3D was never meant for movies.
If anything, 3D technology should be pursued for gaming. But movies? Every time I hear a 3D enthusiast insist that 3D enhances film, I feel like I’m hearing the equivalent of someone arguing under the right conditions – if you lived in an area where it mostly sun for the year, if you would willingly lay on your back and drove alone in a incredibly hot and claustrophobic compartment that had no windows and your only means of communicating was through a radio – a solar-powered car could work.
Yes, under ideal conditions – perfect projection, good speakers, competent filmmaking that involves a excellent understanding of the effect’s use – 3D could work. But I’m not particularly forgiving when time and time again I see Hollywood knowingly use 3D as a gimmick – and a bad one at that – to lure audiences in. Since 3D’s surge to prominence I only remember seeing three movies in 3D: Alice in Wonderland, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, and Avatar. I was more or less coerced into the 3D ticket for Alice because majority rules when you’re seeing movies with friends; Ebert’s comments on the use of 3D enticed me enough to see Ice Age 3; and well Avatar – I’m not a Cameron diehard, but if a man spends nearly two decades bringing to life a visual wonder, I’m going to respect the hard work he put into it. Otherwise, I’ll willingly opt for a good, bright 2D projection any day than pay an extra surcharge that detracts away from my experience.
Recently, acclaimed directors like Steven Spielberg and the legendary Francis Coppola have hopped on the 3D bandwagon with their respective movies, The Adventures of Tintin and Twixt. When I heard this (as well as their enthusiasm for the technology) I sadly shook my head. Had they lost their way? Or really, had they forgotten what the film medium accomplishes that 3D ruins?
Movies are all about creating illusions. We watch a series of photographs or drawings projected in a sequence that creates the illusion that we are seeing live action or animated movement. Cinematography creates the aura, sound enhances the illusion by giving us a sense that we’re hearing actual dialogue and environmental noise, and music supports or supplies the emotion and mood appropriate to a particular point in the narrative. Stellar acting, competent directing, and solid writing help tie all these visual and auditory elements together. A successful film engages the audience through a combination of these various factors to convey a story.
I’ve read many counterarguments to the anti-3D sentiment likening the introduction of 3D to that of sound into film. While similar on the surface, the circumstances surrounding sound and 3D and their effect on film differ vastly to the point that the comparison becomes null.
Directors resisted sound because it forced them to use and learn new equipment. Not only that, silent actors, accustomed to acting without the need for a voice, would have a difficult time adjusting to a new era in filmmaking that required more subtlety and a voice that carried the dialogue (notwithstanding speaking the language of the target audience, for some). The transition to sound was inevitable though, mostly because it helped enhance the illusion of seeing a film: dialogue cards no longer interjected scenes, and the viewing experience became even more seamless because there was no external reminder that what we were watching on screen was only a projection. Sound helped create the illusion of film, as did color film when editors weren’t abusing technicolor or color filters in the early days.
For shame, South Pacific, for shame.
3D is completely different, mostly because its first incarnation goes back to the 1950s. Its resurgence most definitely reflects the state of the current American economy as Hollywood executives try to maintain their business by creating incentives for audiences to get off of their couches and computers and go to an actual theater in an increasingly digital age. The facts are clear: 3D is a gimmick.
Oh, I believe there is artistic integrity that can come about with 3D. But in an increasingly large ocean of 3D gimmicks that contains fewer and fewer films commanding 3D as a absolute you-will-regret-it-if-you-don’t-just-like-the-time-you-didn’t-see-Finding Nemo-in-theaters-because-you’re-a-bloody-idiot-like-that necessity, I find myself increasingly unwilling to indulge in this effect – mostly because it adds nothing from my viewing experience. In fact, it almost definitely detracts away from the experience because unlike sound or color, I am too well aware that 3D is a special effect.
Let me put it this way: when I see bad CGI, the film instantly becomes less illusionary because I am well aware that the CGI is a special effect; when it is done well – either the fictitious or reality sense – the illusion is complete. I can watch the film without anything distracting me from becoming absorbed in the projection of narrative movement and sound.
3D is like bad CGI. You have to wear glasses for it to work, and more often than not the colors become dimmer whenever 3D is employed. And for a person like me who already has astigmatism, 3D is like a extra kick in the balls after it already chucked sand into your eyes.
I’m all too aware that 3D is a special effect, and while I could be completely focused by what’s on screen and absorbed by what I’m hearing, knowing that 3D is being employed becomes an unnecessary awareness that inevitably distracts me from having a truly illusionary film experience. For example, apparently in Coppola’s Twixt, there are even cues when to take your glasses on and off – how much more obvious of an effect can you ask for?
If we likened film to the performance of a magician, a great film experience is like a great illusion, and 3D is like a trick that more often than not, turns out badly. A illusion works because it engages the audience, absorbs them through a process which the character John Cutter describes in Christopher Nolan's The Prestige:
Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called “The Pledge”. The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course… it probably isn’t. The second act is called “The Turn”. The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you’re looking for the secret… but you won’t find it, because of course you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn’t clap yet. Because making something disappear isn’t enough; you have to bring it back. That’s why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call “The Prestige”
A true cinematic experience doesn’t have you solely focused on how the effects were accomplished immediately after you leave the theater. 3D shifts the focus to being wowed by an obvious effect rather than being absorbed by it. It’s too obvious of a trick and fails to produce ‘the prestige’ effect that traditional film projection allows for.
Illusions, Michael. A trick is something a whore does for money. Or cocaine.
If anything, 3D technology should be pushed for gaming. As a medium, games ask for complete immersion into an alternate dimension – a completely different feat than what films accomplish. Games are about an alternative reality with which you can interact with, where as films are about an alternative reality created for the sake of conveying a narrative; games are primarily about individual experiences, and films are about storytelling. In this sense, 3D – an effect that begs to be noticed – is so much more appropriate in games, a medium that begs for you to pay attention to the effects: computer graphics, gaming engines, environment design, everything.
3D is not meant for film because it ruins the illusion of a projected narrative. Perhaps one day 3D technology will improve beyond my comprehension, and might even become a mainstay; if that happens, however, I suspect that it will not become integrated in what we’ve come to define as the film medium, but rather it will transcend into a completely new medium. Though open to the idea of being proven wrong, I have my severe doubts about the future that so many have enthusiastically predicted as the imminent marriage between 3D and film. I’d bet all my chips on 3D and games making a good ol’ baby in a heart beat, hands down.
But 3D and film? I’ll pass, thanks. And solar-powered cars? I think solar-powered road panels are a better idea.
Recommended Reading
- A Movie Lover’s Please: Let there be Light - by Ty Burr via The Boston Globe
- The Dark Flaw in 3D’s Bright Future (Christopher Nolan on 3D) - by Steve Pond via The Wrap
- Why 3D doesn’t work and never will. Case Closed (a letter from Walter Murch, the premiere film editor and sound designer in modern cinema) - by Roger Ebert via his blog
- 3D’s Last Hope: Spielberg, Scorsese and Bay - via the Wrap
And, because we can never have enough of GOB: