To 3-D or Not to 3-D, That is the Question
Ronald Bergan, the Guardian curmudgeon responsible for such critical hits as "Did colour ruin the movies?" and "Ridley Scott was right, modern cinema is stupid" has uncorked another one of his broadsides on contemporary film -- and by "contemporary," I mean anything made after about 1960.
This time around, Bergan wants you to know that the recent surge in 3-D technology is same as the one inflicted on film culture decades ago: pure "rot!" that neither aids nor improves movies or moviegoing. Even Up, by the once-thought-unassailable gods of Pixar, is just another bunch of overhyped, high-tech, and -- wait for it -- potentially enjoyable Hollywood gimmickry. Tracing a path back through the genre crap of the '50s, Bergan insists that "3D will go the same way as Smell-O-Vision and Odorama. ... Like the Feelies in Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World, they existed simply to soothe and titillate the senses, while leaving the mind untouched."
Unacceptable, John Lasseter. For shame, Jeffrey Katzenberg. You're both missing the bigger picture:
It was the film-makers of the French New Wave who took advantage of the new technology that was available to them, enabling them to work on location rather than in the studio. They used lightweight hand-held cameras, faster film stocks which required less light, and lightweight sound and lighting equipment. Their films could be shot quickly and cheaply with this portable and flexible equipment, which encouraged experimentation and improvisation, and generally gave the directors more artistic control over their work.
Oh please. If the Criterion Collection could find a way to present Anna Karina in 3-D, some guys would never leave the house. You know who you are.
· Why the second coming of 3D is overrated [Guardian]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
If we're going to fully embrace cheap cinematic gimmickry, I want to see some William Castle style tricks: tingling seats and fright breaks, etc. Let's go all the way, people. Some John Waters style smell-o-vision is fine with me too. The second coming of 3-D IS overrated. The sassy CGI animals thing was played out and releasing these same movies in 3-D is just some stupid attempt to put a "new" sticker on the same old shit. Coraline in 3-D was one of the few exceptions, and visually beautiful at that, but there is absolutely nothing remarkable about many of these films aside from a handful of "IT'S COMING RIGHT AT ME!" moments.
The first director to shoot a porno in the new 3-D technology will be a billionaire.
I mostly agree with this "bloke's" statment with a few exceptions, the big one being Spy Kids:3D Game over. That shit was off the dome.
Also, let's see if this "bloke's" theory holds true later this year, when James Cameron returns to filmaking and fucks our eyes, brains, and wallets with Avatar.
I read this article while wearing 3-D glasses and it DID soothe and titillate the senses! Then I threw up. . .
I simply just want to watch a good movie, and I think in most cases the employ of 3D can be akin to spraying Febreze® on dog shit.