3D often flourishes momentarily within genre films such as horror and science fiction. Enjoyment has been had at a red ball being repeatedly smashed at the audience's faces in Vincent Price's 'House of Wax' but it has then quickly been dismissed as 'a gimmick'. While it has largely been used as a commercial marketing scam for many low budget films, it has also been used by great filmmakers such as Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock used the 3D technique in his adaptation of the play 'Dial M for Murder' where he attempted to create a layered world which the audience could be immersed in.
That being said, by the time Dial M for Murder was released, the 3D craze had died out and the film was largely seen in a standard 2D format. Recently there has been another resurgence in the use of 3D largely championed by Jame Cameron through the making of his film 'Avatar'. Once again it is being championed by many as 'the future', but we are already seeing signs of the audience tiring of the concept. So is it different this time around? Well the biggest difference is the amount of money that has been invested in cinema screens capable of displaying two images at once in order to create the effect. There is also the difference that the 3D images are displayed in using a 'normal' palette. Despite this there are several problems I have with 3D films. First of all there are technical issues. There is a 30% colour reduction when using the current glasses to view 3D. While I am sure this will be overcome with new projectors capable of displaying much brighter images, at the moment this is a major issue. What is the point of creating a vibrant colourful world such as Pandora in 3D if you lose 30% of it?
Another technical issue is that it doesn't work for everyone. Ayone with even slight visual impairment may find it difficult to see the 3D image, not to mention that many complain of headaches and an uncomfortable sensation after about an hour of use. This is a major issue that alienates a substantial part of the audience.
Technical issues aside, there is another reason I have my reservations and it is one that doesn't get mentioned enough. The fact is, we already see films in 3D, and furthermore the way we normally view 3D films is a far more accurate representation of how we really see the world. The fact is that our brains interpret the 2D image of the cinema screen and allows us to experience depth and texture. Now you may think 'well it's not really a 3D experience', but think about it a little more. Do you ever go into see a film and say to yourself 'this doesn't work, it doesn't look like a three dimensional world as we normally experience'? The answer is no, and the reason is that the 3D experience is completely believable. The way '3D' films present the world is layers of 2D images layered in front of one another. So it resembles card board cut outs floating in front of the screen. Is this how we see 3D objects?
The main point with regards to 3D cinema is whether it increases enjoyment, or whether it immerses the viewer to a greater degree or not. For me it just doesn't. I am always aware that I am wearing 3D glasses and I am always aware that the 3D image just isn't representative of something in the natural world. For this reason, 3D fails at what it sets out to do; it pushes the audience away from an image rather than bringing them further into it.
I'm not saying 3D doesn't have its place. Of course it does! It has its place as a novelty, a technique that a filmmaker can use under certain circumstance, but doesn't have to. It always seems to me that the 3D technique works much better for animation. The reason for this is that animation (normally) does not appear realistic and therefore 3D does not necessarily take you out of the experience because of this.
So what do you think, 3D films, yay or nay?
No comments:
Post a Comment