3D Is A Gimmick

Last night I went to see James Cameron’s Avatar, the new film that is supposed to change the way that we make movies.  It’s combination of CGI and 3D is going to be the standard way we see movies in the future.  The CGI in Avatar was quite stunning.  After seeing this film, I am convinced that CGI can be the right tool to use for dramatic effect in filmmaking.  3D, on the other hand, is still a gimmick and will always be a gimmick.

There have been quite a few innovations in filmmaking technology that filmmakers have used to add visual meaning to story they are telling.  I’m going to quickly run through a few of them, then see how 3D compares.

Position & Framing

This was the first trick because it’s inherent in the medium.  By choosing a place to put the camera and what to show (or not show), filmmakers can add particular emotion and meaning to the story.  We take this for granted.  Chuck Peters explains this a little more thoughtfully in a great episode of Field Of View.  Imagine if we had clearly seen the face of David Wallace in Pulp Fiction.  Would his character be nearly as interesting (or intimidating)?

Lighting

Also inherent in the medium, filmmakers can literally highlight and obscure particular elements of a shot for dramatic effect.  In one scene in In Cold Blood, the light shines through the rain dripping down the window onto Robert Blake’s face as he talks about his father.  The effect cries for him, and we, the audience, understand what he feels without his character even showing it.

Editing

Editing gave us the ability to jump around within a scene, giving a different framing for each moment of the story.  Now the visuals could guide the audience’s emotions more directly. Pairing particular shots could create a moving performance that wasn’t really there.  Editing is everything in movies like Koyaanisqatsi, where the viewer moves farther and farther away from nature and closer and closer to an unnatural mechanization (which is the whole point of the movie).

The Mobile Camera

After a while filmmakers figured out the a camera doesn’t have to sit on a tripod; it can reveal new information by repositioning during the shot.  Suddenly the world of cinema is a place the audience can inhabit, just like the character.  Like in Der Letzte Mann (1924), we don’t just see food in a buffet line, we go down the buffet line with the old man and take in all of its deliciousness one beautiful piece of food after another.

Variable Speeds

Basically any time Wes Anderson wants to tell you “Hey, this is a meaningful moment for this character,” cue the slow motion and hipster music.

Color

Throw in color and suddenly objects can be literally painted with symbolism. Take a look at Dick Track, whose rich color palette brings new depth to the noir aesthetic. Our hero Dick Tracy glows of yellow wisdom while The Kid rushes through with his impulsive, passionate red; and somehow the bad guys always hang out in areas that are eerily purple and rottenly green.

3D

So now we have this new thing called 3D.  Well, “new” if you disregard its past failures.  How did 3D contribute to the emotion and meaning of Avatar?  Well, it didn’t really.  It looked cool but…. why?

I don’t mean to say that 3D can’t be used effectively.  I read a great article about Coraline‘s use of 3D where cinematographer Pete Kozachik (ASC) adjusted the distance between the two cameras to create an unnatural, uneasy feeling in certain scenes.  It’s probably the smartest use of 3D I’ve heard.  It’s quite an innovative concept; I can barely visualize it without actually watching the movie.  But in practice this effect really just gives the audience a headache.  I’d rather some narrative device other than nausea to make me feel uneasy; I enjoyed my popcorn going down, it doesn’t taste so good coming up.

I suppose 3D intended to bring a certain grandness to Avatar, much in the same way that Lawrence of Arabia‘s used 70mm film or The Dark Knight used IMAX. But Avatar fails because James Cameron concentrated more on the action than the actual meaning of this film.  I guess he tried to say something about western exploitation, but Cameron’s fundamental story choices make his arguments myopic at best.  Cameron’s use of 3D is probably more ambitious than artful.  It’s a great way to get publicity for your movie (“Most Expensive Movie Ever!”) but not a great way to tell a story.

Related posts: