The Future of 3D Film

Last week German film maker Wim Wenders announced that he would be directing a 3D feature in collaboration with Pina Bausch, the avant-garde dancer/choreographer. The film, aptly titled Pina, has been described as "The first 3D dance film". Wenders will apparently be using 3D film technology to explore the form and movement of the human body. With this picture, it seems Wenders is set on redifining the way we look at 3D film . "Only mainstream 3-D films have been available so far," Neue Road producer Gian-Piero Ringel said. "Only mainstream 3-D films have been available so far," Neue Road producer Gian-Piero Ringel said. "With 'Pina,' we (will) offer the first highly artistic 3-D film. We will set a new benchmark for 3-D."

Now, I'm not entirely sure that it is the "first highly artistic" 3d film, this smells a bit like European pretense (after all, I would not hesitate to say that Up or Coraline were highly artistic films) but it could certainly be the most ambitious and unfamiliar. I am extremely excited to see how 3D film will grow over the next few years. With films like Pina and James Cameron's upcomming film "Avatar"(an adaptation of John Passarella's sci-fi classic) being shot and released in 3d, we can expect to see the beggining of a new trend in film making: Serious 3D film.

And why not? Why have we reserved 3D technology for kiddy flicks and bad horror movies? Why haven't we seen a tense physchological thriller in 3D, or an elegant period peice? Or a kung fu film? Or a Leone-esque western?

It has a lot to do with the way movie studios and theatre conglomerates work. Like I said in my previous post, change is not their friend. If they are going to put something up in 3D (which does cost a bit more money) they have to know sure and well that they will recoup the costs. Unfortunatly their statistic suggest that only kids movies and slasher ficks are completely reliable.

It also might have something to do with a lack of creative interest. Not many film makers up until recently, have really thought about shooting a project in 3D. So perhaps now that we are seeing some big names behind serious 3D pictures, more auteres might feel the urge to try their hand at the third dimension. This is my hope. If only a major studio would release a serious 3D film intended for adults.

As it turns out, there is one on the way. James Cameron, who's 3D film Avatar I mentioned earlier, also plans to produce an adaptation of the animated classic Heavy Metal. The film will be directed by a large ensemble of film makers, including David Fincher (Fight Club), Zach Snyder (Watchmen) Mark Osborne (Kung Fu Panda), and Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy).

The Hollywood Problem

Cinematic innovation comes in waves. The term ""New Wave" has been used to describe many (sometimes unrelated) movements of stylistic evolution in a number of countries. France, America Taiwan, Australia, England, Brazil, Japan... Each of these countries possesses its own group of "New Wave" film makers. This term (which applies also to a number of musical genres) has come to mean, if anything: change.

This term has lead me to think of film as a large body of violent water. A whirlpool of crashing sound and light waves. For film craft to evolve it seems necessary for conventions to be swiftly destroyed and replaced soon after their creation, for two waves to collide and produce something new and unique. Adaptability is the name of the game.

This is why the Hollywood studio system is often percieved as a threat to the creative future of American Film. Studios are business, and as businesses they are interested in one thing and one thing only: money. Making a film costs money (lots of money), and when a studio puts money into a film, they expect to get it back. Typically, the chances of getting their money back are higher if the film appeals to a wide audience. This means that content must be normalized. Abstracts ideas are dulled down until they are passively swallowed by the masses .This method inhibits films from communicating on a personal level. The film works instead at a public level. It is less art, and more commodity.

Adaptability, experimentation, flexibility... these are not words that typically surround "Hollywood Executive". After all, you can not advertise an idea that does not already exist. How can we convince people to spend $9.95 on a film that might not even have a happy ending? Hollywood seems to be trying to contain this whirl pool of cinema. Freezing it down into manageable cubes.

So here's the problem we are left with: Is the Hollywood studio system really preventing cinematic growth by emphasizing repition and ? How can we continue to fund ambitious, innovative films in a system that does not support irregularity? If obscure pictures received the funding of mainstream Hollywood features, how would film transform? How can we make independent film more widely available while still maintaining a sensible and productive business?

This is not a new problem. Infact, its been around for a while. Film buffs have been discussing the crippeling effect of the studio system for quite some time.