3-D: Friend or Foe?

Both director James Cameron and studio Pixar have decided that from now on, every single one of their movies will be in 3-D. Meaning you can hope to see over the top, childish, hopelessly cliche things "coming out of the screen!', and a bunch of animated features. Soon, all movie goers will have to remember to bring their 3-D glasses with them every time they want to see the latest Pixar creation, lest they be left out of the experience. Most people I read/hear say that this is great, in fact they are surprised that 3-D hasn't been used as widely before. There hasn't been one actor that I can tell, or a film-maker, a producer, a writer or a critic (besides notable exception) who has said what I think a lot of people are thinking? Are you fucking serious?

The idea that 3-D is somehow new, that the technology has just been discovered in hollywood's secret labs is crazy. 3-D movies have been around since 1890 and where at their height in north American movies in the 50s, complete with nameless African "bushmen" throwing spears at the crowd, to shot outs making the spectators gasp and lean back. The first 3-D film soon to a North American audience was in 1922, called the Power of Love. The film didn't really do well, and the actual movie reel was lost (don't worry, there will still be a remake with Sandra Bullock or something). The Golden era of 3-D began in 1952, with the release of Bwana Devil, from that came a truck load of campy stuff like the Mad Magician, Son of Sinbad and Man in the Dark. Why did they die? And more importantly, why does no one remember these films? There are several reasons why the industry stopped using this techniques. At the time, although they could do it, the profit simply didn't out way the cost of making them, what's more a lot of them where using two projects shot at the same time, and even though the films were only an hour long their had to be an intermission in every single one. The invention of television as well made it so people could just watch 2-D things on their televisions for free, and there was a general drop in movie going. That didn't stop people from making 3-D softcore porn though, in 1969 the Stewardess was made and shown in adult theaters.

How come no one remembers this? Or if they do, why are they almost embarrassed to talk about it? Isn't it obvious, the films are total shit. The reason for this is simple: 3-D does not add any real thematic depth of a film. Allusions, important plot elements, thematic images etc. are not lacking or added by the presence or lack there of of 3-D. It isn't like sound or color, where if you watch a film that has sound on mute, you're probably going to lose a lot of important stuff from that film. If you watch a 3-d film like a rebel, in boring old 2-d, you lose nothing in terms of story. You might find yourself thinking: why the fuck do people like this movie so much (AVATAR!). Maybe i'm wrong, maybe someone will use 3-d and advance films to a new level of art. I mean, when sound was first introduced, Soviet director Sergei Eisenstein said that sound would reduce films to theater on film. In a way, he was right, the early sound films are just that: people singing on a camera. People were just amazed that you could hear their voices! It took years before people finally got over the novelty of sound, to actually make something worth watching. This might be the case for 3-D, although one must remember that 3-D did exist before, and then it was abandoned. I for one, simply can't see it coming back.

Max Manus (2009)

Directors: Joachim Rønning, Espen Sandberg

Writer: Thomas Nordseth-Tiller

"Who the hell stops drinking in the middle of a bloody war?"


Max Manus is the true story of one of Norway's most famous resistance fighters during the German Occupation. It is the most successful Norwegian film ever made, and I'm measuring success in this case by the number of attendance recorded. The plot follows Max through Finland, Scotland and Norway, as he becomes a sabateur for the British secret service. This film was luke warm, as there isn't anything disastrously wrong with it. It's consistently mediocre, it doesn't really wow you on any fronts.

This film simply is NOT fucking around. It jumps straight into the plot, as Max seemingly doesn't have a wife or existence before the war. The first thing he does is joins a brigade of Norwegian volunteers to help repel the Soviet invasion of Finland, and then comes back pissed off at the fact that Norway is pretty much occupied without a fight. He then hooks up with a bunch of guys (we don't know how they know each other, or how they meet) and they started getting guns and making plans. As you can probably already tell, I have a problem with the film's pace. It's so fast, skimming through major events without any sort of, at least superficial, explanation. The film focuses on what Max DOES uniquely, leaving out the why, and fails to go beyond the simple actions. We do get a reason why he becomes a guerrilla, saying that he is just a good patriot. This is such a cop-out, jerk off motivation. I love my country. It takes no effort to write, no deep character explanation. Just I love my country. No doubt that Max probably was intensely patriotic, but was that his only motivation? Did others in his group have other motivations? We don't know, because the film shrugs and says who cares? The entire "for king and country" routine gets old really really fast, as Max also bows down to lick the boots of the exiled king. Although I can understand that he likes his nation, it's hard for me to not think his pathetic when tears start rolling down his cheeks at the sight of an old man in an 1800 military uniform. Later on, a love story develops, but it's not very interesting and are easily the weakest part of the film. Max's "nerves' start going near the end, as the guilt and stress of losing friends starts to pile up. These parts are easily the strongest part of the film, and by far the most interesting. Too bad they are at the end of the film, which makes them in a sense worse because throughout the film Max is seen as a stone cold bad ass, but suddenly he turns all soft without I feel a sort of proper transition. This film felt more like a national myth making project than a work of art.

The production and direction of this film is again sort of in the same vein. It was shot on location in Norway, and marks the first time since the occupation that nazi flags have been shown in public in Norway. The film continues the 21 century tradition of way too many ineffective hand held overly shaky shots, but it's not as bad as you would think as a large part of the film is all about action. I'm not going to say much about the dialogue, as it's pretty standard because I don't speak Norwegian, I have no idea if the translation was any good. The only music in the film is standard Hollywood style epic composition, nothing out of the ordinary. The direction is so average that's actually hard for me to come up with things to say about it. It's like any other historical epic, albeit a little more biopic than usual. Overall, I really think this film was dull, un-interesting. Good or bad? It's hard to say. It's not bad as in I felt the theater angry, enraged or shaking my head. But I didn't leave the theater really thinking about the film very much. It just sort of...passes through you, without any sort of mark.

If your Norwegian and you want to get know to now one of your most bad-ass public figures, then knock yourself out, maybe you'll like it. And if you just want to see nazis getting destroyed...sorry there actually isn't much nazi killing in this film (I KNOW!). I dunno...I wouldn't recommend it, but I can see how others would find it entertaining.