I saw Captain America two weeks ago and the question has been rattling around my mind ever since. Why does Hollywood feel the need to brutalize their films this way? Caught at the movie theater with my brother and sister with the option of a 7 p.m. 3-D showing and an 8 p.m. 2-D showing at 6:45, we chose the closer of the two.
It was a bad idea and I knew it going on—from the moment the ticket-checker-man handed me the silly 3-D glasses (that actually sort of look like Ray-Bans). That facet of the experience might have been enough to discourage me.
But on top of that the film…well…it just looked bad.
That sounds simplistic and unfair, but I don’t think I’m wrong. Besides the screen itself being so dark and muddy-looking, the glasses also contributed to a heightened sense of darkness and discoloration. Given its 1940s setting, I could see the clear attempt to give some of the scenes a honeyed, amber color—a kind of sepia-toned nostalgia.
It had all the urges of a return to simpler filmmaking; even Peggy Carter, the British love interest, feels homey and uncomplicated—played by actress Hayley Atwell with undercurrents of sexual suggestion, but nothing provocative or steamy. Even the film’s bad guys are uncomplicated—Nazis—who likes Nazis?
There’s never a question of sympathy or underlying character there that is so pervasive in most superhero films nowadays. Ivan Vanko in Iron Man 2…the Joker in The Dark Knight…the Green Goblin in Spiderman. Going back to Nazis yields such pleasant simplicity.
~
My question then is why the film must be in 3-D—why does Hollywood feel the need to confound a simple, pleasing plot by coupling it with an awkward, showy screen dynamic.
I must admit that 3-D can (read: might) work on two different levels in a movie theater.
Either a) someone like James Cameron makes use of it to produce an interesting, visionary set piece with lots of cool-looking stuff (how debonair did that sound?) or b) someone like Michael Bay produces a piece of crapola with no redeeming value beyond its capacity to fill seats and sell popcorn. Not that I have anything against either formula; both have their uses—one is interesting to look at, the other (mostly) harmless fun—but Hollywood needs to recognize that the 3-D playground ought to end right about there.
Hollywood insiders tout 3-D as the future of film. But can you really imagine watching a romantic comedy in 3-D? What would be the point of that? I can imagine a “gross-out” film in 3-D—just for some extra mileage out of the audience during those icky moments—but no one watches Love Actually or The Proposal so that things can jump off the screen at you or so that you can clearly see the back wall of that restaurant is a differentiated background from the lead couple in the foreground.
~
The truth is that we don’t watch films for the technology. If that were the truth, then no one would read books or comic strips or look at paintings; everyone would be glued to the big screen and indulge in nothing else. But, obviously, that’s far from the truth.
In remembering the chatter surrounding Avatar, I recall reading quotes about how this advancement in 3-D is comparable to the introduction of sound film with The Jazz Singer in 1927.
But did that mean that sound films were dead? People today still watch silent films. Silent films are regularly included on critics’ polls of the greatest films. Chaplin, Keaton, and Dreyer are regularly cited as three of the all-time great directors.
~
My own devil’s advocate points out to me that, despite this critical and commercial success across time, nobody makes blockbuster silent films anymore. My answer to that line of questioning is not perfect, but I believe it has some merit.
If, for instance, I argue that through the inclusion sound in film, Hollywood sought to implement a more realistic vision of the world in their art (which would not, I fear, be entirely accurate), then I could turn to 3-D and accuse it of stretching beyond the world of realism. What does 3-D represent anyway? After all, no one actually sees in 3-D; just like any single unadulterated camera lines, our eyes focus on a single plane of space in front of us, not several.
Perhaps a somewhat appropriate metaphor is struck with music. Say that a record producer wants to make a song with frequencies beyond the range of human hearing—instead of phrasing those ideas into the normal range, he asks listeners to wear an “extra” set of ear buds intended to translate that noise down a few frequencies into a human range. You can argue with me to the ends of the earth about whether or not that’s a fair comparison (it’s probably not), but it still holds some ground and even I grant that, if anything else, it would be a pretty cool experiment.
The caveat, however, is exactly that. It would remain no more than a pretty cool experiment. That, I think, is what 3-D films remains and will continue to be, despite the best efforts of Hollywood’s deep pockets.
TCOE. A few thoughts. First, I can't stand the 3-D craze either. Just a fun excuse for theaters to tack on a few extra bucks per ticket (on top of all of your points). But I do want to correct one thing you said: our eyes DO in fact focus on multiple planes in front of us--two, to be exact. And I think that's the defense of 3-D: of course it's more realistic, because it's creating an image in which depth can be perceived a la our eyes in the real world. I'm not sure I agree. Is it really mimicking what our eyes do every day, or is it like those "4-D!" gimmick theaters where the seats spray water at you and poke you in the back through the backrest at appropriate times in the film?
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the technology is that, by necessity, it has to have a focal point. The dual images on screen that create the 3-D effect are only perfectly in synch at a certain position in front of the screen (I presume it's usually dead center, middle of the theater). When viewed off-center, the images don't match up perfectly and the effect is a really slightly distorted image. I haven't really talked to other people about this, but I know my brother and I have gotten headaches from seeing 3-D movies, and I assume it's because my eyes are trying to do a lot more work than they should have to.
Then there's the second problem, which is that a lot of films coming out in 3-D aren't filmed in 3-D; the 3-D bits are just artificially added in afterwards. It seems to me that there's a dissonance there: animators have to do their best to fabricate 3-D images by making random objects pop into the foreground, and yet we're told that it's supposed to be more realistic. (Note that I don't really know a whole lot about 3-D filming, but I do know that they use "3-D cameras" that must take dual recordings, but most of the 3-D movies you pay for don't use these cameras.)
These are all just random thoughts, but here's the main issue: we need to question how far we're going to push the "realistic" angle, and whether or not 3-D is going too far. Maybe we're the same nay-sayers that the late 20's had when sound came into the picture, and maybe our kids will be fine with 3-D--not because they've been brainwashed and know nothing better, but simply because they're used to it. Maybe we're just throwing hissy fits because we like our standards. To me, sound, color, surround sound, widescreen, etc are fine because they aren't intrusive, but I know at least the first two had opponents at the outset.
That being said, I hesitate to say that I'm just hating change, because I really do think that the 3-D we're seeing isn't quite "realistic" yet; hopefully it'll get better and better (Technicolor? hmm). Plus, I still hate 3-D in stupid films like "The Smurfs", where it's hard to look at it as anything other than a way to charge more for a ticket. Maybe it'll stop being gimmicky and more directors will start using it as an appropriate tool. Until then, I'm glad that there are still directors who know they can do the job without it (I'm looking at you, Nolan).
Not much of a point there. Did that make any sense? Oh well. Greetings from the road!
Evan