otherwise.

This was the first time I had ever watched a movie of this nature, and while I didn’t completely understand it, I still enjoyed it nonetheless. I appreciate how it managed to poke fun at itself and how weird and nonsensical it truly is. I realized that a movie doesn’t have to make sense for it to be likeable and enjoyable, and Schizopolis definitely lived up to that.

One word: WHAT? Usually, before watching films, I have a preconceived idea about what the movie is based on either the title, the trailer, or the director. In this case, however, I did not know what to expect because I did not even know what the word “schizopolis” meant— my first what. Before watching the movie, I thought “okay I am up for this ride” because it was Steven Soderbergh! In my mind, I was expecting something like that of Ocean’s Eleven/Ocean’s Twelve/Ocean’s Thirteen. Who would have thought that this will be my second what? How about my third what, if you may ask? What was THAT movie all about?

         Since the movie was jumping from one act to another, I was left very confused on my seat. They were no presence of any obvious transitionary device that would help distinguish one act from another. I was just connecting the dots since the story was nonlinear which seemed to be disconnected and incoherent for me. This made me more confused about the flow, especially since some characters, like Soderbergh himself, would play more than one role across the whole movie. At one point, I just gave up trying to pinpoint which scenes belong with one another. I just assumed the connection of the story based on how the frame where shot. Ironically, the moment I stopped having expectations, that was the point when I started enjoying the movie. This particular incident made me analyze the scenes—that Soderbergh was actually experimenting.

   What really struck me is the movie’s experimental use of different film elements to portray three different stories. For something to be entertaining, dialogues, facial expressions and numerous imagery are used, which Schizopolis further explored by telling the story in a non-standard way. They successfully made a movie out of different movie templates. That scene wherein the characters were not really speaking lines, but more of saying the expected script format made me rethink whether dialogue is a crucial element of a film. Obviously, it is, but even if this was the case–even if the characters were using weird dialogues, they were still able to deliver a message. At this point, I thought that generic phrases used emphasized how human connection through communication is shallow. Even those which were in foreign languages seemed to give context clues even without the presence of subtitles. Another is that scene where it was trying to portray a sex scene or that of something like a porn format out of nowhere, by creating an environment fit for the particular scene. This too showed the lack of passion even with the poor usage of language and communication. These above mentioned analysis showed how Schizopolis’ theme is trying to portray a satirical attack on modern cultural lifestyle and the lack of communication.

         When Steven Soderbergh said “In the event that you find certain sequences or events confusing, please bear in mind this is your fault, not ours. You will need to see the picture again and again until you understand everything,” I already know that I will end up needing to watch it again. Confusing as it may have been, it still was entertaining for me when I started to see the whole movie and not the separate scened. Soderbergh was successful in creating a challenge to watch the movie above its form and structure.