The Popularity of 3-D Movies and the Crisis of Classic Cinema

Movies, in the first decades of the 20^th century, were considered humble, inferior quality goods for the masses. Though cinema was packing the crowds in, upper classes, more educated people did not acknowledge film as art. Only in the beginning of the 40’s did universities take film seriously, and started to deal with the fact that film became part of the modern culture. Motion picture became the seventh art.

Film has always been a product, but in most cases the director wanted to say, express something. Cinema came full circle and returned to the first image it had in the beginning, from the upper classes point of view. Today, it is only a product. The arrival of the new 3-D technique is like adding a catalyst to the process of depreciation of cinema.

Though 3-D is the most significant turning point in cinema’s history, film esthetes and critics should separate this new phenomenon from cinematic art. Besides, they should start a new chapter for three-dimensional motion pictures. Hollywood movie studios, such as Warner Brothers, 20^th Century Fox, Disney, Paramount, and Dimension, started to rearrange their schedule and budget of the new releases, because the new technique changes the custom of watching films.

3-D or S3D (stereoscopic 3-D) is not a completely new technique, though; it had been invented in the 50s. Two special motion picture cameras recorded the same scene from different perspectives, which gave the illusion of depth perception. People had to put on special glasses (with a blue and a red lens) during screening. These glasses tired people’s eyes out, some also felt dizzy and sick. The technique was rudimentary; nevertheless, in 1953, more than a hundred movies were made with this procedure. The studio owners were excited about this new form, and also trusted in it.

However, not only was the audience’s opinion negative, the directors were inexperienced and did not know how to shoot a film in this utterly different way. Though Alfred Hitchcock, Douglas Sirk, Raoul Walsh, André De Toth, and John Farrow made experiments (just to mention the greatest), they later gave up. None of the movies were good, and the technology was undeveloped.

Through the last decades of the 20th century, 3-D made a significant improvement. Aficionados call the last ten years the second golden era (the first one was back in the 50’s), or the rebirth of 3-D. Theaters, after boycotting the new technique for 50 years, invested more than $100,000,000 in 3D projectors, because the developed system was promising. The production budget of Spy Kids 3D: Game Over, directed by Robert Rodriguez, was 38 million dollars, and its total lifetime gross (domestic and foreign together) was almost 200 million dollars.

Studios claim that 3-D is not only a spectacle, but financial necessity: the last hope of the biggest Hollywood movies studios to fight against pirates and entice back the audience to the theaters. Jaffrey Katzenberg (co-founder of DreamWorks) states that 3-D is the third revolution in the history of cinema, after movies were in color, given sound. "I predict that within five to seven years, all theatrical release films are going to be done in this new 3D to bring audiences into the movie-making experience”, says Katzenberg. "It's not a secret that movie theater attendance is down as more people look to the home entertainment experience, but this 3D film process gives the moviegoer a reason to return to movie theaters."

The problem is that 3-D is an obstacle not only for the pirates, but also for the rest of the world’s filmmakers, who do not have the money to produce 3-D movies. The budget difference between a normal and a 3-D film is more than 15 million dollars. No wonder only the greatest Hollywood movie studios (DreamWorks, Fox, Universal, Disney, Warner) can afford to produce a motion picture in 3-D. Even for them, the switch to the new system is very expensive; still, they are the only ones who have enough money for it. Thus the gap between Hollywood and the rest of the film industry (worldwide) grows, and if it continues, the smaller distributors will be excluded from the movie business.

 Though in the last 10 years’ 3-D movies grossed more than any 2-D films did, yet they were not critical successes. However, all of these were popcorn movies, meaning they cannot be judged, because every film should be criticized within its own genre. 3-D motion pictures are closer to an amusement park than to a show in the theater. Reviews show that the package became more important in the present Hollywood movies than content. Most of these 3-D movies are either follow-ups (Shrek Forever After, Superman Returns, Alice in Wonderland, Toy Story 3, Step Up 3D, Piranha) or reinvention of older movies, fairy tales (Avatar, Polar Express, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Clash of Titans, and Beowulf). Stories are basically the same, so the film makers could concentrate on the outlook.

The highly anticipated directors of cinematic art (Milos Forman, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Jean Pierre Jeunet, Pedro Almodóvar, Terry Gilliam, Mike Figgis, Wim Wenders, Jim Jarmush) can hardly make their films, because none of the producers want to finance a motion picture that, although it has a lot to say about modern world, history, politics, or relationships, will not gross the production budget. Art film can only depend on the government’s help, as they do in all over Europe. Controversially, James Cameron got 400 million dollar credit for Avatar 2. He even attained a whole studio in Manhattan Beach. 

People like all the 3-D movies, because they have fun, enjoy themselves. Millions of people all around the world announced that Avatar was the best movie ever made, that it was a milestone, and started a new chapter in the history of cinema. This is where the problem starts. The unusual, stunning experience made them forget that what the movie was really about is a mixture of Matrix and Pocahontas. Without the 3-D effect, the movie would have been an average adventure movie.

2-D films are already the third dimension of life. It gives a greater understanding of an issue, a political event, or human life: it is an essence, a structured look from above. 3-D does not give more than an extra chance to make the viewer feel closer to an extremely dangerous situation. Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park or Jaws scared people in the screening room two decades ago. He did not use 3-D technology. “I don't know how much movies should entertain. To me, I'm always interested in movies that scare. The thing I love about Jaws (1975) is the fact that I've never gone swimming in the ocean again” says David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club, The Game), one of the best directors of all time.

