Schizopolis was most definitely the oddest amongst all the films that we had taken up in class. I remember thinking to myself at the time how it’s unlike any film I have seen before. In spite of my desperate attempts to try to follow the chronological order of the film in order to somehow pinpoint something that makes sense, I was not able to do so, and this was actually what made it quite interesting. I was stuck thinking about whether or not the film was actually trying to say something, but I was also telling myself that maybe it was doing this to make me think that there was something there where there really isn’t. In the film we here the main character introducing the film. He tells the viewers, “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’s sort of teasing the viewers that there is a message they’re trying to pass on, and it leads to the viewer getting so consumed by it. I definitely know that I was one of these people. The unnoticeable storylines and the scenes which have o contribution to the story at all are what add to this film’s weird nature. Although, some scenes, like the conversation between the main character and the wife, are very straightforward. I recall the discussion between the two, and they were merely narrating what  they were going to do rather than actually communicating with each other. This obviously pertains to the degraded status of their relationship, which we then see later on in the film when the perspective is change to that of the man she’s been cheating on her husband with, Fletcher’s Doppelganger. So there was a story line, and the different perspectives were telling the same story, but I remain bewildered by the randomness of it all. One scene that really struck me was when he was making  faces in the mirror inside the bathroom. I began to question whether or not that was really impossible because it seemed like it wasn’t. I started thinking that maybe it’s a portrayal of what we don’t see in people, what’s on the inside of people along and what people do when no one is watching. Maybe that’s why some scenes can be quite disturbing.

All in all, I found it to be a good movie mostly because it was very unique. It was unlike any other movie I had seen before, and its random nature as well as its efforts to entice the viewers with talks of deeper meaning and misunderstanding only makes me want to see it more. I continue to question whether or not the film is actually trying to say something, and I am still very much curious about the whereabouts of that guy who seemingly does porn, and what his place in everything is.

“In the event that you find certain sequences or events confusing,” Soderbergh says at the start of the film as he addresses the audience, “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 was up for the challenge for unpacking any hidden meaning as soon as the film was introduced as weird. I think I gave up well before the 10-minute mark of the film. Not because there was no inherent meaning in Schizopolis, but I suppose Writer-Director Steven Soderbergh (Ocean’s trilogy) would want us to watch it that way. And it’s a lot less frustrating to watch a film like this when you’re not desperately analyzing why Fletcher Munson (Soderbergh) is making those faces in the mirror, or why there’s a pantless man being chased with a giant net. I got less impatient when I relaxed and let the film take me whichever crazy way it wanted to go.

But even with such an unconventional film like Schizopolis, it is consistent with one thing: it refuses to make it easy for you. Opening and ending credits? Nope, you get a black-shirted man with no pants on, chased by orderlies. Act transition cards? Nah, we’ll use house numbers for all three acts. Smooth, natural transitions? No. Deal with whiplash from the jump cuts. You will be taken wherever Soderbergh wants. Dialogue? The film gives you plenty of dialogue alright. Take your pick from husband and wife (Betsy Brantley) exchanging generic greetings, to nonsensical yet seductive exchanges between lonely housewives and an exterminator who’s more than happy to keep them company (‘Nose army?’ ‘Nomenclature’).

Schizopolis could have been a lot simpler: an overworked husband, an under-appreciated wife, growing apart. But Soderbergh just plain refuses to tell this story in any simple, conventional manner. Showing their detachment is Fletcher and his wife speaking to each other in passive, rehearsed didn’t-bother-to-fill-in-the-blanks dialogue. Even their extramarital affair is with each other (or rather with their doppelgängers, played by the same actors). And insert broadcast news clips, a porn parody side plot, and all other shenanigans in between, with seemingly no regard for sequencing. Seemingly.

I find it interesting that Soderbergh’s film falls under experimental comedy, but it surprisingly has more structure than you’d think. It feels more as if Soderbergh was following a strict template or formula, at least one that I can’t understand, but probably makes perfect sense in his mind. Narrative-wise, we know it follows a three-act structure, consistent (although bizarre) transitions, and a recurring play on communication. It seems that there iss a method to the madness after all.

As the introductory film to Elements of Screen Arts, Schizopolis floored me for a number of reasons, making me label it as a thoroughly entertaining watch. Its lack of an implicit plot pushes the viewer to look at the individual aspects that make up the film, and these features are unconventional enough that one can recognize them off the bat and make judgments based on their effect.

That being said, I found the entirety of the film incredibly weird and hilarious, and I loved every second of it. At the onset, I looked at it as a commentary on corporate and married life, and I thought it made several points. Apart from this, though, the film also made a whole lot of nonsense appealing, which is unconventional in my personal trajectory of film-watching.

I found that the film’s characters – a corporate employee, his adulterous wife, his insecure coworker, and his alternate self, among others – can shift from being understandable and relatable at one moment to being completely absurd at the next. This was a dynamic I was not prepared for but genuinely liked, as I was forced to look at their nuanced characteristics instead of trying to make sense of the nonsense they were projecting.

