I just stumbled upon the latest post of Roger Ebert's Blog, an article titled:
"Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case Closed."
My sentiments precisely. The post is quoting a letter Ebert received from legendary Hollywood film editor Walter Murch (Apocalypse Now) who happens to argue the very technical reasons why the 3D format doesn't work with our eyes. It's simply biology. As Murch puts it, "[watching a 3D film] is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix."
More importantly, perhaps, is how this 3D technology alienates the audience. I happen to agree with Murch when he says, "3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain 'perspective' relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are 'in' the picture in a kind of dreamlike 'spaceless' space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with."
Check out the article if you are interested: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html
Cheers,
Cate with a C.
Cate,
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with Murch's 3D analysis. Personally, I think it's gimmicky, a way to put people in the movie seat.
To be honest, the only 3D movie I've seen of late was "Avatar." People kept asking me what I thought, and I say: SFX - 8.5, Story 2. (Yes, I was being generous.) The story and characters were cliche. I have to agree when Murch says it is "Brechtian trick." I see it as a way to distract an audience from a mediocre or bad movie.
In 50's cinema there were many 3D movies, but most times it was used with bad B movies -- monster or outer space adventures. No one took these movies seriously.
I think it's enough to say that our own bodies physically cannot watch 3D movies.
Great Post!
Prof. C
I agree that 3D often does little more for a film than add a few more oohs and aahs to the visuals. "Avatar" looks very strange and unbelievable on a 2D screen (especially TV), but is able to suck you further into the world with 3D.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the concept of 3D and the process of creating it keeps me interested in the technology. When I was in Australia, I interned at the post-production facility Cutting Edge in Sydney. There, I got the chance to sit in on the stereo convergence of the documentary (that went to Sundance) "Cane Toads: The Conquest 3D." The colorist matched the left and right eye images to each other and then moved them back and forth to create the sense of depth while the director, D.P., and I commented on what depth worked best for the shot itself and in relation to the shots before and after it. When you are in a theater watching "Avatar" in 3D, you aren't able to contrast the 3D with 2D. Without this difference, it becomes very easy to lose interest in the visuals. Yet when I watched a 2D image of a cane toad morph into a 3D one - adding all sorts of depth and atmosphere that the 2D image didn't have - I was more than impressed.
3D has a lot of potential with pulling images off of the screen (looking like it is only a few inches in front of you), pushing them far away, and flipping distance (so things closer to you are now further away and vice versa), but films don't test these boundaries probably for fear of losing an audience. Hopefully some avant garde filmmaker gets their hands on 3D and makes the most of it. Otherwise, it may lose what following it has now.
Personally, when I saw Avatar in 3D I almost threw up. I think it's clear that some people experience headaches and nausea, while others don't. I think any form of entertainment that makes some people sick, should go away. Then again, we have roller coasters - so maybe 3D will stick around for longer than we think.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree that a good story is superior. To me, they're almost like two separate entities. Avatar 3D and The Social Network are such vastly different viewing experiences, it's surprising to me that they're both dubbed "films." But I don't mean to be so down on Avatar. Hey, I'd like a domestic gross of $750,000,000.