A three-dimensional conundrum

http://today3d.blogspot.com/2010/05/three-dimensional-conundrum.html

 

AT THIS moment, poised between the success of How To Train Your Dragon - around US$200 million ($275 million) of American box-office rewards - and the arrival of the next and final Shrek movie two weekends from now, we find ourselves in the middle of what film historians of the future may remember as the great 3D frenzy of 2010.

It is difficult, in the middle of any momentous historical event, to discern its true nature. Is this a revolution or a craze? Are these economic or aesthetic questions? Is it possible to tell the difference any more?

The commercial power of 3D is hard to dispute, at least for now. Six months after pre-release speculation about Avatar reached its breathless acme, that movie has quieted skeptics by earning over US$2.7 billion worldwide.

The subsequent success of every other non-nature-documentary feature released in 3D this year - Alice In Wonderland, Clash Of The Titans and How To Train Your Dragon - has laid the groundwork for a new conventional wisdom that will hold at least until the first major 3D flop.

That is bound to happen, of course, but by then the investments in new equipment will be so substantial, and the pipeline so full of new product, that the juggernaut is unlikely to stall.


Do we really need Jackass in 3D?

There is no question that a bonanza of economic opportunism is under way, as studios rush to retrofit two-dimensional movies - as with Titans and Alice - or to refurbish existing franchises. This year we will see not only the fourth Shrek movie and Toy Story 3, but also the fish-mayhem movie Piranha 3D and fully fleshed-out installments in the Step Up dance series and the Jackass extreme-stunt documentaries.

Much as one can look forward to the realistically deep belly buttons of Step Up 3D and the actually-I-don't-even-want-to-picture-it of the next Jackass, it seems reasonable to wonder just what is added when an illusory third dimension is tacked on. And also whether it will be suitable for all kinds of movies.

In a dissenting essay published in Newsweek - and titled Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too) - Roger Ebert wrote that he could not "imagine a serious drama, such as Up In The Air or The Hurt Locker, in 3D".

He didn't think most film-makers could either, and to be honest, neither can I. But back in the old days there were critics who were similarly skeptical about sound and then colour, both of which were thought to diminish the distinctive artistic qualities of cinema. And I suspect that before long Ebert and I will see a dramatic film that challenges our assumptions.

Until then, though, everyone who goes to the movies will have to contend with a grab bag of innovation, ambition and slapdash workmanship. In this regard, 3D is not so different from any other kind of movie-making, except that its genuine achievements are to date fairly limited.



Can 3D soar for much longer?

So far, 3D works better in animation than in live action. Avatar, with its motion-captured figures and computer-generated landscapes seamlessly blended with real actors and settings, is the exception that proves this rule. The sequences in that film in which the spatial illusion works best are, for the most part, those involving the Na'vi and the wild fauna of Pandora. And the truly breathtaking moments are those when the winged creatures take flight and soar.

The same is true in How To Train Your Dragon, a fairly standard child-friendly animated tale about being yourself, following your dreams and tolerating others that is made transcendent by the vertiginous and exhilarating spectacle of dragons.

My hunch is that the amazing success of this movie, which dominated the box-office in the face of competition from action movies, romantic comedies and other popular genres, owes more to its sheer visual appeal than anything else. It supplies an almost primal delight, the kind that earlier generations found in CinemaScope epics or in the pre-digital effects of the first Star Wars movies. Watching it, you almost believe that you are flying.

In the case of more earthbound 3D movies, like Alice and Titans, the pop-out holographic effects feel more tacked on, and not just because they were added in post-production rather than applied organically (to borrow Avatar director James Cameron's word) during the shooting.

There is nothing in those movies - not giant scorpions or fearsome Jabberwocks - that really needs extra virtual bulk. And they include few flights of imagination capable of pulling us out of our seats and into the air.

But one of the reasons we hunger for new forms of flight is that the thrill has a way of wearing off. The movies that astonished our parents or our younger selves now look creaky or quaint, charming rather than mind blowing.

This will happen to 3D, perhaps faster than we think. Maybe it's here to stay, and maybe it's not such a big deal.