Schizopolis’s worldbuilding worked well for me in relation to its other elements, in that its mundane setting further accentuated the weirdness that was happening throughout the film. The depiction of these characters moving through their pedestrian circumstances was playful and unique, and this mismatch was what the film had going for it.

The film’s dialogue worked in a similar fashion, in that some sections were truly incomprehensible, but allowed me to look at the tone and emotion that they attempt to convey or evoke. In this regard, I felt the emotions in a new kind of way. This technique unexpectedly made the emotions more potent.

Apart from the film’s technical merit, it also evoked in me a certain cognitive dissonance. I have dedicated my life to storytelling and the impact of words, but this film showed me that language can mean nothing and still convey something! In truth, that made me uncomfortable, but I cannot discount its reality.

This unique approach to filmmaking kept me hooked for the entire time, its richness in absurdity making me want to know what will happen next. For some viewers, this method might seem standoffish, but I liked it for how it deliberately throws all conventions out of the window in trying to depict conventional realities. This tension reveals the film’s charm and genius.

I’ve seen a lot of weird and crazy stuff in media: most particularly on the internet. I’ve watched people eating cakes made of their own puke on YouTube, read unbelievable stories of different people on Twitter, and saw hundreds of “memes” on Facebook which make no sense for the sake of making no sense. Weirdly enough, watching Schizopolis, it reminded me of these types of content. As I went through each scene, the film became stranger and stranger for me, leaving me more and more confused. However, looking back into it: is that really the case?

I would see that it is not. With the director, Steven Soderbergh, now with several successful blockbusters and an Academy Award under his belt, there is no way he would make this film with no intention behind it. As my classmates have mentioned, three acts could be seen, reflected by the three short scenes showing a “1”, “2” and “3”.

The first act would seem to be the easiest to decipher and break apart. The instructions given by the Right Hand Man to Munson near the start of the film may set the precedent for the film itself, showing a clash between the organized and disorganized:

“It should be lengthy enough to seem substantial, yet concise enough to feel breezy. It should be serious but with a slight wink. It should lay out a new course of action, but one that can change direction at any moment. If you must mention facts and figures, don’t do so directly. The general thrust should remain embedded in one’s mind forever, but specific words should be forgotten the moment they are heard. It should contain nothing that can be confirmed nor denied.”

The stories of Fletcher Munson and Elmo Oxygen would also be introduced. Munson would have an office job, with no clear indication of what the company does in the first place, perhaps a commentary on the boring and common nature of the office. Elmo would carry the work of an exterminator, but carrying a different motive as well: sleeping with the housewives who calls him. At the end of this act, we would see that a conflict would occur within these two stories, as the presence of a mole/spy would arise in the office of Munson and as Elmo is offered a new job.

These conflicts only rise in act two, with even more characters popping up. The appearance of both Munson’s and Mrs. Munson’s doppelgangers would make things even more crazy and confusing, as they end up being the love interests of their counterparts and each other. This would maybe represent how we really do have “types” in a relationship, as we go from person to person who share almost similar characteristics and features. Korchek however, would represent a laid-back version of his doppelganger, as he seems more grounded and focused on his job (except for that one sexual harassment subplot), contrast to the funny-face making, constantly jacking-off Munson.

Stories would also overlap in this act, as Dr. Korchek would interact would Mr. Tribby, the counterpart of Right Hand Man in the rival company and the wife of Nameless Numberhead Man, who even refers to her husband as she sits in his dental chair.

This overlapping would come to a head in act three, as the storylines represented in act one and two would be reiterated and ran through again, but with a new twist. As Mrs. Munson is put in the spotlight, as she interacts with the two doppelgangers, and we could see her perspective as well. Eventually, we would see the worlds of Elmo and Fletcher eventually meet, as the former exterminator attempts to assassinate the man that the office worker is under. Contrast would again be seen as we see a life full of mundaneness and regularity clash with a life full of spontaneity and craziness. Their internal conflicts would eventually come to a close as well, with Elmo finishing the job as the aforementioned mole of Fletcher’s company

All of this would be my own attempt to make sense of what I just encountered, and is somewhat what we, as human beings constantly try to do with every film, video, picture or piece of writing that we come across. My attempt may be successful in the eyes of Soderbergh, but it may be a big failure as well. What matters I think with this film, though, is that we made the attempt in the first place. Despite the confusing nature of each scene, with it becoming more confusing as they add up, we still tried to get out of that confusion. We, as was said before the start of the film, may even make the effort to “see the picture again and again” until we understand everything. And perhaps, this phenomena of making sense out of chaos is what we try to do on the internet and social media as well.

I can confidently say I came out of class that day with more questions than answers.

Steven Soderbergh, dressed in a dull, standard suit, walks onstage and leans over to the microphone to introduce viewers to Schizopolis. He mutters the following disclaimer: “In the event that you find certain ideas or sequences confusing, please bear in mind that this is your fault, not ours.”

As soon as we started streaming Schizopolis, I psyched myself to try to make sense out of everything. I prepared myself to put two and two together in order to find the deeper meaning behind all the flashy props and experimental sequences. I can’t say I was successful in making sense out of the film, however, despite all my sincere attempts.

