3D Go Home

I hate 3D. I would like nothing more than for every 3D camera and projector to spontaneously explode. Or at the very least for everyone to stop pay the exorbitant price of cinema tickets to wear silly glasses and watch whatever drivel Hollywood is turning out these days. But that’s not going to happen. 3D is no longer a novelty of bad ’50s horror films; it is now an ubiquitous part of cinema. We’re told that we are entering a new age of cinema, one of unparalleled immersion, of fantastical worlds brought to an even grander life than ever before.

But are we? Will 3D usher in a second golden age, or is it just another fad, destined to be forgotten when something better comes along? After all, 3D is still just a gimmick. Cinema admissions have been falling steadily over the past few decades, and the current resurgence of 3D is only the newest in a long line of tactics studios have employed to get people out of their homes into the multiplexes. And with 3D TVs set to become the next big thing, it’s a tactic that won’t last much longer.

Still, proponents say that 3D will change cinema in the same that sound and colour did. I can’t shake the feeling that this is utter rubbish. Sound has fundamental story-telling properties. The best loved stories told in the darkness of the cinema since sound was introduced would not have been possible without it. 3D has no story-telling properties. It can give artificial depth to a landscape, and throw things at the audience, but when it comes to telling stories, 3D is completely irrelevant.

Imagine watching Reservoir Dogs on mute. What do you miss? Everything. The story would be incomprehensible because there’d be no dialogue. The carefully selected soundtrack, which sets the tone for the film and underpins many scenes, would be gone. In short, it would make no sense and be nigh unwatchable. Now, imagine watching Avatar in 2D. What do you miss? A few spears thrust in your face, certainly. Some of the action set pieces or moments of scenery porn might seem a little flat. But other than that, the film is exactly the same. The story, characterisation and message in Avatar is in no way enhanced by an extra imaginary dimension.

I said the action scenes in Avatar may seem a little flat in 2D, which brings me to another point: does 3D make films more immersive? Those in favour of the technology say that it does, that the extra dimension gives the audience the sense that the action is playing out, not on a rectangular screen, but right in front of them. Even in less kinetic scenes, in which the gimmicky nature of 3D is less evident, it can seem as if the audience is actually there, living in this world and watching these characters.

But this is a shallow immersion which disguises the fact that a lot of the films utilising 3D are far from great works of cinematic art. Real immersion in films is created through a good script, good acting, good directing, sound design, editing. In fact, cinematic immersion is created by every aspect of the film working in unison to draw the viewer into the world of the film, into the moment by moment actions and struggles of the characters.

3D creates immersion by conjuring the illusion of space. 2D films can do this with clever use of framing and depth of field, but 3D can (supposedly) do it better. But this more convincing illusion may end up damaging cinema. We may yet arrive at a point at when filmmakers continually fall back on 3D and its imaginary depth, rather than utilise the whole array of techniques which have made the greatest films of all time just that.

And besides, 3D is not immersive. It draws attention to itself. After a century of films appearing on a flat rectangle, the bulging mise-en-scene of a 3D film is somewhat conspicuous. Whenever 3D is used to its full effect, whether that’s poking something into the audience or creating greater depth in a long shot, you cannot help but notice. You’re yanked back into your cinema seat to think, “This 3D malarkey is rather impressive.” Either that, or you’re continually taking your glasses off to see what the film looks like in 2D.

I’m not a narrow minded person. If a filmmaker can show me that 3D is more than just a gimmick, that it can truly add to the cinematic experience, then I’ll embrace the technology. But so far I haven’t seen anything other than cheap parlour tricks, nor have I seen any sign that things will change. Until they do, you can keep your silly glasses. Did I mention that they look silly?