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.