I don’t know about you but after watching Beowulf in 3-D the other week, I just gotta wonder: Is seeing Anthony Hopkins’ Jell-O gut in all three magnificent dimensions truly the future of cinema? Is having that bulbous, CGI pudge rubbed in our faces the 21st century version of Al Jolson telling us we ain’t heard shit yet?
A growing group of Hollywoodites would say, “You betcha. 3-D is the new talkie, so prepare to dodge Adrien Brody’s schnoz.” And this isn’t your average pack of Hollywood schmucks espousing the magical healing powers of a 3-D technology that allows for color, as opposed to the red/blue 3-D mush of yesterday. We’re talking James Cameron, Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg, arguably the three greatest mainstream directors with heartbeats, and all have 3-D films slated for release in the next few years.
Yet, even without the 3-D, the film kicks a fantastic amount of ass—much better than 300, which everyone and their momma wants to compare Beowulf to. And I can’t jitterbug the feeling that for those of us who dug the film in 3-D, we would have grooved to it even more in regular ol’ 2-D. 3-D gets us so hot and heavy for the film to fling shit our way we end up observing the visual trickery (“Wow honey, Beowulf’s sword is practically mining boogers from my nose) rather than really watching the film.
I understand why so many of the studio suits and theater owners are making 3-D their new religion. A robust take of Beowulf‘s box-office has come from 3-D screenings (not to mention the decent wad of cash the 3-D rerelease of The Nightmare Before Christmas took to the bank). Then on top of that, 3-D films can’t be pirated nor can they be reproduced in home theaters. So right now studios and theaters must feel like Jed Clampett holding a shotgun on an oil field.
Yet, I’m still not sold on 3-D, at least in terms of it being the next artistic evolution in filmmaking.
At worst 3-D is nothing more than a throw-shit-at-the-camera gimmick as it was in the ’50s and ’80s. Remember back in the ’80s (okay, technically I don’t remember since I’m a child of ’81, but I’ve studied up so don’t worry) when it seemed like the third entry in every franchise had to be shot in the third dimension: Amityville 3-D; Friday the 13th 3-D; Jaws 3-D; Rocky 3-D – okay, that one’s bullshit, yet how glorious it would’ve been to witness Mr. T kill Burgess Meredith…in 3-D! Is it just me or when “3-D” is built into the actual title do alarms blaring GIMMICK go a ring-a-ding-ding in your head?
So next year, the first major live-action, full color 3-D film will hurl out of screens? And what’s it called. Yep, Journey 3-D. Hmmm. And I guess the recent announcement that the fourth Final Destination installment will splatter audiences in 3-D (which I’m sure will be called Final Destination 4-D, since these flicks are like the retarded step-sister within the horror genre) doesn’t help the 3-D format gain any artistic points.
However, it’s up to James Cameron (by far the most vocal supporter of the 3-D format) to convert me to the possibilities of 3-D with Avatar. And if anyone is capable of doing it, it’d be Cameron. And even if he fails, I’ll still give Spielberg and Jackson a chance with their Tintintrilogy. However, in the end, if three of my favorite filmmakers don’t convince me on the artistic benefits of 3-D, then nothing will.
Don’t get me wrong, I want to buy into these directors’ views on 3-D as fervently as a Jonestown resident. But in the pit of my gut, I feel 3-D isn’t going to revolutionize the form of cinema (such as sound, color, and widescreen), but rather at best it’ll advance the movie-viewing experience along similar lines of stereo or digital projection. If you don’t catch a film in 3-D, it’ll be like watching Saving Private Ryan with your television’s speakers. The experience might be watered-down a tad, but the film is as good as it ever was.
