Sunday, May 2, 2010

I happen to agree with Ebert's claim that 3D has (so far) been a waste of a perfectly good dimension. But for some funny reason, reading his Newsweek article makes me want to change my mind. According to Ebert, 3D is not in the least bit utilitarian but mostly decorative. It is impractical in many ways - its technology in some cases even consists of deconstructing conventional film techniques. 3D features abound with distractions, and elicit discomforting emotions, breaking the fictional spell of film - an intrusion of the real. Ebert accuses 3D filmmakers of displaying a lack of originality, of resorting to a method that has been tried and proven as a failure in the past, but this for me adds to the charm of this modern reinterpretation, lending it a sense of nostalgia.

The way he describes it, 3D sounds like the most natural mutation of film media, a mutation that makes it, dare I say it, delightfully post-modern.

No comments: