“Reality is as thin as paper and betrays with all its cracks its imitative character” – these evocative words were written by Bruno Schulz in the late 1930s, and while the concept may not have existed in its entirety at the time, many scholars of postmodernism cite this as one of the most notable examples of the incredulity that movement had towards the concept of reality. An author whose work has been subjected to many interpretations over the years, the appeal of Schulz’s writings is that they are decidedly non-conventional and difficult to comprehend in the same way as more traditional works from the era. His work found kindred spirits in the form of Stephen and Timothy Quay, who have defined themselves as some of the most revolutionary voices in experimental cinema, and whose sensibilities seem to match those of the late writer. After adapting his masterpiece Street of Crocodiles a few decades ago, they have made their return to Schulz’s literary output, working on a long-gestating adaptation of Sanatorium Under the Sign of the Hourglass, which was previously adapted to film in 1973 by Wojciech Has, who ventured into the artistic unknown to explore this peculiar but enchanting text. The Brothers Quay demonstrate a similar passion for the material in this adaptation, a layered and unconventional film that doesn’t follow conventions in any conceivable way, and instead presents an entirely new style of storytelling that feels genuinely exciting and unique.

A quality of Schulz’s writing that has made it difficult to envision any straightforward adaptation of his work is that they don’t follow a traditional structure, and therefore require filmmakers who can venture out of the confines of logic, dismantling traditional narrative structure and instead presenting something entirely original. The first clue that Sanatorium Under the Sign of the Hourglass is going to take a more unorthodox approach comes at the very beginning, where it is stated that rather than being a direct adaptation of the story, the film would instead be based on “motifs and themes” from the novel, therefore being more inspired by the writer’s work, rather than simply attempting to relay the same narrative details, which would be far too challenging and frankly impossible to achieve on screen. The film is distinctly driven more by atmosphere than by a coherent storyline, which seems like the only logical approach to this novel. The film volleys between animation and live-action footage, the directors pairing them together to create a more unconventional depiction of this story, one that is intent on being a dreamlike odyssey into the subconscious of its protagonist as he begins to see his sanity slowly unravel around him. Imaginative but filled with nightmarish imagery, countless bespoke compositions are unlike anything we have encountered in the past, which seems to be the purpose of adapting the text in such a way, and very much indicative of the Brothers Quay and their extensive artistic output, which has run the gamut in terms of style and structure over an extensive career that goes back over half a century.

Much like the text, this film is crafted as a series of stream-of-consciousness vignettes that offer insights into the mind of a protagonist who is slowly beginning to question the nature of reality. There are analyses that view Schulz’s writings as being reflective of the chaos of life (particularly when existing in that ambiguous period between the two World Wars), and vivid but unsettling portraits of humanity. Yet, as applicable as these ideas may be, understanding precisely what the film is attempting to convey is a fool’s errand – we come to realise very early in the story that this is not something designed to be understood or interpreted traditionally, but rather a sensory experience. The plot follows the protagonist as he drifts between reality and fantasy, his increasingly ambiguous voiceover narration (much of which is taken from the original text) only complicating whatever paltry understanding we have of the plot, leading the viewer to either walk away entirely bewildered or simply surrender to the outlandish madness that propels the film forward.  At some points, it can be quite uncomfortable, and the austere and often grotesque visual palette only amplifies the feeling of unease, but the Brothers Quay have always advocated for discomfort as a valuable narrative tool, since once the viewer is immersed in these unsettling landscapes, we’re able to be provoked and challenged into a broader understanding of complex ideas, which is perhaps the only clear motivation we can glean from this remarkable film.

The concept of a film being labelled as an acquired taste is dreadfully reductive and outdated, and is usually used to soften the criticism around a film not being easily accessible by the mainstream. However, it can confidently be stated that Sanatorium Under the Sign of the Hourglass is a purposefully divisive film, and not one that is going to have universal appeal, which is entirely by design. After dozens of short films, this is only the Brothers Quay’s third feature-length offering, coming nearly two decades after their previous foray into long-form storytelling, and thus it is clearly a film that took a substantial amount of time and effort to bring to life. The results speak for themselves, with it becoming a playful but disorienting postmodern adventure through the human mind, an exploration of the blurring of reality and delusion that is far more widespread than many would be willing to admit. Decidedly unconventional but still extremely compelling, this is a major achievement of both experimental cinema and literary adaptations, taking the spirit of one of the most notoriously challenging authors and curating it to the screen in a way that both pays tribute to the original text and its underlying thematic content, as well as being filled with the director’s distinctive vision. Unpredictable and provocative, and filled with haunting images that linger with the viewer, Sanatorium Under the Sign of the Hourglass is a film that is difficult to interpret but fascinating to experience, a perfect summation of the chaotic, visceral and profoundly uncomfortable ingenuity that went into its creation.