The Unfortunate Movement of 3D Cinema

When is the last time you watched a movie and thought to yourself, “I really like this movie, but it looks too two-dimensional and it fails to capture the world as I perceive it?” My guess is you’ve never had that thought about a conventional 2D film. Yet Hollywood is trying to convince you now that your cinema experience has been lacking that third dimension for the last 115 years.

First, for those of you who have yet to experience one of the new generation of 3D movies it’s important to realize that this isn’t the same level as your Jaws 3D or Friday the 13th Part 3D or the Michael Jackson Captain Eo at Epcot Center, Disney World, during which you wear cheap paper glasses with red and cyan filters to enjoy objects poking and flying out of the screen toward you. Anyway, the real entertainment in that was watching the idiots in the cinema trying to grab the objects. No, this new technology works on the same principle, but has advanced far beyond anything previously experienced. Granted, some films are still employing the silly gimmick of flying debris and pokey objects, but the general idea now is to create a deeper and richer cinema experience by adding the further illusion of a third dimension.

I have serious misgivings about the movement toward 3D films (full disclosure: the only modern 3D film I’ve seen is Avatar so my experience is admittedly limited). Roger Ebert has written in opposition to 3D for some time now and has just recently published a piece in Newsweek outlining his arguments against it. For my part, the best argument he makes (and this points to my opening question above) is that 3D doesn’t actually add anything substantial to a movie.

The world we experience is obviously three-dimensional. But we perceive it as such because of physiological processes between the eyes and the brain. There are physiological disorders that affect one's ability to perceive depth in the world, but of course this doesn't indicate an absence of depth. When we watch a movie or look at a photograph or painting (all two-dimensional artistic representations of the world) our minds perceive depth as a result of the same physiological process that allows us to perceive it in the world. Great artists have an almost innate understanding of the characteristics (depth of focus; diminishing scale; contrast; viewing angle) that appeal to our depth perception and are able to manipulate their art to create varying levels of realistic images. Can you really look at this Cezanne painting, unrealistic though it may seem, and tell me that it fails to capture a third dimension? How about still frames from Citizen Kane such as this one or this? What about chalk sidewalk drawings like this? Likewise as Ebert points out in his Newsweek article, when we see T.E. Lawrence appear on the desert horizon and slowly move toward the camera we have no trouble perceiving that he is moving closer to us. A 3D effect is created in a 2D medium without the use of stereophonic glasses.

Essentially, movies already provide us with a 3D illusion. Adding a stereophonic 3D illusion is pointless and distracting. That was my main reaction to Avatar. I was constantly aware that I was watching a movie. The fourth wall was always broken. I found the effect generally worked for the animated sections of the film, but anytime there were live-action characters on screen the illusion was lost on me. It presents a completely unnatural way of seeing the world. When I look at the world I don't think to myself, "Wow! Look at that third dimension!" But watching Avatar gave me that thought almost every minute.

Keep in mind that Avatar was built from the ground up, completely conceived as a 3D movie. James Cameron is a wizard of technology with a history of making films with groundbreaking effects as far back as Aliens, which brilliantly expanded on a classic film, and Terminator 2: Judgment Day (with visual effects that still hold up today) and the mesmerizing Titanic. Don't confuse this kind of pioneering filmmaking with the 3D retrofitting of Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland, both of which were filmed in 2D and then altered after the money earned by Cameron's film. By all accounts, the 3D in those two films was awful.

Like I said, I think the effect works well enough (although unnecessarily) for animation. I've seen a 3D demo of the Monsters vs. Aliens Blu-Ray disc and it looked okay. Ebert allows for this kind of sporadic use but objects to 3D becoming a way of life for Hollywood movies. I have to agree. The 3D effect as used in live action looks completely unnatural. The goal of most narrative film is to recreate reality on screen. An artificial 3D illusion destroys that goal. I can see it being put to good use in live-action films where the story calls for it. But then also only if it's possible to employ the technology during certain scenes or sequences. The Matrix trilogy comes to mind as a film that could use 3D on live action to good effect because that's a story that establishes a computer generated unreal world. Christopher Nolan's upcoming Inception may be another (although from the trailers it looks damn good without it), which is apparently meant to take place in a kind of dreamscape. As far as I know this is not possible without removing and putting on the glasses during the film.

This article tries to refute Ebert's arguments. One of his points is that 3D is a natural progression the same way sound, color, surround sound and widescreen were. Notwithstanding his mis-identification of Singin' in the Rain as the 'first' talking picture (he meant The Jazz Singer while Singin' in the Rain is about the change from silent to sound), Coldeway's understanding of cinematic development is lacking. If narrative film's primary goal is (often) to replicate reality on screen then synchronized sound and color were not gimmicks, but natural developments. Surround sound and widescreen formats were gimmicks which allowed greater freedom and creativity for frame composition in the latter and a richer experience (albeit unnecessary, but not distracting) in the former. I don't currently see 3D falling into this category.

As I've already said, I'm willing to allow for the possibility that a live action film could employ 3D technology to great effect. However, there is still a great obstacle to be overcome as described in this article from last year and this one from January this year. As good as 3D may look with an animated film and may look with some future film, there is still the problem of unnatural movement and focus exerted on your eyes. This is the cause of all those complaints about headaches, eyestrain and nausea during 3D movies. I myself had to periodically remove the glasses during most of Avatar and watch without them for several seconds to give my eyes a rest. Of course, the interlaced images and unnatural brightness make it impossible to watch a 3D projection without the glasses. The additional brightness in Avatar is because the glasses cause a 15-20% light reduction. Hence another reason why you'll want to avoid any film that is retrofitted with 3D - they'll be way too dark.

Unfortunately I don't predict this technology will disappear and go the way of old-school 3D, Cinerama or Smell-o-vision. It's consistently bringing in more and more money for Hollywood studios and theater chains who tack on an additional surcharge for the premium experience of seeing a sub-par product and the privilege of wearing distractingly uncomfortable glasses. My guess is that within 5 years the majority of special effects event films coming out of the major studios (whether live action or animated) will be shot in 3D. More and more cinemas will be buying 3D projectors, thus closing out the market for 2D films. Although I'm sure some directors will begin making films like Up in the Air and Precious in 3D I seriously doubt it will catch on for those types of films.