The Cinemologist: Close Encounters of the Third Dimension [My Graduate School Entrance Essay]

The past fifteen months have seen an explosion of 3-D movies being released to the public. The box office power of Avatar (2009) and its subsequent rise to the number one spot on the box office list of top grossing movies worldwide, has festered an unquenchable thirst in distribution studios for higher ticket prices. When Monsters Vs. Aliens (2009) presented an opening weekend total of $58.2M, Steve Mason (2009) at the online publication SlashFilm determined how the 3-D release impacted sales. The per screen average for the 2-D showings was $4,780; compared to 3-D showings averaging $11,700. Distribution studios are single minded entities that are focused solely on numbers. 3-D movies, while profitable, lend themselves to hackneyed and gimmicky stories told through incomprehensible images and overuse of the technology; and, in general, are a step backwards from the progression made to make movies a more immersive experience.

3-D technology has been around for over a century; yet, the fad has not found a stable foothold in the realm of cinema. There are as many reasons for the cyclical popularity of 3-D technology as there have been resurgences of the medium. 3-D production is costly and thus that cost is exported to the viewer who, according to Mason (2009) pays an estimated $2.45 more per ticket. When movies are slated to be made in 3-D before production begins, directors are more apt to include overtly gimmicky shots that exploit the technology. In the case of such films as the upcoming Clash of the Titans (2010) and both part one and part two of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2010, 2011) which were upgraded to 3-D status post-production, the film maker was unable to make full use of the technology while filming. Aside from a lack of production quality and ever present budget restraints, Mark Pesce believes that the technology of 3-D images can actually result in a medical condition known as binocular dysphoria (qtd. in Ramadge).

John Patterson (2009) of The Guardian tells of the different techniques and slight changes in technology 3-D film have seen since its inception. Basic technology for 3-D movies has remained relatively unchanged since 1890. 3-D movies are shot and projected stereoscopically. When looking at two slightly off-center images, the brain perceives these as one 3-D image. This lack of continuity between the cinematic 3-D world and the real 3-D world can distort to brain’s ability to make sense of the pictures it sees. Slight changes in the evolution of 3-D technology have not produced much change in the experience as a whole. Before the recent resurgence, anaglyph technology was the preferred means of access to the third dimension. Anaglyph images are produced, once again, by projecting the same image from two different perspectives. The difference is that each projector is sending the movie through a different colored filter; red for one and cyan for the other. The recent change has come in the form of polarized lenses. The idea remains the same in that the projections are sent in different polarizations that the lenses differentiate (Patterson, 2009).

3-D technology is a misnomer as the image does not recreate a true three dimensional image. The technique of creating the third dimension is merely a trick of the brain that causes us to perceive the images as extending from or into the screen. This technique lends itself to an over exertion of the brain’s attempt to compensate for the perceived error. While we’re focused on the characters that are usually in the midground, images in the foreground and background should be out of focus, but aren’t. This causes problems for some viewers who get headaches from constantly viewing 3-D. Some research has hypothesized that extensive viewing of 3-D images could cause binocular dysphoria (Pesce, 2010).

The man responsible for the most recent 3-D tidal wave is ardent 3-D supporter James Cameron, whose Avatar (2009) has become the highest grossing movie of all time when not adjusted for inflation (2010). Though Avatar’s success is the reason many studios are paying for already produced movies to be upgraded to 3-D status, Cameron doesn’t believe that every movie should be in 3-D. Cameron believes that the use of 3-D is to be used as a tool upon the director’s discretion and not a forced application from the studio. At the Santa Barbara International Film Festival, James Cameron spoke at a director’s panel on the use of 3-D stating, “…I think it should come from the film maker and people who want to embrace that as part of their palate…and if they don’t, they shouldn’t. And the studio shouldn’t just start rubber stamping 3-D on scripts; which, of course they will” (SBIFF, 2010).

The rapidity of the major changes in film technology is likely affecting local theaters that aren’t backed by major companies. Should the 3-D movement continue to expand, theaters will be forced to upgrade their projection systems to accommodate 3-D and keep their attendance high. Most theaters only recently upgraded to digital projectors to catch up to the ever increasing amount of digital productions coming out; and to ask for them to invest in another new technology could be the deciding factor for some theaters already on the verge of failure.

3-D has proven to be utilized in film as little more than a medium for gimmick shots. Movies like My Bloody Valentine 3-D (2009) are prime examples of an overuse of the technology that results an amalgamation of items thrown at the viewer’s head to force a reaction. 3-D has the potential to improve storytelling in movies, but is rarely used in such fashion. Coraline (2009), one of the few exceptions, proved that 3-D could be used to enhance the visual representation of what we see on the screen. The director, Henry Selick used 3-D to show a strong discord between the parallel worlds Coraline alternates through. When in the ‘normal’ world, 3-D is diminished, signaling that Coraline sees this world as flat and boring. When she finds the passage to the other world, the 3-D is heightened and the world seems both more real and surreal. The third dimension serves as a tonal cue creating more than an overuse of attacks from various movie props.

With the exception of Coraline, we have only barely seen the third dimension aid the film maker in storytelling. It seems most movies made from the start as 3-D have been a breeding ground of gimmick shots. How do the masters of 2-D storytelling feel about 3-D? Martin Scorsese stated, “We see in depth, for the most part. We go to the theater – it’s in depth. Why couldn’t a film like ‘Precious’ be in 3-D? It should be… I’d love to do one. It just seems natural that we’re going that direction. It’s going to be something to look forward to, but to be used interestingly” (qtd. in Sciretta, 2010). Directors like Scorsese have taken the new technologies throughout the years and built upon each using its full potential.

An odd storytelling concept introduced by the inception of 3-D is where the movie stylistically starts. In 2-D films, the movie is limited to the screen. It is given the illusion of depth through the traditional use of lighting, camera angles and props. On the other hand, in 3-D movies the visuals can start in the space between the viewer’s eye and the screen. When attacked by an object of the film, the image seems to extend out of the frame and enter into the viewing space. These examples have been the agreed upon norm for 3-D movies. In this new age of 3-D, the technology is being looked at in a different way. In Eric Brevig’s Journey to the Center of the Earth (2009), the 3-D is shot in a way where majority of the elements extend further into the screen rather than out into the audience. This approach lends itself to a more immersive experience than the opposite. It allows the viewer to see through the screen into a world beyond rather than having the viewer lean back in response to seeing an image coming at them.

Aristotle’s Poetics (c. 335 B.C.), an analysis from over 2000 years ago ranking the elements of drama still holds true today. Aristotle ranks the six elements of drama in order of importance as follows: 1) Plot; 2) Theme; 3) Character; 4) Diction/Language/Dialogue; 5) Music/Rhythm; and 6) Spectacle. Aristotle stated that Spectacle, 3-D being an excellent example, is the least important aspect of drama. This doesn’t exhibit an anti-third dimension but rather states that many other factors should be focused on before one implements the use of 3-D.

3-D has cycled in popularity throughout the past century; each time it makes a reappearance, it seems it is here to stay. Why does it continue to fall in and out of popularity? The reason 3-D technology cannot grasp a foothold in modern cinema is its continued denial of what the audience wants: an affordable and truly realistic storytelling experience that makes its own depth rather than relying on the technology to do the work.