Every other release these days seems to be in 3-D, even if the imagination behind it all is strictly unidimensional.
A flood of 3-D movies has awakened us to the aspect of depth, in addition to length and breadth, but the presence of a third dimension in cinema is as unsurprising as colour. The world around us, as we see it, juts out in three dimensions, just like it is painted in swaths of colour – and the good cinematographers, even the black-and-white cinematographers, never let us forget that. In an early conversation between the hero and his folksy mentor in the recently released Rockstar, the two actors are seated across a table, at nearly opposite ends of the screen, and we see extras milling in the background behind them, and there are people milling behind these extras, and even beyond. The screen’s flatness does not stave off the illusion of depth, just as we sense colour in the black-and-white movies. Even without 3-D glasses, this scene from Rockstar is a scene from three-dimensional life, where things and people exist in spatial relation to each other – behind, in front, to the left, to the right, above, below. In reality, we don’t gasp with delight when the branches of a tree slice towards us. We’ve lived long enough with branches to know that that is what branches do.
But inside the contained space of a movie theatre, when we are confined to our seats, a 3-D branch can leap out and poke us in the eye – and we gasp with delight. Is that what explains the freshly resurgent 3-D mania, the innocent rapture with which each new 3-D release is greeted? With every second film, we are asked to pay extra and rent these spectacles that promise to shape the world on the cinema screen into a simulacrum of the world outside the cinema screen – except that this world is a lot murkier, dimmed by the dark glasses. When I get impatient with a 3-D movie, I find myself lifting the spectacles and looking at the two-dimensional image on screen, and it’s like daybreak, as if the sun were coming out slowly and chasing the darkness away. With most movies, I find I’m not missing anything by dismissing the extra dimension. The image is perhaps a little blurred, like the fuzzy sights that greet you as you open your eyes in the morning, as though the objects in your bedroom were brushed with a light coat of Vaseline, but nothing more. Put the glasses back on, and you’ve reached the other end of the day. Everything seems to be unfolding in twilight.
But the problem isn’t the dimmed image or the extra cash for the glasses, in addition to the price of the ticket, or even the additional burden on the bridge of the nose. It’s that most 3-D films simply don’t need to be in 3-D. When Justin Bieber: Never Say Never, a generic concert movie, advertises itself as a 3-D spectacle, we wonder why an unremarkable audiovisual experience demands this fuss. So that screaming teenaged girls can reach out and touch their idol at least in theatres? But what explains Jackass 3-D? Even animation films and visual effects-driven spectacles, which come bearing the license to dispense with the realities of our world, do not use the extra dimension to their advantage. The one moment that stopped my breath in recent times was when the hero and heroine on a boat, in Tangled, are illuminated by thousands of floating lanterns. There was magic in this air that a mere two-dimensional image could not have conjured up – the lanterns seemed to be floating out towards us. But do you recall a single visual from Cars 2 or Thor that wouldn’t have played equally well in 2-D?
These outpourings arrive in the aftermath of Tarsem Singh’s Immortals, an eccentric and exquisitely imagined film, where each frame isn’t so much directed as art directed. The director’s guiding principle is that a story situated in Greece in 1228 BC, with gods swooping down from Olympus at the drop of a winged helmet, is but an excuse to wash your hands off reality. And he’s right – these are images plucked from our deepest dreams. An overhead shot takes in the warm glow from parallel rows of chandeliers, and at the far end, a man is swallowed up by flames. The abode of the gods looks over a distant golden river that snakes into the sun. A barge knifes through oily water like a cracked-open cocoon being borne away by industrial effluent. A disembodied leg angles out from behind a wall during a scene of torture, and later, the body of a leaping warrior is sliced in half and spins in mid-air, still married to its momentum. And all the while, a silvery bull snorts steam through its nostrils.
But these extraordinary images, the film’s selling point, are unforgivably dulled by the glasses. That leaves us with just the narrative, which is itself a dull affair, forecasting its ponderousness at the very beginning, with a Socrates quote: “All men’s souls are immortal, but the souls of the righteous are immortal and divine.” If the visuals weren’t so breathtakingly conceived, we’d be hooting with laughter at the silent-movie matinee-idol moustache that sits on Zeus’ upper lip, and the six-pack he flaunts so flawlessly, like everyone else in ancient Greece. It’s impossible not to think of a time a portly Charles Laughton, in Spartacus, was allowed to embody, through his corpulence, the excesses of Rome – but then this is Greece, and perhaps its citizens were more likely to cleave to Spartan habits. It’s equally impossible not to think of David Lean, who, in just two dimensions, could yank us into a train plodding beneath the snow-capped Urals or immerse us in the shimmer of a desert, where a mirage transformed into a man on horseback. The spectacles were on screen, not on the nose.