I am sure of approximately three things: the film is divided into three acts, Fletcher Munson (portrayed by Soderbergh) and his wife are in an unhappy marriage, and Elmo Oxygen is trying to seduce as many housewives as possible. Everything else, I am unsure of. I walked out of class with several questions—what exactly is Eventualism? What exactly does Munson do for a living? Was Munson somehow reincarnated into Dr. Jeffrey Korchek’s body in an alternate universe, or are they just doppelgangers of each other? Is Munson’s wife actually cheating on him with Korchek if they’re technically the same person? Is Korchek even real? For that matter, is Munson real, or is any of this real?

As deliberately confusing as Schizopolis makes itself out to be, I could compartmentalize the different elements of the film into themes and motifs. Schizopolis plays around with language and dialogue in several ways, and in different scenes. The sequences of Munson and his unfaithful wife are played over and over again with different dialogues, but the essence of the sequence remains the same all throughout the movie—the first time we see the sequences, Munson and his wife speak in placeholders; the second time we see the sequences, they converse as people in real life normally would; the third time, Munson speaks in Japanese. Later on in the film, we even see an additional scene that was not shown the first three times the sequence was replayed, which shows what happens after Munson’s wife leaves Korchek. She meets up with Munson—or Korchek, or another man played by Soderbergh—who then speaks in French. It’s amazing how I got the general idea of their unhappy marriage from the first time the sequence was played, and how they decided to replay the same sequence with different dialogues showed viewers how you can tell the same story no matter how much you play with the language.

This is also seen in majority of the scenes with Elmo Oxygen, where he converses with housewives in a strange language using code words such as “smell sign” and “nose army”. The film never explicitly tells you what each code word means in English, but with context clues, I could get the general idea that “smell sign” at least meant “goodbye” or something similar, and that they were flirting with each other.

Another thing I appreciated about the film is that while the methods used to tell the story were crazy and experimental, if you remove a few elements here and there, the subject matter can be rather mundane. You follow the life of an average white man in an unhappy marriage with a mediocre job. On a surface level, most people wouldn’t watch a movie with this premise, but what makes the film interesting and what keeps viewers reeled in is the storytelling. I didn’t really understand where the film was taking me, but I wanted to see it through regardless.

After giving myself some time to reflect on the events in the film, I eventually gave up on trying to understand it, and took everything in the way it was being presented. Maybe I’m not supposed to understand it. Maybe I’m just supposed to enjoy the film for what it was, without trying to search for any deeper meaning. Is there even a deeper meaning? Why am I so busy trying to figure out what things really meant, if I enjoyed—or at the very least, was intrigued by—the film, anyway?

I am sure of approximately four things: the film is divided into three acts, Fletcher Munson and his wife are in an unhappy marriage, Elmo Oxygen is trying to seduce as many housewives as possible, and I found several ideas and sequences confusing. But that’s probably my fault, and not anyone else’s.

While I don’t claim myself to be a movie buff, I also know that I’ve watched numerous films from various genres and styles but I have never seen anything like Schizopolis. As much as it was confusing, it was also entertaining; my mind was never or rarely not processing what was going on in the film, even when the processing that was happening was leading to nowhere. As I found myself trying to solve this puzzle of a movie, I encountered many wrong or ridiculous personal interpretations. Though what I did conclude as my own interpretation and also found interesting was how the overall plot simply criticized the self help book that Mr. Azimuth authored. The book claims to communicate its message or teaching to its readers and yet the author himself cannot communicate properly with his followers [as seen by how he treats them and even his wife which supposedly leads to the wife’s infidelity]. From here, I saw that communication plays a large part in what the movie was trying to express. Though I also think that despite the different languages and the gibberish used within the movie, the characters could still communicate their thoughts toward each other. Though this is communication wherein the receiver can interpret the sender, and not in a sense wherein the characters can express their feelings properly toward one another because the infidelity shown throughout the film through several characters. Though again, these personal reflections only hit me after the film; without the usual structure movies and stories follow along with seemingly misfit scenes, it was difficult to process even my own thoughts about the film.

Looking back, when the introduction tells the audience that there are parts about the film we will not understand and that we’ll need to rewatch it, they weren’t lying. The film has difficulty communicating itself to the audience [on purpose] similar to how the characters also communicate poorly but that also gives way for a more unique viewing experience that provokes the thought of its audiences.

The confusion that accompanied the movie attracted me more than it should have repelled me from the movie. I remember quitting movies halfway because of confusing plot points or characters suddenly missing like my love-hate relationship with the Michael Bay Transformers movies, and yet my experience was Schizopolis was one that made me appreciate experimental films more. It was a good way to introduce myself to more experimental movies especially considering that we don’t see experimental movies as much in mainstream media. Perhaps that’s why I never heard about this too, despite always “researching” on what interesting movies to watch on my lazy days. The director and apparently also the main actor was also someone who caught my attention as someone creative and relatively flexible. That role of his must have been very demanding and while I would think that it seemed like a selfish or prideful thing to cast himself as the main actor, it now seems more reasonable that he did because of the demands he might have asked for from the actor. This was definitely a good movie outside of mainstream movies, even those that they claim to be confusing.. *ehem* Inception *ehem*

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 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.

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.