Article: "3D-Bagged"

Are the Integrity and Attention-Span of the Movie-Going Public in Grave Danger?

(Paralyzed By Sensory Stimulation, We May Not Be Able To Resist Being Brutally 3-D-Bagged)

by Salvatore Brown

     3D movies as we know them have been around for a surprisingly long time. The supposed “Golden Age” of 3D cinematography actually happened in the 1950s in the United States. But to be completely accurate, the 3D technique had existed long before. At its base, 3D film is an advanced form of “stereoscopy,” or “science and technology dealing with two-dimensional drawings or photographs that when viewed by both eyes appear to exist in three dimensions in space,” according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Stereoscopy” is achieved by presenting a slightly different version of the same 2D image to each of someone’s eyes. The technique was invented in 1840 by the bespectacled English inventor Sir Charles Wheatstone. Early stereoscopes consisted simply of side-by-side images seen through a rudimentary viewfinder. These were handheld or housed in mysterious-looking mahogany boxes at fairs and old-time tech-shows. Those with access to these early recreational prototypes marveled at the strange illusion, but the rapid increases in technology during the period meant that there was a lot of marveling to do. 3D postcards were not the best of the bunch.

     Stereoscopy at least in popular culture was predominantly dormant for the better half of a whole century, relegated to optical-illusion gags and toys for children-- comic books began to capitalize on the technique in the early half of the 20^th century as a way to bolster their sales. Then in 1929 a Harvard man invented Polaroid filters, meant to reduce glare from car headlights by polarizing light through the windshield. Polaroids only truly caught on when it was realized that they made stereoscopic projection possible: two images could be projected onto one screen through different polarizing filters, and when this bifurcated projection was viewed with glasses housing the same two different kinds of lenses, movies became 3-dimensional. At the 1939 World’s Fair the first commercial stereoscopic film short using polaroids was screened to much acclaim. What followed was the afore-mentioned “golden age” of 3D cinema during which slick-haired and poodle-skirted movie fans flocked to theatres to don those iconic cardboard glasses with one red lens and one blue. 3D movies in the 50s typically relied on what stereoscopic recreation always had: novelty and technological allure. 3D would usually accompany movies made for entertainment, not art: cartoons, slapstick comedy, formulaic adventure and violence were typical candidates for a 3D release. Disney of course jumped on the 3D wagon, as did the Three Stooges and a hoard of big picture production houses. One Columbia producer expressed his confidence in the success of slap-stick 3D based on the potential for projectile pies to appear to be thrown at the audience.

     But the appeal of 3D faded in film, tumbling back into the world of novelty toys and rare amusements. Does there seem to be a pattern emerging? If you don’t see it, then James Cameron wants to give you a hug. Seriously. This brings me to my point: 3D technology is, and always will be, a gag-- accoutrement-- frills. Unlike other film techniques, 3D offers no value to the proverbial film-cake other than that of the icing.

     I’ve seen four 3D movies in the past year, and they've all suffered from the same problem: too great a focus on the success of novelty visuals, and not enough focus on movie quality. “Final Destination 3D” paid homage perfectly to the 50’s-era Columbia producer’s faith in 3D slapstick (Only instead of pies leaping out at the audience, it was blood, guts, and explosions). I also recently saw “Alice in Wonderland 3D,” which tried unsuccessfully to mask an incredibly weak and confused bastardization of Lewis Carroll in bright colors and vast, Dali-esque 3D landscapes. "Clash of the Titans" with Sam Worthington need not even be mentioned. James Cameron’s “Avatar” was certainly the best of the four, but nevertheless a formulaic rerun of “Dances with Wolves” melded with Cameron's "Aliens" script and then painted over with some incredibly stunning visuals. “Avatar” was one of the most arrestingly gorgeous films I have ever seen. This is exactly what scares me. If we are finally so stunned by the manipulation of a simple, illusory marvel like stereoscopy, then we may be stuck with the gag for good, and the more than 100-year pattern of historical justice may come to an end. Fear the Cameron.