Tuesday, July 3, 2007

Soderbergh's Schizopolis (1996)


I’ve had mixed feelings about Steven Soderbergh. I often feel that this prolific filmmaker has been celebrated far too much for many projects that are basically film-school-level experiments in style. I view The Good German (2006), Bubble (2005) and Full Frontal (2002) as interesting in concept, but devoid of any substance in execution, whose good exists merely as an exercise in style. Bubble (an exercise in minimalism) and The Good German (an exercise in recreation of style) infuriate me in particular because the style is so overbearing that it comes at the expense of depth of characterization and narrative. (Good German is misguided even in its own goal, giving elements such as sex & violence and rapid-fire editing that routinely removes itself completely from any illusion of American war-era filmmaking reborn.) Not that I don’t think Soderbergh was well-deserved in receiving the directing Oscar for Traffic (2000), and not that I didn’t enjoy films like The Limey (1999), Out of Sight (1998) and sex, lies and videotape (1989). Soderbergh has talent, no doubt. However, his best films are not his indie experiments, but the ones he makes that have a more traditional narrative while still retaining some originality (and punch) in their style, such Traffic, Out of Sight, sex, lies and the first Ocean’s film.

There are many filmmakers today that straddle the constantly-blurring line between the studios and the indies: Gus Van Sant, Richard Linklater, Paul Greengrass, Alfonso Cuaron, Christopher Nolan, Spike Lee, etc. These filmmakers have seen success with mass audiences, while at the same time making more personal, lower-budget pet projects. Yet most of these filmmakers retain a distinctive style no matter what type of film they’re making. Soderbergh, on the other hand, has no discernable style except for an abundance of style itself. Most of his more obscure work has seemed like empty film school exercises in concept from somebody with too much success, fame and money to still be in film school. Not that I disrespect experiment in film—I love what the French New Wave and many other European traditions have done for the medium. But, with Soderbergh, there seems to be something missing beyond character development and narrative thrust, and it is the essential ingredient in artistic filmmaking: a critical element.

Then I saw Schizopolis (1996).


This film accomplishes a major feat that nothing else in Soderbergh’s oeuvre has: it deconstructs the language of cinematic expression. But not only that, it aims to deconstruct language itself—a post-structuralist exercise in a medium of self-imposed rules and regulations. But perhaps the greatest feat in this worthwhile experiment is that it doesn’t treat itself too seriously (or seriously at all), and is in fact absolutely hilarious.

The film bookends with a theater attendant (Soderbergh himself, who plays two other characters in the film as well) telling the audience of the theater (ie. you) how important the filmis that you are about to see. He stresses that he is not relaying this information for financial gain, but because he sincerely believes this to be true, then says, “if you don’t understand this film, it’s your fault, not ours. You must watch it over and over again until you understand everything.” He ends the film with a rather droll Q&A with a silent audience. This is an obvious tongue-in-cheek approach to the distance that art house cinema puts between the screen and the audience through its self-important deviation from mainstream film style. It’s basically what every film geek would like to say to the normal moviegoing audience: “if you don’t understand, it’s your fault.” But by far the most notable aspect of this approach is that it aims to seem as if it’s not taking itself seriously at all within a critical style that is known for its seriousness. This contrasts with Soderbergh’s own work even.

There is a great tradition of inaccessible European and independent art cinema that is celebrated by critics and film buffs alike, many of whom refuse to acknowledge that the films themselves “make no sense” in any practical way (Fellini Satyricon is one of my personal favorites of these types). This takes nothing away from their cultural importance—I’m certainly not knocking these films, and neither is Soderbergh. What Soderbergh accomplishes quite brilliantly is that he takes much delight in his own awareness that his film “makes no sense”. He uses experimentation with dialogue, editing and any recognizable narrative form as sort of a light game, which relaxes the audience (me) enough to enjoy the seemingly anti-intellectual ride. He dares us to treat this seriously. He dares us to make sense of this work. (His commentary on the Criterion DVD is an interview he has with himself that illuminates nothing about the production and meaning of the film. The joke continues…)


