Also, please go see Gravity.
I remember the first time I saw a trailer for the film Gravity. I may as well have bought my ticket then, not just because of Clooney's beautiful almond complexion, but because of the space setting (for which I hold a strong fascination) and the seemingly incredible visuals. Then the end of trailer revealed certain 3-dimensional intentions...like 80% of movies nowadays. Despite rolling my eyes, I wasn't dissuaded from the prospect of seeing it; I figured a 2D version would also be available.
 |
| Though I wasn't completely opposed to seeing this in 3D... |
The weekend it came out I was in Minneapolis and didn't have a chance to see it. Consequently, other people saw it before me, namely a film buff friend of mine who holds a notoriously cynical and blunt worldview. Thus I was taken aback when he told me to see Gravity in 3D. Like literally taken aback.
Let's take a minute to flesh out everything I loathe about 3D "films."
1.) 3D movie tickets cost more money.
--My inherent frugality steers me clear of any 3D version of a desirable film. The added "immersion" doesn't justify an extra $2+ from my wallet.
2.) 3D might be the biggest media gimmick in recent memory, a clear scam, and an annoying fad.
--I don't think it's any secret that slapping on 3D to a movie is a sure way to sell more tickets; certainly studios know this otherwise they wouldn't do it ALL THE EFFING TIME. It's a common misconception that 3D movies are expensive to make; it's actually pretty cheap to add 3D, relative to the increased revenues from doing so, only costing an average of 18% more in the budget. Adding 3D to a "film" is just an easy way for studios to increase revenue, because us lemmings buy in to the "immersion" factor.
 |
| Exhibits A, B, and C: Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience. Just a straight money grab if I've ever seen one. |
3.), 4.), and 5.) 3D does not add to the movie-going experience, and actually detracts from it by giving you a headache. Also, wearing the glasses tints the picture slightly, making the film artificially dark.
--This is definitely my most subjective, opinionated reason for hating 3D, even though it's backed by research. On average, moviegoers claim 3D does not enhance the film and actually can cause discomfort in the form of a headache, though obviously some people will claim it does enhance it, otherwise how would 3D films make money?
I'll stop there.
The only time 3D impressed me was the first time I actually saw a film in 3D -- the premiere of Avatar. It was 2009, I was a freshman in college, and all my dorm-hall friends had succumbed to the hype surrounding James Cameron's magnum opus, a film literally 15 years in the making. Slightly jaded towards mainstream movements as I was (as we learned in the last Harry Potter-themed post), I begrudgingly went along with my friends to the film, and attended it with a clear bias against it (which I regret in hindsight, as I strive to become less and less biased...even though my bias came true and the film itself was terrible).
But, it honestly was the most visually striking film I had ever seen. What Cameron's script (utterly) lacked in imagination, Pandora's flora, fauna, and landscapes more than made up for it. His colorful world came to life in 3D, seducing my optical nerves. Though reluctant to admit it to my friends immediately after the film, I had been immersed in Avatar.
 |
| This scene was particularly beautiful. I forget the context but will always remember the visuals. |
Then every movie started using 3D and I actively avoided all of them.
Until Gravity.
(Back to present day)
Shortly after hearing the recommendation for seeing Gravity in 3D, a couple friends and I shelled out the extra cash for some 3D tickets, donned our glasses, and were consequently captivated.
I'm no film expert, but I've seen my fair share and I can tell you that I don't think I've ever seen a film more perfectly paced with its action and intensity. Top notch directing and some the most gripping, white-knuckle scenes I have ever sweated through. Bullock had a rocky start but (my dislike for her hesitates to admit this) she finished with a wonderfully strong, emotionally charged performance. Clooney was beautiful, as always. His acting was pretty solid too.
But what really made the film for me was the sense of depth added through the 3D. Think about it: space is a vacuum, absent of gravity (aside from gravitational pull/orbit). Objects "float" in space, and when a force is acted upon an object, said object will "float" indefinitely into the abyssal expanse of stars and planets. The director used 3D to intimately convey this concept in an unprecedented way. Exploding debris flew past my eyes while the astronauts tumbled helplessly within frame, all the while that indifferent and stolid blue sphere pervades the background. These layered shots by the director make the viewer feel so close to the action and at the same time give him/her a sense of the infinite depth of space, heightening the "gravity" of each scene and thus eliciting even stronger emotions.
What's more, many pieces of the debris in the film have symbolic weight as they flutter passively around the wreckage. Peaceful shots focusing on these objects amid the shambling remains of shuttles and satellites evoke even more emotion when viewed in 3D.
My friend Ken said it better than I ever could: "The idea here is obviously that even high order cognitive processes (i.e. interpreting symbolism) can be enhanced by somewhat simplistic measures that target sensation. To be poetic, 3D helps to blend the visceral and the rational. More intense sensory experiences can lead to more intense perceptual/cognitive ones." More simply, he's saying that the use of 3D in this example enhances our sensory experience, which in turn enhances our brain's reaction to that sensory input, causing more neurons to fire and thus allowing us to have a more profound understanding of the emotions and symbolism within the film.
In summation, while viewing this film I obtained such an intimate feel for the vast expanse of space, which added to the emotions of despair and helplessness the film continually (and masterfully) instills in the viewer. When I wasn't holding my breath, I kept saying to myself, This is how you use 3D.
Gravity turned out to be one of my favorite and most memorable moviegoing experiences of my life, and as a result I have definitely become less cynical of the use of 3D in movies -- though not by much. Again, my message for this blog lands on open-mindedness: I blatantly refute that Gravity would have been as awesome in 2D as it was in 3D, and I almost let my "refined" taste for film prevent me from fully experiencing -- in my opinion -- Alfonso Cuarón's best film (and he's made some good ones).
Seriously, go see Gravity, but see it in 3D...
 |
| ...it's so good. |
Thanks for reading.
Edited by Ken McGurran
No comments:
Post a Comment