Pages

12 March 2010

3D. Sometimes it's a bit shit.

If the third dimension becomes ubiquitous, then I'm going to have to stop going to the cinema altogether.

Let's be honest here- to many films, 3D adds little more than a headache, mild seasickness, and hordes of people in the cinema complaining that their specs make them look like Buddy Holly/Woody Allen/a twat. It's often just another shiny distraction hiding the entire lack of plot, the terrible acting, or the shoddy direction. In this sense, it's right up there with that well known cinematic tool often employed in teen horror films: girls getting naked.

Above- Alice. Thankfully not naked.

It's a trick. And as such, it can entertain. I enjoyed watching things fly at me during A Nightmare Before Christmas 3D and otherwise awful horror My Bloody Valentine. In Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland, however, the occasional 3D rocking horse fly blurring it's way across the screen felt like an annoying misuse of the technology. Here you want to focus on the beautiful CGI scenery and the quirky ticks of the actors but you're finding it hard to see them past the fuzzy blobs lurching out of the screen towards you.

In fact, the majority of the film is 3D-light, the technology barely registering when you lift your glasses. Then every now and then it's as though the director suddenly remembers he's supposed to be using this new stuff, and so he lobs a hedgehog croquet ball at your face. It's horrible. It's distracting. It's tacky. If this is the future of cinema, I don't want it.

That's not to say that done with subtlety, 3D technology can't add something to a film. Avatar, for all that it was arse-numbingly long and mostly like watching someone else play a computer game (which, in essence, you were), had moments that were truly immersive thanks to the depth of the images on the screen. Coraline, too, had a surreal acid-trip feel to it thanks to the use of 3D alongside the animation.

I suppose the difference is that in the hands of a director actively committed to using this new tool, 3D isn't horrible. Tim Burton comes off like a guy who was told "use this so we can sell more tickets" and went with it, begrudgingly. He doesn't seem happy.


What about the film? Well, you can see it in 2D and it will be beautiful, surreal, disturbing and familiar all at once. Mia Wasikowska is a perhaps slightly flat, but dazed and dreamy Alice. Johnny Depp is Johnny Depp, just in a different outfit. Helena Bonham-Carter is doing and out-and-out impression of Blackadder's Queenie. It's a Tim Burton film- you already know what you're getting.

That said, there are some genuinely funny moments in this which set it apart from the likes of (the slightly disappointing) Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The story takes familiar elements of the books but gives them more of a root in teenage Alice's real life, and the choice she is being forced to make between doing what is expected of her, or what she wants. It makes the story feel more substantial, and ultimately this is what made me like it.

Oh, that and the amazing costumes. I would like to own everything Alice wore in Wonderland, please.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great Post. I work in the post production business and a friend of mine was a compositor on Clash of the Titans which used conversion 3D and hes begun the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie which is being shot with 3d cameras. The scenes that he said work best in the post conversion process are the fully CG scenes as they are easier to render as two separate images(left and right eye). The 3d loses all of its depth when actual footage is converted and looks off, like people suddenly grow an extra Head. Alice in wonderland kind of worked because most of the environment was CG but again its hit and miss. 3D films should basically just be shot in 3D then i think it works in a cinematic context. The post conversion is a fraud. Sorry, this made no sense and i had a geekgasm at your article. Sorry. x

T. Bawden said...

Signs you spend too long on facebook: Looking for a "like" button.

Oddly, since 3D has become big, I've been watching more old flicks people have recorded from dodgy VHS tapes they found lying around; the kind that are in fact so awful that nobody would bother making a DVD of it just so the bargain bin at blockbuster looks like it has something there that isn't a B-Movie.

I remember reading an article by Cameron about how he was proud of his work with Avatar, but if this is the kind of crap people come to expect from 3D then it's going to die a painful death. It's a shame really, because that "fun" potential in horror and action films is tremendous. I'm actually saddened I missed out on the 3D Piranha remake because flying piranha's coming out at the screen? How could that not be fun?

Kitty said...

Hi Robert! Thanks for your comments- made perfect sense and you offer an interested POV. I have noticed the difference in quality between post production 3D and stuff filmed using 3D cameras and it is markedly better with the latter, but I still find the technology gimmicky and ultimately distracting rather than immersive. It's been pointed out to me that it might be as simple as the difference between things popping out and depth on screen which sways me!

Tommy- I'm sad I missed Piranha too! I have to say my fave use of 3D so far was in My Bloody Valentine- in any other film I just want to watch the film, but there I wanted the gore-flung-at-your-face experience! So far not successful in a serious action/adventure setting though. Shoddy horror, maybe (the Human Centipede 3D, anyone?) x