But the film’s great irony is that it uses undisciplined meaninglessness as a technique to search for meaning itself (or lack thereof), most notably in its use of language. Characters in some scenes use a variety of random words that seem to describe something (usually a proposition for sex. ex, Woman: Arsenal. Nose army. Man: Nose army. Beef Diaper?), but the words themselves mean nothing at all; they merely suggest meaning in their inflection and the action that follows them. In other scenes, characters communicate with one another using entirely different languages (sans subtitles). And, in some of the funniest and most frustrating scenes, characters interact with one another by merely describing what they’re saying (Husband coming home from work: “Generic greeting!” Wife: “Generic greeting.”). Are these examples a deconstruction of filmic language, and how it sounds familiar even when it means nothing? Or, is it an examination of the meaninglessness of our routine suburban façade of propriety and dialogue that substitutes for real human connection? The similarity between the two is scary. But in the tradition of the film itself, I’ll restrain drawing conclusions.

Whatever is going on, the film is certainly subversive in style and form, on par with Luis Bunuel (although without the same explicit aim). Also, a sequence toward the end of the film, in which several events are re-told from the female's perspective, can't help but hark back to a similar technique used in Bergman's Persona (1966), a film that, like Schizopolis, toyed with the relationship between screen and audience throughout. Therefore, the film certainly has a respect for the art film, even as it tries to convince us not to take artistic filmmaking too seriously. (It is also reminiscent of many literary traditions, and could be deemed the filmic equivalent of the equally subversive works of Kurt Vonnegut or William S. Burroughs.)


Soderbergh’s physical presence throughout (as the two principal characters) is worth note as well. In the great European art film tradition, the director’s presence on screen (through their signature style, not physically) was essential in the experience of watching films that “make no sense”. One would have to come into these films with a knowledge and appreciation of the cinema, if not the specific filmmaker him/herself, in order to really “appreciate” the film. One would need to evaluate an art film in respect to the director’s canon of other films. After all, these serious films are reserved only for an elite audience, one that treats film seriously. Soderbergh, by contrast, is not only a filmmaker seemingly devoid of a signature style, but also one who rarely seems to treat the medium seriously (or at least would like you to think so). Soderbergh’s physical presence in the film is yet another subversion of the art film. A film this experimental in style and critical in purpose should treat itself very seriously, but it doesn’t. Soderbergh moves beyond subverting film techniques, but subverts these subversive techniques as well. And the director’s physical presence on screen (as the director’s presence is supposed to help “make sense” of the nonsensical in the art film) refuses to provide any illumination to the film’s purpose and meaning. His constant presence has us longing for closure, but we get none of it (the DVD commentary is an extension of this as well). The more of him we see, the less we know what to think.

Thank you, Steven, for not telling us what to think.

33 comments:

generic cialis said...

Schizopolis was shot on a budget of only $250,000. Due to Soderbergh's desire to keep the film simple, many people had multiple duties and many friends and relatives were hired in various capacities, he also began filming with no script, which gave the actors plenty of room for improvisation.

shivam said...

The best essential information is this, that you have try to do very well approaching for that homelessness body and their helping hand. I am so inspired about that, after read your this useful written articles and your opinions also which is so attractive for do something for those
Hotels in Venice

Hotels in Antwerp said...

I just cant stop reading this.  Its so cool, so full of information that I just didnt know.  Im glad to see that people are actually writing about this issue in such a smart way, showing us all different sides to it.  Youre a great blogger.  Please keep it up.  I cant wait to read whats next.
Hotels in Antwerp

head lice home remedies said...

wow. finally, I discovered one thing useful for my paper to put in writing about. that is attention-grabbing and helps me with extra research within the future. Glad I discovered this blog.Thank you. And I do hope you will expand a few of your concepts about this subject and I'll certain come again and read it. Thanks for the trouble and time.