An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2011 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Priya
November 26, 2011
I so agree with you. “Why the fuss?” Very well said. Exactly “Why the fuss?”/ Just the other day I was wondering why every other movie is being made in 3-D these days. Even if I want to take my 3.5 yr old to one of those supposedly “kid movies”, I drop the idea when I realize that its in 3-D. Filmmakers have got into the habit of complicating everything – graphics, techniques and even plots!!
LikeLike
Harish S Ram
November 26, 2011
i am surprised you didnt include the misadventures we are starting to get here through Haunted, Ra.one or for that matter the upcoming Don2 because they think 3D is the in-thing. Even the much publicised Avatar & Tintin looked dull in 3D compared to the honest 2D experience. I wonder when people will learn.
LikeLike
Vishal
November 26, 2011
Apologies for an unrelated comment: Eager to read your thoughts on Kolaveri! 🙂
LikeLike
Abhishek
November 26, 2011
I agree with you a hundred percent. In most cases 3D adds nothing and in fact as you said, it “dulls”the spectacle of cinema. Of recent releases you mentioned Immortals, But it was equally true for Tintin as well. It was distracting and headache inducing.
I ended up watching it without the glasses !
Much cleaner and brighter.
LikeLike
Priya
November 27, 2011
Not directly related to this post but on the lines of fuss-free movies http://priyaworld.blogspot.com/2011/11/art-of-simplicity.html
LikeLike
Ranga
November 27, 2011
Good point, BR. I remember watching ‘My dear Kuttichattan’ as a kid and being in awe of the 3D experience – the first shot of kuttichattan emerging through a haze of feathers, the ice-cream cone coming right up to your face and dripping ever so gorgeously, the climax sequence with the villains shooting fire right at you… In contrast, Harry Potter 7.5 (which I insisted on watching in 3D) was hardly an 3D experience to remember. A lot of scenes seemed to lack ‘depth’, despite the 3D glasses. I wonder if it is because HP relied a lot on CG, which doesn’t render well in 3D…
LikeLike
Ravi K
November 27, 2011
Have you seen Werner Herzog’s “Cave of Forgotten Dreams?” It is possibly the only 3D movie I’ve seen where 3D was integral to the experience of watching it. Unlike most 3D movies coming out these days, it was actually shot and conceived in 3D, and the film captured the contours and spaces of a cave that few people will ever visit.
Even though it is easy for 3D animators to render out a second eye, they still have compose and pace the film for 3D viewing. Typically that involves slower cuts, deeper focus, and modified blocking/staging than would be used for 2D films. 3D films shouldn’t be seen by filmmakers as just adding depth illusion to their 2D films. It is a new way of thinking about filmmaking.
I will see “Hugo” in 3D, since I’ve read that Scorsese has used it well and would also like to see Wim Wenders’ “Pina” in 3D.
LikeLike
hemanth
November 27, 2011
There’d be no debate when you’re watching a game though. Soccer is never the same after 3D 🙂
Eagerly awaiting Hugo.
LikeLike
rameshram
November 27, 2011
Hugo is overeducated but bad 3d. (strictly in terms of 3d) it feels like those old “3d” post cards where there would be cardboard cutouts at different levels…
LikeLike
Rajesh
November 27, 2011
Wait till u watch Hugo. For all mistakes we paid on watching movies which isn’t real 3D this compensates. Never before & am sure may be never in near future u will love 3D like u will be loving in Hugo. Just saw it on 1st day here in Ny & Scorsese proves again why he is unmatchable!!
LikeLike
Vasisht Das
November 27, 2011
can I propose my coinage “3-DIOTS” in this context ? 😉
LikeLike
Rahul
November 27, 2011
The function of art is not to reproduce “reality”, whatever that word means. According to our own ancient raasa theory, a singular emotion/motif has to be fleshed out, at the expense of others.This is what Satyjit Ray did in Pather Panchali with the help of Ravi Shankar’s music-which is why sometimes 2D B/W seems more compelling- not because its “lifelike”, but because its not.
If 3d can be used in that way,to make a point, it probably would be fun.Recently, I have read that the latest Harold Kumar movie has tried to make a point about the banality of 3d.
LikeLike
prasanna
November 27, 2011
“The spectacles were on screen – not on the nose” brilliant sign off!
LikeLike
Bijoy Bharathan
November 27, 2011
Dear Bharadwaj
I am completely against this whole 3d tirade. I’d recently gone to see Tintin and I found myself texting in the middle of the film. Without a shadow of doubt, I did it because I was uninterested in what was playing out on the screen. I could barely care about Snowy, let alone Tintin or Haddock. They should stop this 3d fallacy while they still can. We don’t need any spectacle other than our eyeglasses. Those with 16/16 vision should count their blessings and be glad they don’t have to wear specs.
LikeLike
Mohan
November 27, 2011
@rangan
off-topic:
Watched Mayakkam Enna? When can we expect a B.Report? Keen to know your take.
LikeLike
brangan
November 27, 2011
Ranga: The worse thing was that HP 7.5 was already a dark film in terms of cinematography, and the glasses made it even darker. I’m sure it will play much better when it comes around on TV.
Ravi K: Not seen the Herzog film, but will catch Pina at the Chennai Intl Film Fest this year. It was actually playing in Zurich when I was there, but there were no subtitles and I didn’t want to see the film.
Vahisht Das; Congratulations 🙂
Mohan: Yes, will try to write something soon. Liked it quite a bit. I wish they’d had a more expressive/effective heroine though.
LikeLike
brangan
November 27, 2011
Off topic. This article made me nostalgic for a time, in school, when I used to enjoy James Herriot. Good read. Any other former Herriot fans out there?
LikeLike
Mohan
November 27, 2011
@rangan
Alas, it indeed seems we are meant to disagree.
Agree with you on the heroine though. I watched it at a theater where the guy sitting in the front row suddenly rose up and shouted “Yendi eppavum morachittey irukka?”. 😉 Couldn’t help but agree.
She looks like one of those Khajuraho apsara sculptures. Not too bad to look at and one even admires how the sculptor has managed to chisel the face exactly round like a Rasagulla, but sadly the face is stuck with one expression(or non-expression in this case).
I thought myself as a Selvaraghavan fan, but came out thoroughly disappointed.
Too many unnecessary scenes and graphics, contradictions in characterisation, the “Sunder” character frequently behaving like a pimp rather than a boyfriend.
But what UTTERLY DISGUSTED ME was the level of misogyny and weakness of the female lead character, even by Selvaraghavan’s standards.
As a model “Lady”, you are supposed to desert the man you are engaged to, fall(quite inexplicably) for a guy who abuses you with cuss words and refuses to apologise, “force/convince” that fellow to marry you, then stand all his inhuman torture in the name of “kinks of a genius”, sleep with him whenever he wants to regardless of how cruelly you have been treated by him before, and then bear his child be and be a proud wife when he FINALLY goes on to make it big.
I have never met such a depraved version of “Pathini Deivam” in my life and hope never to meet such servile women who look upon themselves as mere objects in service of another man.
There was plenty of heckling going on at my theater, and for once, much of it was bang on target.
And for a movie supposedly having that “bird-photo” as a pivotal point, WHY, OH WHY bring in shitty graphics and ruin it all?
I could go on for hours about this movie’s rank amateurishness.
Kadaisiyila Dhanush oru naalu edathula nachunu photo eduppaaraam. Udanaey straightaa BBC AWARDku poiruvaaraam. Pretentious drivel in the cloak of art film.
Complete with Preposterous-Looking-(Supposedly)-Eccentric-Genius-Wig.
End result, we find we have been duped with Annamalai remake. 😉
LikeLike
Ranga
November 27, 2011
Great article about James Herriot, BR. Why ‘former fans’, by the way? His books have aged well and still make for good reading, just like PG Wodehouse.
LikeLike
Mohan
November 27, 2011
@rangan
Why “former”? I still recollect Herriot’s novels quite fondly. Love his books. Kind of envied him, in fact. He made Yorkshire seem so much more beautiful than Chennai.
Of course, Chennai did win me over eventually.
Pity there were not too many books written by him(isn’t Herriot itself a pseuodonym?)
I like most british authors I have read.
BTW, Rangan, not quite on the same scale, but have you read Richmal Crompton?
Another one of my favourites. Though one tends to outgrow Crompton quicker.
