The 3-D Gimmick

Sorry in advance for no pretty picture. This will also serve as my first column for the new year (or under the new regime) of the CW (the Crimson White), the UA student newspaper. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject...

Hollywood is at it again. It has introduced yet another technology in hopes of enhancing audiences’ experience.

Like sound and color before it, 3-D is being met with the usual schism that accompanies such technological advancements. This division is usually along the line of which part of “show business” should be emphasized.

For studio heads, 3-D represents a wonderful business opportunity. Like the film advancements that came before it, 3-D offers moviegoers something innovative. It is not something that has emerged in too many homes—well, for now. The allure of 3-D is great way to draw in audiences.

However, filmmakers (the “show”) and studio heads (the “business”) clash over whether this desire to increase profit will hurt the quality and the future of movies. If studios decide that 3-D is the exclusive path they should take for movies, then filmmakers become limited in having the freedom to makes movies as they desire. It is this lack of freedom that could put a damper on the film industry.

Opponents of 3-D offer many of the same, although valid, reasons. Viewers can experience headaches or nausea. It adds little or nothing to the experience. In addition to these, an excessive surcharge is added to ticket prices.

I must confess I am sympathetic to the 2-D cause. 3-D has its place in the entertainment business. But I am convinced that it should remain a secondary option instead of becoming the sole future of movies.

I do not think it would be fair to omit that “Avatar” is a great example of how 3-D movies can be an astonishing visual ride. (James Cameron has proven that he is a great choice to lead the 3-D movement.) But 3-D adds nothing more than that, and the story does not become enhanced in any way.

What does 3-D do for movies like “An Education” or “Sideways?” Nothing. One could say that the color palette is improved, but this is not so. Images in 3-D are dimmer than those in 2-D.

An advocate of 3-D may claim that those films are obvious examples of films that do not benefit from the technology. So let us examine a movie that is a little less obvious: “The Hurt Locker.”

“The Hurt Locker” is a war film with its fair share of action. The cinematography essentially gives the audience a rat’s eye view. Increased depth could really give a whole new dimension to war films.

However, when I think of “The Hurt Locker,” the phrase “palpable tension” comes to mind. This movie, for better or for worse, decided that it would stake itself upon a premise of suspended tension. The payoff is rarely the explosion or lack thereof; it is a film that winds up showing just what it is that makes some soldiers addicted to war. In other words, the payoff is the wait.

So, the movie has some moments of action. But since the core of the film is staked upon a premise that is really not enhanced by 3-D technology, it seems as if 3-D should look elsewhere.

The worst offenders are the numerous movies (“Clash of the Titans” and the planned rerelease of Cameron’s “Titanic”) filmed in 2-D that are converted to 3-D. For “Clash,” it was apparent something got lost on the way to the theatre.

One of the biggest problems with my argument is there is no way to quantify whether or not 3D adds to the experience. It differs for everyone, and even then, different people may like it in some instances and not others. All we know is what we like, feel, know, etc. Opponents cannot prove that 3D does not add to their experience, just like 3-D supporters cannot prove it adds to their experience. We are just stuck with what we know to be true for us.

I do think most people would agree that 3-D does not enrich certain films or genres. I just cannot help but think that their number is so great as not to warrant the wide-scale expansion to 3-D as the dominant medium for motion pictures.