Ah, Roger Ebert. America’s most popular critic, who was most recently covered in a touching if overly sentimental Esquire piece, continues to write reviews weekly, updates his blog regularly, and tweets incessantly. But no topic has gotten under his skin more of late than 3-D (okay, with maybe the exception of video games, but we’re not touching that one).
Ebert first covered 3-D way back in 2008, in a post titled “D-Minus for 3-D,” saying “There seems to be a belief that 3-D films are not getting their money’s worth unless they hurtle objects or body parts at the audience. Every time that happens, it creates a fatal break in the illusion of the film. The idea of a movie, even an animated one, is to convince us, halfway at least, that that we’re seeing on the screen is sort of really happening. Images leaping off the screen destroy that illusion.”
Now, Ebert is back, preaching essentially the same gospel in an article published yesterday in Newsweek. Titled “Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)“, the piece basically summarizes what we’ve been saying for some time: 3-D is an expensive diversion and Hollywood’s revival of it is just another way to siphon money out of an audience that often doesn’t know better. The article is relatively concise and measured, hardly offending anyone who does enjoy 3-D attractions.
It’s well worth reading, but for those of you who prefer the short version, here are the nine key points Ebert covers in the piece:
1. IT’S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION.
“Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing.”
2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE.
“Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did they “need” 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations.”
3. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION.
“Some 3-D consists of only separating the visual planes, so that some objects float above others, but everything is still in 2-D. We notice this. We shouldn’t.”
4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES.
“In a just-published article, Consumer Reports says about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience experiences headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies.”
5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM?
“The vast majority of theaters show 3-D at between three and six foot-lamberts (fLs). Film projection provides about 15fLs.”
6. THERE’S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS.
“Although there’s room in most projection booths for both kinds of projectors, theaters are encouraged to remove analog projectors as soon as they can. Why so much haste to get rid of them? Are exhibitors being encouraged to burn their bridges by insecure digital manufacturers?”
7. THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 – $7.50 FOR 3-D.
“I think 3-D is a form of extortion for parents whose children are tutored by advertising and product placement to “want” 3-D.”
8. I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D.
“The medium seems suited for children’s films, animation, and films such as James Cameron’s Avatar, which are largely made on computers.”
9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN.
“In marketing terms, this means offering an experience that can’t be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs, HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between the theater and home experiences has been narrowed. 3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow that gap as well.”
Now, before everyone screams “Avatar” and tries to make Ebert eat crow for his four-star review of the film, it should be noted that at the time he wrote “The film never uses 3-D simply because it has it, and doesn’t promiscuously violate the fourth wall. He also seems quite aware of 3-D’s weakness for dimming the picture, and even with a film set largely in interiors and a rain forest, there’s sufficient light.” He also notes that James Cameron’s film was created for 3-D from day one, rather than used as a last-minute decision to help pad box-office figures and add an extra marketing edge.
He closes his Newsweek article with these thoughts, which echo our (and many others’) views on this latest trend: “I’m not opposed to 3-D as an option. I’m opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy….I have the sense that younger Hollywood is losing the instinctive feeling for story and quality that generations of executives possessed.” And whenever we here at the Playlist rail against 3-D, ultimately, it’s for similar reasons. We fear that the American studio system has taken a systemic step towards cross-marketed product films and kid flicks and the liberal application of 3D is emblematic of that shift.
But with “Avatar,” “How To Train Your Dragon” and “Alice In Wonderland” turning a massive profit, there’s no chance of 3-D going away anytime soon. But perhaps Ebert’s insistence, as well as our own, may raise some debate and prevent a number of films from either being converted or shot in 3-D. We’d settle for that small consolation. For now.
–Written by Mark Zhuravsky