There are, I like to think, three different types of '3D' film.
The first is the old-fashioned 3D films of the 1950s and 1960s, which relied upon those blue and red glasses to give over an impression of three dimensions.
Then there are the two different types of modern '3D' films.
Films of the first type would include Avatar, Toy Story 3 and Resident Evil: Apocalypse. Now I haven't seen the first two but wouldn't mind seeing them at a later date. I have no intention to see the third - partly because I think it looks like an hour-long metal video, and partly because Mila Jovovich is unhelpful in my walk with Christ. I can't see any objection to these films though. They were made to be shown in 3D. While I may suspect that they all still suffer from the problems Mark Kermode highlighted when he predicted the death of 3D cinema, it is integral to the director's intent for these films that they be projected as 3D movies.
Now Joee Townsend, a friend down here in Exeter, has written on his blog a well-argued post on 3D movies that summarises the issues with them well, and I'd recommend you read it. He points to the growing numbers of films that advertise themselves as 'made in 3D!'. The latest Will Ferrell film, Megamind, for instance, looks fun and entertaining. How though does it being in 3D add at all to the cinematic experience for those who are going to see it?
Which brings us to post-production 3D, and Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. Post-production 3D is when a film is shot in traditional 2D and transformed into a 3D picture, as the name suggests, in post-production. The effect can be disastrous. When reviewing M. Night Shyamalan's The Last Airbender the influential Chicago Tribune critic Roger Ebert called it 'an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented'. He pointed especially to the way in which 'it's a well known fact that 3D causes a measurable decrease in perceived brightness, but 'Airbender' looks like it was filmed with a dirty sheer over the lens'.
Well that's one critic's view. Here's another. This writer has seen one film in 3D - Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. There are significant problems with the film that would persist even if it were shot in 2D. Helena Bonham Carter's Red Queen, for instance, is clearly Miranda Richardson's 'Queenie' from Blackadder II. It seemed to me too that Burton was largely uninterested in the film; or, at least, significantly less engaged with what he was directing than say Edward Scissorhands, or even Batman. As the Los Angeles Times critic Kenneth Turan puts it, the film feels more like a Tim Burton derivative than something he actually did himself. Watching the film though was a troubling experience. I found the 3D disruptive, intrusive and completely unnecessary. It detracted from the film; I was unable to sink into the experience of watching it as fully as some of his other movies. It was not just his lack of engagement with the film, which can be off-putting. The 3D actually repulsed me from what I saw.
Certainly until I see Avatar or Toy Story 3, I'm unqualified to give an absolute opinion on 3D movies. Yet this is what I'm saying as my interim thoughts: for the most part, I can't see what 3D adds to a film. It may give us something that looks impressive, but I was deeply impressed by the visuals in Chris Nolan's Inception, shot in High Definition but in 2D. There are exceptions, true, and please don't misunderstand me. I'm convinced that Resident Evil: Apocalypse will be rubbish. It is not advertising itself as anything else though, unlike those movies that try to convince you that 3D marks a paradigm shift in cinematic history. In short, until a films start passing the Avatar test - that the film would be substantially less engaging in 2D - then I'm with Mark Kermode. I don't think, ultimately, that there's life in this format.
No comments:
Post a Comment