Top rated penis enlargement pills said...

many people had multiple duties and many friends and relatives were hired in various capacities.......

Buy premature ejaculation pills said...

It was a great thing to have come across this post. Great job done.

Buy premature ejaculation pills said...

It was a great thing to have come across this post. Great job done.

Clear Skin Max acne remedy said...

I am so inspired about that, after read your this useful written articles

How to increase penis size pills said...

There are many filmmakers today that straddle the constantly-blurring line between the studios and the indies...

Best penis enhancement patch review said...

Retaining some originality in their style..is important!

Revitol best cellulite reduction cream said...

I have exams to take part. I shall discuss some other day. Thanks for the post.

xl pharmacy said...

is incredible that many projects directed by this man, was reaching this quality, you know many people hear the word project and think in something really bad. but this is not the case.

Phen375 natural phentermine alternative said...

It was true that,Soderbergh's desire to keep the film simple, many people had multiple duties.Likes this person as he is really adorable.

Phen375 natural phentermine alternative said...

It was true that,Soderbergh's desire to keep the film simple, many people had multiple duties.Likes this person as he is really adorable.

Vitoliv liver cleansing pills said...

I think this is a kind of disorder. I am not sure but I have idea about this.

Volumepills low semen volume pills review said...

The ones he makes that have a more traditional narrative while still retaining some originality...

Volumepills enhance semen volume medicine said...

Schizopolis;s budget is impressive.. sometimes it is hard to think over.

hcg buy online said...

Many people had multiple duties and many friends and relatives were hired in various capacities, HCG Blue Drops, the Faster and Natural way to lose weight...

Revitol best cellulite reduction cream said...

Lovely article . Very simple not so hypothetical . Thanks for share it .

Vigaplus natural ED pills said...

I shall discuss some other day. Thanks for the post.

Best Hypospermia treatment said...

There are many filmmakers today that straddle the constantly-blurring line between the studios and the indies.

Vitoliv liver cleansing pills said...

Nice journal . I very much appreciate it .

Duramale prevent premature ejaculation pills said...

already an unparalleled learning experience about the brain. Thank you so much creators.

Buy Vitoslim pills said...

There are many filmmakers today that straddle the constantly-blurring line between the studios and the indies.

Best Washing Machine 2012 said...

For Gus Van Sant, Richard Linklater, Paul Greengrass, Alfonso Cuaron, Christopher Nolan, Spike Lee i have only respect!

Best Infant car seat 2012 said...

The film's main character is Fletcher Munson (played by Soderbergh)

Where to buy cheap Vizio TV said...

Very nice of you to write about such personalities. I have been reading your blog these days and remaind very impressed.

Vigaplus erectile dysfunction medicine said...

Im glad to see that people are actually writing about this issue in such a smart way, showing us all different sides to it. Youre a great blogger.

As seen on TV said...

I think that this article is great and you should write more often about this amazing artist.Don't you think guys ??

Anonymous said...


The very next time I read a blog, Hopefully it does not fail me just as much as this particular one. I mean, I know it was my choice to read through, nonetheless I actually believed you'd have something helpful to talk about. All I hear is a bunch of complaining about something that you could possibly fix if you were not too busy searching for attention.

Anonymous said...

Brokersring.com - Learn how to turn $500 into $5,000 in a month!

[url=http://www.brokersring.com/]Make Money Online[/url] - The Secret Reveled with Binary Option

Binary Options is the way to [url=http://www.brokersring.com/]make money[/url] securely online

northierthanthou said...

Always loved this film, especially the way Soderbergh toys with language in it. Nice to see someone who appreciates it.

Anonymous said...

Your report offers proven helpful to me personally. It’s verу informative and you aгe clеarlу quite
κnoωledgeаble іn thіs аrea.
You haѵe got poppeԁ my oωn eyes for yоu tο numerous
thoughts about this kind of topic along ωith intгiquіng, notablе and sound artiсles.


Alѕo ѵisit mу webpage ... viagra