Though there is a visual difference between 2-D and 3-D, the latter does not show anything that is not part of a 2-D film. If a character in the movie reaches out towards the screen in 3-D, it gives no extra information that a viewer would need. The editing of the two kinds of motion pictures is different, because a 3-D movie is only good for totals, and quick scenes make people lose track. “When you put the glasses on, everything gets dim”, says J. J. Abraham, producer of LOST series. People who wear glasses in everyday life cannot enjoy 3-D movies, because even if it is possible to put on two pairs of glasses, it is uncomfortable, and not precise. It would not be rational to say that 3-D motion pictures are negative discrimination though, because every movie is available in 2-D. 

3-D might be only a periodical phenomenon. “Whenever Hollywood has felt threatened, it has turned to technology: sound, color, wide-screen, Cinerama, 3-D, stereophonic sound, and now 3-D again. In marketing terms, this means offering an experience that can’t be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs, HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between the theater and home experiences has been narrowed. 3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow that gap as well”, says Robert Ebert, the film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times.

3-D opened a new chapter in the history of cinema, but only a short one. Three dimensional films are closer to an attraction in an amusement park, so they should not be considered as part of film as art. When people say Avatar is the best movie, the point when they are wrong, is that it is not a movie, but a 3-D movie. Though there is no such title as ‘the best film ever’, if people tried to find one, Casablanca, 8 and ½, or Some Like it Hot would have better chances than Avatar. Therefore, 3-D movies should be considered as a separate genre; not part of the classic cinema. 

Wall Street - Money Never Sleeps

Oliver Stone’s sequel to his early movie, Wall Street, is one of the best follow-ups in years. Stone, one of the directors who are engaged in politics, not only advanced and revived his 1987 film, but had also something new to say. Wall Street portrayed the new social strata of the 80’s: the yuppies. Wall Street – Money Never Sleeps shows how the financial world changed over the last two decades, and what happened behind the financial crisis in 2008.

Michael Douglas’ portray of Gordon Gekko, the shifty shark of Wall Street, earned him an Academy Award in 1987. Though Oliver Stone’s financial fable of cold-blooded traders became a modern classic, the director did not plan to continue the story. 20 years later though, Stanley Weiser, original writer for Wall Street, started to work on the follow-up, but after the 2008 financial crisis, 20^th Century Fox ordered the script to be rewritten to make it more current. Stanley Weiser abandoned the project due to creative differences. Allan Loeb, a licensed stock broker, joined Stephen Schiff in writing a new script. After reading the final version, Stone decided to direct it, and shot his first sequel.

However skeptical the audience is to Hollywood’s new remake, spin-off, follow-up money-making strategy, this time the second chapter is even better. The conflict is knotty, the characters are complex, and the dialogues are very well written. Stone, who is constantly dealing with the biggest political affairs of the United States, was able to show the utterly complicated moral dilemmas of the business world’s leaders (or the lack of them), in which partners and family members steal from each other.

Michael Douglas’ role was not only to play Gordon Gekko again, the symbolic figure of the loan sharks, but to develop the character and expose his humanity. He does it so elegantly, that you hardly notice it; that is the point. Though he remained the old double-crosser, he shows his human side. For a few seconds.  

Verdict

Watching a carefully put together film, with a clever script and exceptional actors (beside Douglas, Eli Wallach, Josh Brolin and Susan Sarandon have done breakout performances), is delightful nowadays, even if it is a pessimistic drama. 

Best lines

Gordon Gekko: Greed is good. Now it seems it is legal. [Greed is good was Gekko's line in the first part. He adds the second line two decades later.]

Gordon Gekko: Stop telling lies about me and I'll stop telling the truth about you. 

Gordon Gekko: Money is a bitch that never sleeps. 

Thor - The First Summer Blockbuster

Kenneth Branagh

Kenneth Branagh? The actor-director who is responsible for five Shakespeare adaptations? Directing a comic-book movie? No way.

However, he did it the best way. Comic-book adaptations slowly started to form a separate genre in the 00s. Now we have enough to compare and rank them. Ladies and Gentlemen, I can assure you that Thor is among the greatest comic-book adaptations ever.

Thor is Branagh's first superhero and sixth Shakespeare film. The story contains elements from Branagh's debut as director: Henry V (1989). It is impossible not to notice how Branagh improves a simple comic-book adaptation by applying his great knowledge of Shakespearean drama. He uses Shakespearean tone only in scenes set in the kingdom of Asgard. Later in the movie he applies this kind of attitude out of context: Thor loses primacy after he has been exiled to Earth. This becomes a source of humor throughout the film.

Branagh successfully smooths over every pitfalls. He uses irony in the most triumphant moments but cleverly slaloms back to the seriousness of the situation. Just watch the part when Thor tries to pull his hammer out from the rock. A complex scene in terms of emotional shifts.

Chris Hemsworth & Anthony Hopkins

Not only Branagh's genius makes this film outstanding, however, it is he who was able to gather these incredible artists together for the production.
First of all, Bo Welch (production designer) finally is at his best. It has been a long time since he created something unique, but Thor's stunning visuals proved that he is still one of the greatest production designers. He was responsible for The Color Purple, Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Batman Returns, Men in Black, Wild Wild West. 
Paul Rubell, the excellent editor, also accepted the job. He previously worked on The Insider, Collateral, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
And the cast: Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgård. Actors who need no introduction. Why would they take part in 'such' movie if not for Branagh? 


It is not reasonable to look at it from the view of the director's previous works. It is what it is: a spectacular epic - and here is the brilliant twist - through the eyes of a director who has stylistic sense. The film functions for all types of audiences. And this is something rare today. Mr. Branagh, hats off to you! It is the beginning of a beautiful summer. 


[The official American weekend box office result are not yet available, but Thor already earned $159 million worldwide. The sum is more than its production budget.]