So Is This (1982) User Reviews

Fascinating short feature on the nature of Words and Cinema

[gortx · 24 April 2005]

As part of a 3 film showing at USC with Director Snow in attendance, SO IS THIS seemed to steal the show (even over the far more famous WAVELENGTH). Consisting solely of single individual words of (mainly) White Letters on a (mainly) Black screen with no sound, SO IS THIS is a fascinating featurette on the relationship of words and cinema.

The words form a text, and that text is the film. Yet, if one were to read a paper printed script, it does not convey the same meaning as the words comprising the script do when projected individually on the screen. This is one of the many ways in which the meaning of the film and the "words" that make it up wrap around itself in the viewer's head (remember, there is no SOUND, so the only sound you "hear" - besides the rustling in the theater - are one's own as you silently "read" them to yourself).

Astonishingly, despite the fact that it is just a series of words, the film itself develops a "personality" of sorts. Prodding, cajoling, baffling and ultimately, toying with the viewer. A one of a kind experience.

I haven't seen anything like this, but I'm split about my opinion.

[ofpsmith · 5/10 · 25 September 2014]

Unlike Michael Snow's Wavelength which has certain appeal, this just seems to be lost on me. The entire film is made up of text cards. And the title cars don't tell a story either. Snow made a movie that spends it's entire running time explaining itself. Wavelength and Back and Forth didn't have a story either but at least we saw something! This can't be classified as a movie because you just spend the entire time reading through it. If I'm reading that usually means I'm reading a book. But then again I really haven't seen anything like this before. So if you want to read a movie knock yourself out. Otherwise, there's really no reason to see this.

Reading a Film

[Tornado_Sam · 28 May 2020]

The above statement is the entire basis that Michael Snow places this forty-eight minute film upon. Essentially, "So is This" is really just a cinematic joke of sorts: no action, no story (not even in what the words say) no sound, nothing except a series of title cards. That's all for forty-eight minutes, and while it is a good idea, for the average viewer it is also hard to really stay engaged for the entire run-time, even in reading all the self-references that the artist directs upon his own works.

For the modern viewer, "So is This" is basically an abomination. When one goes to a theater, they don't expect to have a cinematic experience that is the equal of reading a book. Yet, as a joke it is an interesting concept in theory. In showing just one word per title card to construct sentences, Michael Snow is blurring the lines between reading a book and watching a movie. This is a movie yes, but...is it? Originally made on what I assume would have been 16mm film stock, one could say the entire work is physically just a roll of words - just a bunch of words you could read if you unrolled the entire filmstrip. It only becomes a film when you project it on a screen (or watch it on a computer). A clever idea that, and a very interesting one; thought-provoking and certainly original.

Unfortunately, while it is a great idea in theory, actually watching the film isn't the greatest experience entertainment-wise. Snow makes use of clever self-referential humor, self-referential puns, and sexual adult references (thrown in there just to scandalize people). While that's all amusing to read and certainly not dull, it didn't exactly engage me. I found a camera swinging back and forth in a room for fifty-two minutes to be engaging, and even a camera swinging around a Canadian countryside to be interesting at least. But this film is much more conceptually interesting than it is to watch the finished product. I still give Snow credit for the idea and execution: he did as best he could making black-and-white title cards entertaining.