(for Ernst Schmidt jrs. trilogy Memories of a Nervous Illness, part 1 & part 2) 1987/88, 16mm (S 8 blow up), á 4 min, colour & b/w

(for Ernst Schmidt jrs. trilogy Memories of a Nervous Illness, part 1 & part 2) 1987/88, 16mm (S 8 blow up), á 4 min, colour & b/w

On the 28th of October 1884 Daniel Paul Schreber, candidate of the National Liberal Party in Chemnitz, suffered a heavy defeat at the elections of the German Reichstag. He was taken up in the mental clinic of the Leipzig University soon afterwards. To his rehabilition he wrote an extensive piece of work, "Denkwürdigkeiten eines Nervenkranken" (Memoirs of My Nervous Illness), which was published in 1903 and led to his temporary dismissal. Hereby Schreber became the most quoted psychiatric patient in scientific literature.

On the 28th of October 1884 Daniel Paul Schreber, candidate of the National Liberal Party in Chemnitz, suffered a heavy defeat at the elections of the German Reichstag. He was taken up in the mental clinic of the Leipzig University soon afterwards. To his rehabilition he wrote an extensive piece of work, "Denkwürdigkeiten eines Nervenkranken" (Memoirs of My Nervous Illness), which was published in 1903 and led to his temporary dismissal. Hereby Schreber became the most quoted psychiatric patient in scientific literature.

On the 28th of October 1884 Daniel Paul Schreber, candidate of the National Liberal Party in Chemnitz, suffered a heavy defeat at the elections of the German Reichstag. He was taken up in the mental clinic of the Leipzig University soon afterwards. To his rehabilition he wrote an extensive piece of work, "Denkwürdigkeiten eines Nervenkranken" (Memoirs of My Nervous Illness), which was published in 1903 and led to his temporary dismissal. Hereby Schreber became the most quoted psychiatric patient in scientific literature.

Filming and calling the result a diary is literary. It is filmic to write a film diary and have this writing scroll by as film.

A film consisting of the titles of films that were shown in Viennese cinemas at the time of its creation.

With P.R.A.T.E.R. Schmidt turned his attention to the place where, once, the medium first came into existence (the Prater is P.R.A.T.E.R. is marked by a strongly repetitive flow. Schmidt's prime interest lies with people, their facial expressions and manner of looking. The film is in two parts; while the first acts as an exposé of the main themes, treatment and disintegration of these themes is intensified in the second part.

Conceptual overabundance was contrasted with nothing in Nothing, which, as the title promises, was nothing. Two years later, when Schmidt Jr. wanted to produce a film version of Nothing consisting of a whiteness that was gradually and imperceptibly to shift to black, the film lab thought the negative was faulty and stayed with the original, that is: it copied – nothing. (Peter Tscherkassky)

This film is a kind of anthology about Vienna, from the invention of film to the present day. The aim is to break down the usual clichéd "image of Vienna" such as that found in the traditional "Vienna Film" by juxtaposing documentary footage, newly shot material and subjective sequences created by various artists. Individual, self-contained sections of the film gain new meaning within the context of historical material. Familiar sites appear estranged when edited together with historical scenes. Other scenes appear like a persiflage or satirical. The film does not incorporate any commentary whatsoever. It is a collage of diverse materials aimed at conveying a distanced image of Vienna to the viewer