LikeLike
brangan
November 27, 2011
Mohan: I didn’t see her as a pathini dheivam at all. She’s not singing adikkira kaidhaan anaikkum. He is a mental patient after all, sitting outside and talking to trees. So she is some sort of caretaker/curer — that’s a choice she made. I had lots of issues with the film (like the horribly amateurish graphics, including that lizard — really, is it that difficult to find an effing lizard on the wall?), but this isn’t one of them.
LikeLike
Mohan
November 27, 2011
@rangan
Perhaps you are right. You still can’t explain how/why She is attracted to him and no, don’t sell me that opposites-attract logic. For a story predominantly about love for the first hour or so, Selva does a shitty job of crafting the romance bit.
Crass Man Gets Classy Woman. We get that that’s how things are done in Selva films. But PLEASE have a reasonable story and screenplay to back that up, and not the piss-poor excuse of a “friend” who just happens to be playing matchmaker to HIS fiancee.
Neither the slap in the cheek for calling her a “sister” nor the contrived “kiss” in the bus-stop later rang true. In the end, it seemed Selva had got himself into a knot how to quite finish the bloody track, and thus the ellipsis to the marriage. The “romance” proceeded on a false note throughout.
In the second half, too often(like in that scene where he gets drunk and smacks the bridegroom on the head with the bottle), it doesn’t seem clear whether he does it because he’s mental, he’s drunk or he just gets really angry. If that were not enough, quite a few scenes had a most mundane, seen-the-same-bloody-thing-done-the-same-bloody-way-in-a-dozen-other-movies look that I found off-putting, be it the scenes between Dhanush and his idol, where that leaf very “artistically” falls on his face or that lizard in the bathroom scene. Come to think of it, even that scene is STRAIGHT COPY FROM ANNAMALAI.
After recovering from the shock of having his work being passed off as someone else’s, if he had indeed reconciled himself to shooting ugly old ladies and girls who’ve attained puberty, then why so much jerk-reaction on seeing that the other fella just got an award for the photo?
A man at peace with his choice in life(as he says after shooting grandma) should have given a philosophical shrug and moved on.
The whole Struck-By-Lightning-Again-And-Falling-Over-The-Railings-In-Shock thing felt unnatural and not quite consistent with the events that led up to it.
Very often, it seemed Selva was trying out things for EFFECT. Not unlike watching a series of Naalaiya Iyakkunar Episodes.
LikeLike
Nandini Krishnan
November 27, 2011
I’m with you on the 3D fatigue – it’s made filmmakers lazy too, I think. But I had the misfortune of watching ‘The Immortals’ in both 2D and 3D (don’t ask), and trust me, 2D was much worse. Everything that was wrong with the movie was far more apparent when detached limbs and metal-bull-processed-vapour weren’t hitting you in the face. So, maybe it’s useful when you’ve got a bad movie on hand.
That said, I’m in two minds about 3D – sometimes, it’s nice to feel like you’re inside the film; at others, there’s a certain magic in their being just out of reach. I’m not quite sure how to explain that, but it hit me when I was watching ‘The Return of the King’ in an almost-empty theatre – 2D.
About Herriot, I’ve always felt his writing was a little bit like the lovechild of Wodehouse and Joyce. 🙂 I still flip through ‘All Creatures Great and Small’ every now and again.
LikeLike
Siddhartha Srivastava
November 28, 2011
Guess we should all just wait for Scorsese’s “Hugo” to popen on Indian screens, there is no doubting the fact that Scorsese knows cinema better than anyone out there and his use of 3D will be unlike anything we’ve seen before. Early reviews seem to confirm that!
LikeLike
KayKay
November 28, 2011
So, Selva’s obsessed with unhinged Missing Links who get to lay hot dames.
Is it Friday already?
LikeLike
brangan
November 28, 2011
KayKay: ROFL!
LikeLike
hemanth
November 28, 2011
@rangan was this Mayakkam Enna discussion from an offline thread or something on print, that I missed?
I liked the movie, bad graphics and a few forced “acting” notwithstanding 🙂 Hopefully you’re doing a bullet-point review soon.
