... in 3D

Until recently, I was completely opposed to the use of 3D in narrative cinema. I failed to see the use of something that, by it’s very nature, takes the viewer out of the film. My opinion was changed slightly with the release of My Bloody Valentine 3D. Finally, I realized exactly what 3D technology was good for: mindless fun.

I am an unapologetic supporter of cheesy horror movies. Getting a group of friends together for a schlocky horror marathon and drinks is a recipe for great times. 3D is perfect for these types of films, especially of the slasher variety since objects are continually being thrust at and into people (a professor of mine once said that pornography was the ideal genre for 3D effects, but really, slasher films are just porn with a different bodily fluid).

My Bloody Valentine 3D is a terrible film. I wouldn’t even go as far as saying it’s bad in a good way. But 3D is the only way to see it. Valentine is elevated from a standard slasher to an event to be seen with a large crowd. It’s not often one goes to a movie where the audience screams and jumps, not the normal scare flinches, but real bodily convulsions. The audience is a part of the experience.

However, there are a few problems with the 3D technology. It changes the way filmmakers have to frame action, something I’m not sure they realize yet if my small sample size of one movie is any indication. 3D effects work best when an object is shooting from the center of the screen because the edges of the frame don’t get in the way. Several times in Valentine, the frame cuts off part of the image, so instead of it popping out of the screen, it looks like the audience is peering down a tunnel from a distance. Hardly effective at making us flinch.

Another issue is the brightness of the image. Something needs to be done during filming or at the theater to bump up the brightness of the image. Certainly a brighter bulb could be used in the projector. The problem lies in the lenses of the glasses. It’s essentially like wearing sunglasses in the theater; so dark scenes are nearly unseeable.

And speaking of the glasses, my research (which consists of my opinion and asking the two people I saw the film with) shows that the glasses and the 3D effects mess with your eyes. While mine didn’t go crossed, it sure felt like they were trying. Feeling like that for an hour and a half is less than ideal.

So, even though there are several directors interested in making 3D films (including big-namers like James Cameron), I don’t see it altering the futures of films. Lord knows that people have tried before, interestingly, nearly always in the horror genre. The technology is simply not designed to maintain any sort of investment in films other than the thrill of stuff popping out at you. This works in horror (see slasher films again) because no one really cares about the people in the film. The audience wants over the top carnage. There is no reality.

Of course, I could just be another person underestimating the possibilities of technology like all of the sound and color naysayers from back in the day. At the very least, I’m now on the record for future generations to mock.