Home Artists Posts Import Register

Content

I only just now got around to watching this. I think I'd unconsciously avoided it because I suspected it was little more than a conceptual jape, a dig at the viewer who found Wavelength "too long." And although WVLNT does generate some interesting effects, especially with respect to sound, I'm not convinced that this was something that really needed to be made. Then again, who am I to say?

Back when I was teaching Avant-Garde Film at Berkeley (so I'm guessing 2001 or 2002), I rented a brand new print of Wavelength from Canyon Cinema, and (as Adam Curtis might say) then something strange happened. At the 30-minute mark, the print cut to pure white, and after a couple of minutes, the photograph of waves started to materialize. But the time Amy Taubin wandered backwards away from the telephone, it was clear. The print was processed in thirds, and the final third had been printed backwards.

I tried to explain to the class that they were seeing "the wrong thing," but I'm not sure it mattered to them. I contacted Canyon, and they comped the rental and recalled the print, which I assume was either destroyed or sent to Snow for his archives. And Michael Snow sent a very polite email of apology.

Thing is, that screw-up was more implicitly interesting that WVLNT, not only because it was unexpected. There is a crystalline purity to the 1967 film that, to my mind, doesn't invite a lot of remixing or gamesmanship. Gilding the lily, it is. And while I'm glad to have finally seen WVLNT, it's the first Snow work I can't foresee revisiting. Second, actually, after A to Z. It's a rule of life: even geniuses whiff.