BrianCC
Grip
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 24
I mentioned this in another thread.... Dial M for Murder will be shown in original 3D at the 3D Filmfest in Los Angeles on Friday September 19th. More info at the 3dfilmfest.com site.
That's not really the point of what Stevens wanted.I'm not trying to characterize Stevens, per se, but rather to illustrate what is, essentially, a philosophical argument -- when you remove an element of a film used in its creation (something the original release embraced in either a limited or wide facility), you alter the history of that film -- you, to either small or great degree, "remake it," or if you favor one version of the film and dismiss others when multiple versions were made and released with filmmaker or studio approval, you diminish the full impact and/or history of the film.
I realize I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth, because I've made it clear that I want the 3D version and don't much care about 2D, though of course it was reportedly released by and large in 2D, with limited 3D runs. Hitchcock may have even favored 2D for the picture when all was said and done (has this been determined?). So I'm not necessarily following my own rule in the version I favor, but I am saying that both should be available; while I'd personally be happy with just 3D, the decision to make only this version available would raise a few philosophical objections from my end of things as well. I'd be happy, but the film wouldn't be best served. 2D and 3D, simultaneously available, best honors the history of the picture and the final details of its production.
This gets back, ultimately, to what I suggested first off a few posts ago: a new kind of OAR argument. Whereas in cropping a wide film we're talking about removing physical picture area, and in turning mono or stereo into 5.1 we're talking about remaking an element of the film (redesigning its sonic impact), it all amounts to the same thing, aesthetically: alteration. In this new OAR argument (Original Axis Ratio: x to y to z), we're discussing actual width and height (x and y) and perceived depth (z). The film was shot with the expectation that an audience (the portion of the audience to which the 3D version was released) would see the film's visual composition in three apparent axes (depth now apparent not within the confines of a 2D space, the flat motion picture screen, but within the same apparent 3D space occupied by that screen -- in other words, while we always see "real" height and width in front of us on a screen, and perceive a depth within a 2D image, 3D filmmaking places the use of depth on an equivalent playing field with height and width, something perceived as if it were truly in front of us as viewers, rather than something conceptualized within a 2D space). I can't say if a director, expecting the audience to focus on certain elements of perceived depth, will reframe width and height to emphasize or otherwise account for that depth, but it seems possible (different lens choices by he/she or the cinematographer, etc.). Even if a given shot is blocked, framed, lit, and otherwise structured precisely the same for 2D and 3D, when that camera is rolling the director, the cinematographer, and other relevant creative voices are anticipating its 3D impact on an audience (by which I don't mean whether things are tossed at an audience, but rather the impact its 3D nature will have on their involvement in the picture ... the same way one might consider a background shadow or depth of focus in their impact on an audience). The third dimension (z axis composition, depth) is a structural tool used by a filmmaker. To remove it removes part of the film, even if 2D versions are also rightly considered valid.
So ... chop away image area on The Diary of Anne Frank, and while you can still follow the story and even enjoy the film (it'll move you, the performances are just as good, etc.), you're not seeing it as it was designed to be seen. That a director expresses frustration with or dislike for a tool (and Stevens went on to make The Greatest Story Ever Told at 2.76:1! So take all such reports with some grain of salt) in his or her arsenal is irrelevant: if it was used, it should be preserved.
These arguments are relatively easy to make, today, for audio and image area preservation -- Criterion lead the way with both in the late 80's and through the 90's, and the industry caught on. I'm unaware of any 3D films set for release by Criterion, though, so it remains for some other content provider to take up this particular torch. "Depth is our friend!"
Unlike my other examples (or unlike many specific films that fall under those examples, anyway), a 3D film shown in 2D is often historically correct in and of itself, because these films were often (usually?) designed to play in 2D, sometimes limitedly, sometimes widely. But it is also historically incomplete, and that's the point. A 3D film has a dual nature, and that dual nature must be preserved for audiences if they're to experience the picture in the fullest possible (given that it's home video) representation of its aesthetic and historical context. Thus 2D and 3D versions should be simultaneously presented (or rather made available side by side). Those who wish the see the film as it was shot, in 3D, may do so; those who wish to see the film in a 2D version also seen at the time, perhaps limitedly, perhaps widely, may do so, and completists who wish to own a representation of what all audiences saw at the time may purchase both.
This argument has its flaws: many films have been released in multiple color processes, multiple cuts for international audiences, multiple languages, etc., and many excellent home video representations of the film choose to show only one of these "versions." But I see it a bit differently -- unlike a cut demanded by a foreign market, or a soundtrack similarly demanded, and unlike multiple color systems chosen after the fact, 3D is right there on the set, used directly by the makers in crafting their film. It's an intrinsic part of the final product, and while a 2D product may also be anticipated and endorsed by the makers, to subjugate the 3D version to that 2D version is to deny today's audience a part of the experience designed for the film by the makers as they made it.
Or maybe I'm just full of bunk. But I think the above is valid, and I just won't buy anything made in 3D until it's offered in 3D. I may make an exception for House of Wax that I might own Mystery of the Wax Museum, but I haven't quite decided yet.
I do recall watching Creature From the Black Lagoon on Creature Features 20 or more years ago and it was shown in 3-D on TV. Looked pretty blurry too!The anaglyph 3-D conversions for TV were simply horrible. They in no way represent the stereoscopic originals.