Archive for the 'Stereo 3D' Category

The L.A. Times’ Steve Zeitchik asks the question, if the current 3-D hype is affecting the way screenplays are written. The future of filmmaking that he is describing seems a bit overstated, though. For instance, he’s writing:

While [many directors and writers] express a general enthusiasm for the form, they say executives don’t always grasp all the complexities of adding that extra dimension. As the 3-D storm continues to gather, they point out that 3-D will affect much more than whether a filmgoer picks up a pair of glasses: It will change what films get made, and even the very nature of cinematic storytelling.

While it is true that the big studios are greenlighting more and more films that are a safe bet in 3-D, I don’t think, that the very nature of cinematic storytelling is at stake. It’s more a question of movie genres, and as long as Hollywood’s idea of 3-D filmmaking is limited to 3-D spectacle like action or horror, than yes, writers are forced to write mainly for the spectacle. But sooner or later the time will come, when 3-D is no longer a matter of poking things out of the screen. Even for smaller and more intimate films 3-D can be a stylistic device utilized by the director, cinematographer and editor. Thus, 3-D does not necessarily have any impact on the written word. After all, characters and plot won’t get any better, simply because they are written for 3-D.

I just like to emphasize screenwriter John August’s comment on that:

I’m currently writing a film which is designed to be black-and-white and 3-D. Reading the script, you’d never know it.

For me, I’m very excited about the first 3-D films that are not for the sake of mere spectacle. AMERICAN BACKROOM is one of those alternative 3-D projects, and I am sure, until it gets released, there will be many other films utilizing 3-D in an unexpected way. Just be open-minded, when they come along. You can read about our thoughts on the possibilities of 3-D and documentary filmmaking right here. Steve Zeitchik’s L.A. Times article still seems to be taking sides with 3-D sceptics, and – not surprisingly – is closing with the following quote:

I don’t want to watch “Precious” in 3-D.

I don’t know if that was his intention or not, but it’s funny how it stands in perfect contrast to what Martin Scorsese had to say about 3-D: “Why couldn’t a film like “Precious” be in 3-D? It should be.”

What do you think?