There seems to be unfounded logic floating around Hollywood studio execs of late that, through an attempt to support the ‘inevitable’ full-blown outbreak of 3-D movies (i.e. every non-independent Hollywood movie eventually will be shot in 3-D), 3-D technology’s place in cinema will be likened to that of the two most ground-breaking innovations in the history of movies: sound and colour. The argument is that one day we will all look back at the 3-D debate much in the same way that people of the late 1930’s did with the arrival of sound a decade earlier. When the sound era first broke out, many filmmakers and audiences alike (with nearly as many exceptions of course) blasted the new-founded innovation as being silly and downright blasphemous to the artistry of cinema. The use of dialogue and sound in movies was originally seen as a vulgar gesture! To a lesser extent, but not without their critics, colour films drew a fair amount of flak for their own sense of garishness and lack of artistry (any such criticism however, would have come mostly from filmmakers and critics - not the general public). Is it a valid argument then to equate the gradual acceptance of the use of sound and colour in movies with that of our modern 3-D technology?

In answer to the above question: no. I don't believe one can properly justify equating the sound and colour eras of film to that of today’s era of 3-D. As artful as the silent era was, life doesn’t come with title cards for dialogue (although sometimes I wish it did), so the use of sound in movies was only a matter of time. Of course, the same thing can be said for the use of colour in movies; admittedly, I prefer the look of black-and-white movies to that of colour films, but at the same time, I couldn’t imagine (nor would I want to) a cinematic world without colour. We see and experience our worlds in colour, so movies should do the same. Using such logic however, one could easily say that since we see the world through a three-dimensional perspective, it only would make sense for movies to follow suit. However, the transformation from the silent era to the sound era was just that: a transformation. At that point in time, cinema used to be one thing, and then after its transformation, it was the complete opposite entirely. The same thing goes for the complete transformation from black-and-white movies to those that are shot in colour.  The essence there lied with one key word: change. On the surface of course, 3-D movies are an abrupt physical transformation to the way in which we watch movies. That being said, our eyes already see the world through a three-dimensional perspective, so any further elaboration to such naturalism inevitably will come across as being artificial and cartoonish.

That brings me to my main issue with the widespread use of 3-D technology in mainstream movies. In my opinion, the forced artificiality and spectacle of the 3-D experience distracts the viewers from wholeheartedly losing themselves in a movie’s story and its characters. Usually, a movie that is shot in 3-D is strongly driven by visual storytelling; it’s not like filmmakers can’t propel their movies with potent visuals and strong plot/dialogue structure at the same time (The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a fine example), but a lot of the time, the success of a 3-D movie lies with the potency of its visuals. You would think then that since 3-D is explicitly unique to the world of visuals, movies like Avatar would be a testament to the legitimacy of 3-D and its contribution to the ever-evolving art form of cinema. Here’s the problem though: Avatar was rich in visual spectacle, but its maturity in meaningful storytelling was diminutive at best. If the audience’s participation in a 3-D movie is inherently a cold and detached one to begin with, then a movie that has weak storytelling will come across as being all the more cold in its presentation. So not only does the nature of 3-D technology risk ruining humanistic storytelling, even a movie like Avatar (designed specifically for the enterprise of 3-D) can’t prevent itself from falling into an emotional abyss. Thus, in my opinion, the world of 3-D movies is a lose-lose situation. However, in the opinion of major Hollywood studios and the dollar sign that drives them, 3-D movies are win-win scenarios that, as a result, answer the titular question to this very blog: yes, everything is better in 3-D.