This past Easter weekend saw the re-release of Titanic after a remastered 3D conversion. In February the first (?) episode of Star Wars, The Phantom Menace, saw the darkness of a cinema while showing off a 3D embellishment that did not help the movie getting a higher rate on imdb. Next year it’s Jurassic Park‘s turn to galvanize the fans and the new hi-tech generations with a re-release in 3D and Imax. Converted classics aside, more and more directors and production companies invest in the relatively new 3D phenomenon for their new movies, eager to earn more more money and pretending to do it for the sake of the cinematic evolution.
But is all this really worth it? Is 3D really adding interest and value to the stories or is it just a grand spectacle with no meaning in terms of story telling?
Let’s face it, cinema is all about story telling. Everything in a movie should have a meaning and a reason to be there: the camera movements, the lights, the editing, the actors eyes, the clothes, the sound etc. But what is 3D adding to all this? Having objects coming at you makes it more interesting? Seeing characters and settings with more depth and with a more precise collocation in space makes it a more fulfilling experience?
I am not too convinced.
Maybe in the 50s, with such films as House of Wax or It Came from Outer Space, the public was undoubtedly entertained and amazed, and surely it looked like 3D was a groundbreaking feature for cinema. But technical problems and higher costs made the 3D craze fade until the advent of the next wave that had its peak at the beginning of the 80s. Jaws 3D, Amityville 3D or Friday the 13th III are perfect examples of the shallowness of 3D. Nobody remembers those movies for their characters or for their plots, but anyone who saw the will tell you about all the 3D exaggerated enhancement, from the yo-yo coming atcha to the shark on your lap.
In 2008 Avatar started the last 3D mania and it is not going to end anytime soon. To be honest, when I saw it in the theater I was literally blown away by the stunning visuals and the staggering effects, with the 3D giving a more complete view of the whole story. But thinking about it without the 3D hype, all that remains is a Dances-with-Wolves-Apocalypse-Now-Aliens mix, set on another planet and with blue people.
3D-wise after Avatar no other film managed to reach the same result, but many used the third dimension to try to capture audiences and earn more money from the more expensive tickets.
But there is no need to be demoniacal or super hype about 3D. Let’s just find a reason for it, let’s give it a place in the movie, an importance as if it was an added character, but let’s not base a whole film on it. I am not entertained by spectacular effects if I don’t care about the story I’m watching.
Nicolas Cage does not need 3D to become a better actor, Greek mythology does not need 3D to appeal to the American public, horror movies do not need 3D to stain the seats with blood, comedies are not funnier in 3D, superheroes do not need 3D to be more super, and Martin Scorsese does not need 3D to make a poetic, romantic, surreal and beautiful movie like Hugo to prove he is up to date with today’s technology.
Movies are all about story telling, emotions and the joy of being part of them, 3D or not 3D.
