I’M SO glad to see the end of 2010, a miserable year dominated by a phenomenon that tears at our cultural fabric. I refer not to the Tea Party, but rather to the silver screen and its latest techno-infatuation: 3-D.
A confession: The technology doesn’t work for me. Like 1 to 4 percent of the population, I inherited a condition called strabismus (a.k.a. “lazy eye,” “googly eye” — I’ve heard them all) that left me unable to perceive things stereoscopically. Both eyes work, both take in information, but the magic melding of the two images into one — the extra pop of depth that’s been described to me — is something I’ve never known. Perhaps that disability gives me an advantage: I can understand what 3-D is doing without being taken in by its novelty. And what it’s doing isn’t good.
The technology isn’t new. Stereoscopic viewers have been around almost since the invention of photography. Most of us can remember View-Masters, the exciting-for-10-minutes birthday present that soon ended up at the bottom of the toy chest. The 1950s fad of offbeat 3-D movies quickly fizzled. For a long time, 3-D seemed consigned to the dustbin of the Eisenhower years, a novelty whose only legacy was the enduring images of theaters full of folks in silly glasses, images that defined the “Happy Days” era.
Regrettably, happy days are here again. Hollywood never really abandoned 3-D — who can forget 1994’s “Honey, I Shrunk the Audience” or 2005’s “The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3D”? — but it was last year’s “Avatar” that caused the technology to explode in popularity. Grossing the most money ever will do that. So 2010 gave us a host of major films in 3-D, including iterations of “Shrek” and “Toy Story” as well as “Megamind” and “Tron,” with many more yet to come.
Too bad, because 3-D doesn’t make movies better; it makes them worse. For one, the glasses required to decipher the dual images projected on the screen end up making any film darker. It’s as if every movie is now film noir, with even the brightest day gloomy. Plus, when the two images are even slightly misaligned, as they often are, 3-D seems a little blurry and out-of-focus. Moreover, the glasses themselves limit what can be seen. In a good theater with a large screen, the image stretches out to the edge of vision, enveloping the moviegoer in the director’s world. But 3-D glasses cut off peripheral vision. The 2-D versions of the same films are clearer and more engrossing. In either version, however, there’s an unending parade of characters hurling fists, knives, and other objects towards the screen. What results is a thrill ride, not good filmmaking.
But it’s money, not good filmmaking, that is behind the trend to ever more 3-D movies. Tickets to 3-D versions of a film cost an extra $3 or $4, an impressive price hike that has Hollywood execs giddy as 2010 revenues are set to hit record highs even as nationwide attendance has been dropping. My hope for 2011 is that audiences will rebel from the high prices, the dim images, and the substitution of thrown objects for quality movies.
And if that’s not enough, consider this: I’ve looked around the theater while you wear your big plastic glasses. You still look goofy.
Originally published in the Boston Globe.