During my second semester at university, I took a module in creative non-fiction. During one of our many workshops, we discussed the writing of personal essays. What follows is my own first attempt at exploring that area of writing.
When it comes to modern cinema,
special effects are widely considered to be of the utmost importance. Gone are
the days where, without the power of the computer having been invented,
monsters were simply men in silver tin foil, and any animated characters were
the products of stop-motion or a hard-working artist’s drawings. Yet I now feel
that, finally, special effects have gone too far, with the current fetish that
is 3D.
Every single film trailer shown
nowadays feels the need to end with the irritating tagline ‘at cinemas now – in
3D!’ It would appear that film companies find the concept that some people may
not be interested in this new medium utterly baffling; why would anybody not want to go into a cinema and be able
to look at it as if they were looking down a real-life street? Well, in my
eyes, the answer is simple – if people want to view a 3D environment, then it
would be easier to sit still, open your eyes and look directly in front of you,
rather than spending almost £10 to get the exact same effect in a cinema.
3D, for a start, seems to be just
another excuse for Cineworld to
absorb even more money out of my wallet. The first time I went to my local
cinema to see a 3D film was during all the hype about Avatar, whence I was charged the standard student rate of £6.50 –
but then the catch was cruelly sprung upon me.
‘I’m sorry, we only show 3D films
in the deluxe screen.’
Suddenly, my £6.50 went up to £9,
followed by an extra charge of £1 for those charming magic spectacles.
I am further irritated by the way
in which filmmakers treat 3D as some sort of 21st century scientific
breakthrough. Well, I’m afraid stereoscopic technology has been around since
the 1950s, and all it really is is two images placed on top of one another with
one image being moved sideways slightly. But it was once a niche market – if
you saw something in 3D, it really was a treat. Now however, we’re having it
shoved down our throats every single day, not just in films (where for 2011 I
have counted no less than 33 three-dimensional titles, including Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (which
I seem to recall used no 3D other than occasionally hving a pirate stick a sword
out of the screen in a this-is-supposed-to-be-threatening-but-really-just-looks-a-bit-crap
kind of way), Captain America, and The Smurfs), but on television as well
(does anybody remember Channel 4’s simply awful
3D night a couple of years ago?) and also in games! The Nintendo 3DS, which
scientists suggest may be harmful to the eyesight of children. Personally, I
can’t think of a worse idea for a handheld console.
But the worst part of the 3D
craze is the way in which many of my friends absolutely rave about it: ‘wow, it
looks just like the planes are flying towards you. I ducked because I was afraid
they might crash into me.’ Well, unfortunately, that is still an impossibility.
I refuse to believe that anyone will be fooled by the ‘futuristic’ ‘magic’ of
3D which, although allowing you to see actors on a screen in all their pop-out book
style glory, is still just a flat image on a screen, meaning that pirate up
there isn’t going to be able to run you through with his rapier, the giant
winged things in Avatar aren’t going
to fly out into the cinema and take you back to their nests, and if you are
unwilling to pay even more money for the magic specs, you’re stuck with a grey,
blurred image with pink and green fringes around every single object.
And what about when the film is
released on DVD (which is being destroyed by the seemingly pointless craze of
Blu-Ray, but that’s for another essay), where most films only see a 2D release
despite the ‘incredible’ ‘depth-of-field’ they possessed in their original
cinematic form? And on top of that, the few films that are released in 3D, once
they enter the home entertainment environment, look absolutely appalling; gone
are the Clark Kent-esque digital 3D glasses. Here we are forced to put up with
flimsy cardboard glasses with coloured lenses resembling discarded Roses
wrappers (recycling at its best). Not only do I find this method of viewing 3D the
one most likely to give you a cataclysmic migraine, but the image suddenly becomes
a sickly mixture of grey and pink – whatever that colour is called, it’s
certainly not how it looked in the cinema.
Despite constantly being told how
amazing it is, I still feel unable to understand the attraction of 3D. During
the few 3D films I have willingly opted to see, I have found myself frequently
removing those incredibly annoying glasses because, having never worn glasses
in my life for longer than about half an hour in a drama class at school, I
find three full hours of being fitted with them sheer murder on my ears and the
bridge of my nose. And the most humorous thing about the glasses is the amount
of people I know who have confessed to taking the glasses off just to see what
the film looks like without them on. It seems very strange that people will go
to see a 3D film but are in fact more interested to see how it looks in 2D. Why
not just go to see a 2D film? And I imagine it must be murder on my friends who
already wear glasses, having to wear 3D specs over the top of their normal
specs; aside from being incredibly uncomfortable, I always feel they look
somewhat like incredibly short-sighted nerds from the future.
But I am forced to wonder, with
much horror, what we will be forced to deal with next. There are already 3D
televisions. Well, that’s all well and good, but to me it sounds like another
fad similar to HD which, unless you have incredibly acute eyesight, will look
extremely similar to regular TV. And do any of us really want to see EastEnders in a way which makes us
believe we are really there? Look out for Pat Butcher, she’s throwing knives
out into the audience again! Do any of us really want to watch Pineapple Dance Studios just to see a
larger than life Louis Spence flinging his arms out towards you as if he’s
about to pull you into his insane and frighteningly eccentric and destructively
deluded world of perfection and lead you in his definition of a foxtrot? I
sincerely hope not. But with the way 3D is being consistently rammed down our
throats I wouldn’t be surprised if before long we will be forced to put up with
Prime Minister’s Question Time in the same medium. Imagine that; Clegg and
Cameron, the Chuckle Brothers themselves, practically in the room with you.
What joy.
But what do I know?
2011
No comments:
Post a Comment