LikeLike
arijit
November 28, 2011
I agree with you whole heartedly…yesterday I watched Tintin in “3D”…a film that was gloriously colourful when seen with the naked eye/specs suddenly became dull, insipid and dark when viewed through those childish contraptions also called 3D glasses…the frames were dark, i couldn’t exactly make out what was 3D…finally after fighting with those glasses once in a while i decided to watch the whole of the second half without them and that was when i enjoyed the movie viewing experience the most…i think 3D will kill the fun of movie viewing eventually…when every film will start looking the same (blue) why would i want to go to a movie theatre and watch it? for me the basic question is that my eyes can already make out depth…why do i need another pair (i already have one extra on my nose) to confirm my correct estimation?
LikeLike
Mohan
November 28, 2011
@kaykay
ROFLAO. Same concept but he seems to have run of stories in which to fit this concept.
This one copies from as totally different sources as Beautiful Mind and Annamalai.
Resulting hodge-podge is uneven and lacks coherence, consistency or flow.
A far cry from the likes of 7G or Pudhupettai and you know by now how much I cherish those films.
LikeLike
Mohan
November 28, 2011
Typo: should have been “run out of”, not “run off”.
LikeLike
Harish S Ram
November 28, 2011
“Very often, it seemed Selva was trying out things for EFFECT” – that summaries what i felt about the film. only if could think on the lines of ‘lets feel this particular scene alone widout looking at it as a whole film’ was i able to feel the presence of some substance in the film. His only aim seems to be to startle people with his stark rudeness of the characters. The magic that the characters feel which Selva tries to communicate, passed on to me only as an attempt and nothing closer to perfection anywhere. Maybe he would do a great job as a horror film maker 😉
LikeLike
Mambazha Manidhan
November 28, 2011
When a film is in 3D, it promises not just entertainment but experience, one akin to a ride at an amusement park. When it doesn’t deliver that experience, we say the 3D was pointless and the film might as well have been in 2D. And then, we bitterly pocket the glasses and return the empty box to the unsuspecting usher. To me, that is an indicator of a lack of atmosphere than a lack of spectacle.
The 3D effects in a film work best when it enhances the atmosphere like in the instance of Tangled which you have pointed out. The best part of Avatar was those thatha-poochis floating around. The closing moments of Kung-fu Panda transported me to the overcast, lantern-lit ancient China. Megamind was the best cinematic experience I have ever had.
The days of eye-popping gimmickry are over. I don’t think any one even aspires for it anymore. 3D delivers when it puts you there. But, for that to happen, the movie has to earn it.
3D cannot save a bad movie. But, it can definitely make a mediocre movie better.
In that case, the 3D glasses serve as an equivalent of the blinders put on horses. You are not distracted by someone’s head popping up in the front seat or by the streaks of light entering from the door every time the usher comes through or what some one else thinks of the film. By filtering out the distractions and making sure we only see straight, 3D makes for some immersive movie watching.
LikeLike
Radhika
November 28, 2011
>> When I get impatient with a 3-D movie, I find myself lifting the spectacles and looking at the two-dimensional image on screen, and it’s like daybreak, as if the sun were coming out slowly and chasing the darkness away. Put the glasses back on, and you’ve reached the other end of the day. Everything seems to be unfolding in twilight.
>> The worse thing was that HP 7.5 was already a dark film in terms of cinematography, and the glasses made it even darker. I’m sure it will play much better when it comes around on TV.
Heh, I watched most of the HP 7.5 whining away that it was terribly dark – yes, very dark, agreed the husband and the child. Then, when there were around 15 mins left to go, I demanded that I look through their glasses – and found that there was something wrong with mine, so I was seeing everything as if shot at midnight without lighting. “Why did you agree with me about it being dark?” I asked them – and was told that they thought I meant the mood of the movie was very dark. Everyone is a critic these days.
LikeLike
Radhika
November 29, 2011
Am wondering though if the indian theatres are using cheapo glasses – surely the spielbergs of the world didn’t intend the movies to be viewed as dark blue films? in our neck of the woods, the theatres have been slowly increasing the price of hire of the glasses. Am very tempted to invest in a set for the family and thumb our noses at the ripper-offers. I have a pair that came with a book on space, and the asteroids and thingummybobs in outster space look quite fabulous with them, not at all twilight zonish
LikeLike
brangan
November 29, 2011
Mango Man: “The best part of Avatar was those thatha-poochis floating around.” That I will agree with wholeheartedly 🙂
Radhika: “Everyone is a critic these days.” That also I will agree with wholeheartedly 🙂
LikeLike
Mohan
November 29, 2011
@Rangan
Yes, I can see a lot more echikala….sorry, educated comments on movies these days. 😉
LikeLike