|Posted on April 15, 2010 at 1:07 AM|
There are two schools of thought since 3D has really taken off in the past couple of years. One side argues that it's all a gimmick and some cheaply done way to raise ticket prices and wow audiences by just slapping "in 3D" on the poster. It gets buts in seats. So against 3D is this side that no matter the movie or its quality, or the person involved, the fact it's in 3D lowers its standard to just a gimmicky movie that can't stand as a film all its own and has to add that extra element because the rest is so weak.
The other side, though, looks at it the way many filmmakers are looking at it: a new form to visually express the craft. Quite a polarization, for sure.
You see, there are always cheaply done films, 3D or otherwise. Transformers 2 would have been a horrible film in either dimension, including the fourth where it just achieve transcendental status due to its utter awfulness.
Filmmakers are interested in expressing their work as affectively as they can, and 3D has always been a unique way to consider it but wasn't really brought to a new status until recently with 3D Cameras and technology showing unique ways to present it for vividly. It's not some tacked-on gimmick to them ,it's a new way to think and approach how to present a story, structure a scene, use the camera which is their eye.
One of the earliest masters to really notice this was Alfred Hitchcock, who shot Dial M For Murder, a rather simple looking film, entirely in 3D. To see it in 3D now is a rarity, but by all accounts it doesn't take away from how good the film is and Hitchcock crafted it to seamlessly let you into its world, not just have things jump out at you and poke your eyes. He, like Scorsese, Cameron and certainly Herzog, wants to transport you, not distract you. Critics, and lets face it it's the internet, write it off far too easily.
You see, it's that "jumping out" factor that people automatically associate with 3D being cheap. You know what? That is cheap. Horror movies, for example, and a lot of animation love having things come at you on the screen to get you to duck and move. But these are already the lower standards anyway, made by a studio looking for quick cash grabs. A stronger hand, though, understands how truly remarkable using 3D as a new medium all its own, not just some tacked on gimmick, and wants to utilize it as a means, not an end. Scorsese, Hitchock, Cameron and Herzog certainly can't be wrong and are an elite group, far above the likes of cheap thrills. It's about doing it right, not tacking it on...and that can be said for any film whether its 3D or not.