On the Issue of 3D and Cave of Forgotten Dreams

Up until recently, the majority of 3D films that received nationwide theatrical releases have been mostly family friendly fiction films - Alice in Wonderland (2010) Avatar, (2009), A Christmas Carol (2009). Yet, in the past two months two giants of European cinema have released 3D documentaries that have received more press attention that any previous 3D films that have not fallen into the canon noted above. These films are Werner Herzog’s Cave of Forgotten Dreams and Wim Wenders’ soon to be released Pina. Now therefore feels like a good time to discuss the merits of 3D and its seemingly non-stop advancement into all avenues of cinema.

3D is a tricky concept and divides people on whether it works or not. For some, it is noticeable but not a distraction. For others, it is a major distraction and will never, in its current form, work. Even in the case of Avatar, which surpasses any 3D film to date, with its advanced employment of the new technology. There are many advocators and detractors of 3D. Perhaps the most influential detractor is Walter Murch, one of the most respected film editors and sound designers in modern cinema. Murch acknowledges the problems many may have encountered (darkness of the screen, closeness of the borders) are problems, but ones that can be fixed. The deeper issue, that cannot be fixed, is, according to Murch, the convergence and focus issue. Murch claims that our eyes must converge on an image that is changing direction – is it 10 feet away, 80 feet, 120 feet? – and therefore are eyes are focusing on one distance and converging on another, which defies evolution. As an editor, Murch claims that the technology cannot be compatible with our eyes. The full article by Murch can be read here: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

Wenders’ Pina is a documentary that captures some key performances of renowned choreographer Pina Bausch. Bausch had repeatedly asked Wenders to film her work, but he could think of no way to improve on what already existed. Then he saw the advancements that 3D had made and saw an opportunity to do what Baush had always demanded. Of 3D, Wenders says that it allows for the “discovery of space…In 3D there is this other dimension: the film is inside the dancers’ very own realism.” Expect future Wenders’ films to make use of 3D.

Of Cave of Forgotten Dreams this is certainly the case. The 3D does add another dimension to the caves and allows us to get a sense of the depth that 2D does not offer. More importantly for the film, it allows us to really get excited and involved in what the cave’s discovers got excited about. While a 2D image can be interesting and the story behind it fascinating, with 3D we see the contours of the cave, feel the claustrophobia and understand the difficulty in the discovery. As this doesn’t detract from the cultural importance on the cave drawings, it only adds to the effect of the documentary. For those that find 3D a distraction, this obviously is not the case and the 2D film will allow them to experience the full benefit of Herzog’s hard work.

Unlike Wenders, Herzog has not been converted to 3D by his use in Caves, although of seeing the cave for the first time claims “it was imperative to do it in 3D”. Herzog’s main criticism of 3D is worth repeating: “When you see a romantic comedy…we as an audience live and develop through a parallel story – we hope and pray that our young lovers should, against all obstacles, find each other by the end. In 3D you only have what is in 3D and nothing beyond – it’s a very strange effect…you can shoot a porno film in 3D, but you cannot film a romantic comedy in 3D.”

So, as can be seen, the question of 3D’s validity to cinema is not only a question amongst audiences, but filmmakers, too. What is certain is that Cave of Forgotten Dreams is a fascinating story of how culture develops and an incredible glimpse into the life of man 32,000 years ago. The 3D, while far from being hidden, adds to the story, especially those parts within the cave. The film may prove to do more for the advancement of 3D than Avatar did as it expands the technology into new genres.

On Being British in Submarine

There is an expectation that British films about British people, set in Britain will be of a certain kind. This has nothing to do with the incredible creativity that exists within the British film industry and those working in Britain, but instead more with the success of British films overseas that have an amazing ability to go onto define the country and its national identity through overseas success. By overseas success, read North American success. Such films seem to fall into three distinct categories; the British gangster film (Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998), Layer Cake (2004)), the British period drama (The Young Victoria (2009)) and the contemporary British romantic comedy (Bridget Jones’ Diary (2001), Notting Hill (1999)) There are good films within these categories. In fact there are great films, yet there is also a lot of films that are not good, but that do very well financially.

British films that don’t fall into one of these three categories (the Harry Potter and James Bond films are a world of their own) seem to get lost in the box office, maybe through a lack of clear identification. Bright Star (2009) is the perfect example; a film that barely registered in North American cinemas and faired little better here, yet is a film of outstanding talent.

There is now a film which it is hoped will become a clear exception to this rule. Submarine, written and directed by Richard Ayoade and based on the novel by Joe Dunthorne is a coming of age tale set in Wales. Due to excellent write-ups and a great marketing campaign, Submarine has proved popular in British cinemas and has been picked up by The Weinstein Company for international distribution (although whether North American audiences ‘get it’ is yet to be seen).

Submarine feels like a breath of fresh air, not just as a British film, but also for film in general. It is a funny, touching film with well thought out characters brilliantly brought to life by some clever direction. In addition to the relatable characters and the comedy, the film owes much to the annals of film history and clearly displays Ayoade’s knowledge of world cinema and marks him as a director to watch. There are references abound to the French nouvelle vague of the 1960s and the more recent canon of Wes Anderson. The seriousness of the subject matter is delicately balanced with the often laugh out loud comedy and although the third acts drags slightly, there is enjoyment to be had throughout. If only there were more money available for scripts and directors like this instead of more predictable London rom-coms and royal dramas.

On the Baffling Science of Source Code

In 2009 Duncan Jones wrote and directed the low budget science fiction drama, Moon. With Sam Rockwell in the lead role, Moon was an intelligent, character driven film that asked challenging questions and felt the more creative for the lack of money.

For his next feature, Jones has adapted a script by Ben Ripley about the trial of a new technology that allows the government to access the last eight minutes of a dead body’s brain. This is Source Code.

Like Moon, Source Code is a science fiction (action) drama. With Jake Gyllenhaal in the lead this is an (fairly) intelligent, (mostly) character driven film that raises confusing questions and with an estimated budget of $32 million has not had to struggle to realise its vision. Source Code follows quickly on the heels of The Adjustment Bureau (2011), another action/drama/romance dealing with the existential. Both of these films were probably rushed into production following the incredible success of Inception (2010). Yet neither matches the narrative intelligence of Inception. Source Code follows Gyllenhaal’s character as he returns time again to a train and the last eight minutes of a man’s life before the train explodes due to terrorism. Gyllenhaal’s character looks and sounds like the man whose body he is occupying, but the brain is his. After eight minutes he is transported back to a strange cockpit like setting where he takes orders over a webcam. His mission is to find the bomber and report his findings over the webcam so they can prevent another expected bombing, which is about to happen in real time. Every time he returns to the train, he becomes more familiar with the setting, gets closer to finding the bomber and falls in love with a female passenger. Yet, we are told, this is not time travelling.

Source Code is a fun, entertaining, well-acted film and for the first 70 minutes it is a thrilling film. However, Source Code cannot escape the baffling science it tries so hard to explain. Rather than except the fact that it is confusing, it tries to do what Inception did so well and integrate it into the story with clarity. But, it simply does not make sense and the end confuses even further and leaves not challenging questions about the value of life, but annoying questions about certain plot details.