»

The case against 3-D filmmaking

3-D technology isn't movie evolution.

By Matthew Garner

Published Aug. 27, 2010

As a dark, dank vinyl screen plastered onto a wall of hard concrete, the movie screen is a platform for your senses, enveloping them in a stark wash of sight and sound. The magical idea that a movie can take you anywhere on such limited resources is what grants the silver screen its mystical allure. But businessmen and, more importantly, directors are now cashing in on the 3-D experience and the idea that putting on goofy glasses and charging you extra money will enhance and enlighten your movie-going experience. But what's most important is more and more of the movie-going public are falling for their greedy trick.

Storytelling at the movies has been in a serious depression in the past decade. The 3-D effect is here to swoop it out of its rut like a vital hand outstretched to an industry stooped in strangling quicksand. Directors are using 3-D as a crutch, hoping to sweep the storytelling flaws of the film underneath the theater seat, blinding movie viewers with the bright attraction of 3-D effects.

If the 3-D effect can be used to heighten aspects of the storytelling process or the situations presented in the movie, then 3-D deserves a legitimate spot in the tools available to the director. Sadly, this is rarely the case. Movies slap on the 3-D effect hastily and without foresight, hoping to pull in extra cash with heightened ticket prices. Moreover, extravagant advertising campaigns boast the wonderful aspirations of technology. Films like "Clash of the Titans" and "Avatar" brought the effects of 3-D filmmaking full circle. From the state of a burgeoning tool to a full-fledged craze, 3-D did nothing for the storytelling effect of these films. Both these movies would have been the exact same in normal two dimensions and still communicated their stories (however poorly) to a sappy audience. They transposed these worlds from idea to screen, in sight and sound.

Luckily, I am not alone in my crusade against the perils of 3-D filmmaking. Esteemed critic Roger Ebert is also against this "suicidal" effect of movie-making. Christopher Nolan and Jason Reitman, directors of such films as "Memento" and "Up in the Air" respectively, are against the creeping hand of 3-D. The magic of film-making is in its emotional depth and how it resonates with the audience. The audience, who is a myriad of cultures and viewpoints, should be drawn together from simple images of sight and sound melted together. So what does 3-D add to the experience? Nothing. It only heightens what is already there. Bringing something relevant to the table is out of the question. The 3-D tool would be viable only if it enhanced or enriched the experience, and sadly, it falls short of its demands.