The prospect of watching something in 3-D is a peculiarity. While the concept and potential are familiar to us, the actual experience is something most people lack. This, however, cannot be said so certainly anymore. The most memorable thing about the Super Bowl, aside from Bruce Springsteen impaling America with his crotch, was the plethora of ads for “Chuck” in 3-D and strings of commercials filmed for 3-D viewing. Unfortunately for me, who, like most, lacked the 3-D glasses, the special commercials just made my eyes melt a little.
The point is, the most watched event in America showcased a cinematic technology that we had all taken for long dead. In fact, the “golden era” of 3-D cinema is said to be 1952-55, meaning it had a foot in the grave before your parents were even born. Yet it persisted, albeit as a kitschy emblem of nostalgia, in the margins of film throughout the decades. Despite periodic revivals, the few 3-D films in the new millennium have led contemporary 3-D cinema to bear the connotation of being kiddy, used merely as a gimmick to entice the easily-awed young. Honestly, who didn’t want to see “Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over” and experience a whole new dimension of campiness?
Yet as the Super Bowl spotlight indicates, the face of 3-D technology appears to be changing. While recent 3-D cinema has pandered to the youth with proverbial kid-movies (“Journey to the Center of the Earth” and “Bolt 3-D,” which my bastard friends refused to see with me), for the first time in decades, the technology is pervading adult genres again, primarily with the uber-gory “My Bloody Valentine 3-D.” The recent resurgence is primarily due to the recently developed RealD technology that allows for 3-D viewing with only one projector, as opposed to previous methods requiring two.
And with major studio film releases in 3-D slated well into 2012, the trend will not be a short-lived one. However, the list of prospective films is comprised almost entirely of — you guessed it — kids’ films. While the Jonas Brothers are no doubt as dreamy as ever in the third dimension (I preordered my tickets months ago), I can’t help but wonder why the technology is used so restrictedly. Granted, we can expect several horror films, 3-D’s other staple genre, yet they are still outnumbered by talking CGI animals seven to one. (That’s right, people, prepare yourselves for three more Shrek movies.)
Generally speaking, 3-D seems to be reserved for things not meant for serious, critical contemplation and consumption but rather for mindless gratification. 3-D functions well in kids’ movies because it appeals to the youthful affinity for the fantastic and similarly succeeds in horror by ramping up the gross-out factor. In both cases, it enhances the pleasure derived from the film. This is not inherently a negative thing — just as people are enchanted by fireworks, diamonds and Cher’s stage costumes, the idea of the spectacle has long influenced our visual pleasure.
Things do, however, become complicated when 3-D technology is haphazardly applied outside the realm of the spectacle as entertainment. Comedies such as “Chuck,” for example, derive entertainment not from visual pleasure but from a humorous script, one that functions on the premise of a detached observer (voyeur). When the fourth wall is then broken by 3-D technology, actively reminding the audience of the visual spectacle and consequentially destroying the illusion of reality, the continuity of the fiction is threatened and the viewer is displaced to an uneasy limbo. The problem of the fourth wall — the invisible barrier that separates the audience from the screen, allowing them to suspend disbelief and enjoy the fictionalized reality as real — raises significant doubt that 3-D will ever catch on in genres that rely on more than the mere visual pleasure of spectacle for their entertainment value.
Herein lies another quandary of 3-D technology: That the attempt to imitate reality by simulating a third dimension and exaggerating the use of perspective would paradoxically reduce the verisimilitude of the video instead of strengthening it. This, however, is only because we’ve been conditioned to view film in the particular way that became the dominant concept of consuming film — as invisible observers. So while 3-D films remind us of a time before film consumption was limited to this paradigm, it does so at the expense of the tension it creates vis-?-vis the fictional “reality.”
Thus, while I for one am thoroughly excited to see such outrageous films as “Final Destination: Death Trip 3-D” and Tim Burton’s “Alice,” I highly doubt the 3-D craze will continue to penetrate outside the spectacle genres due to its inherent conflict with fictional continuity and verisimilitude. It’s essentially a novelty that has been reappearing cyclically as technological advances permit it to. Further, I applaud its resurgence and the implied defiance to merely accept that the consumption of visual media is static and un-evolving, but the notion of a revolution, at least a 3-D one, remains improbable at best, given the partiality we’ve developed to consuming video as perfect voyeurs.
Alex Garens is a senior majoring in legal studies, Spanish and Japanese. If you believe the 3-D revolution is here to stay or want to ponder the word “voyeur,” e-mail him at [email protected].
