Jack Theakston Clears Up Some Myths (1 Viewer)

[Richard--W]

Alright Mike, if it pleases you, it ain't necessarily so.

 

And AVATAR claimed to be the first film to use subtle, restrained 3-D!

 

Yeah, and the good folks behind these new digital 3-D systems are making false claims about the photochemical / double-interlock era and rewriting the history of stereoscopic films to push their own proprietary systems. So, what else is new.

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by Richard--W


Fake it?

What do you mean, fake it?

That was real 3-D in the 1950s and a close approximation to how human beings see (two eyes like two cameras or two projectors, one on each side of the face, so to speak).

 

3-D goes back to the earliest days of photography.

Get hold of some stereoviews from the Civil War from 150 years ago.

Look at Viewmaster slides which began in 1938.

Once upon a time, every home in America had a box of 3-D stereoviews and Viewmaster slides.

Today they are mostly found on ebay and in museums; a regression.

Stereoscopic films operate on the same basic optical principle as stereoscopic photography.

It was a short step from 3-D photos and slides to 3-D films, and it is all real 3-D, not "fake."

 

There are two excellent histories of stereoscopic films. R.M. Hayes pioneered the topic with 3-D Movies: A History and Filmography of Stereoscopic Cinema published by McFarland. An informative study, although it needs revision and reformatting:

 

http://www.amazon.com/3-D-Movies-Filmography-Stereoscopic-McFarland/dp/0786405783/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a

 

Ray Zone updates the research and compliments Hayes with Stereoscopic Cinema and the Origins of 3-D Film, 1838-1952, his second book on stereoscopic films, which I enthusiastically recommend:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Stereoscopic-Cinema-Origins-Film-1838-1952/dp/0813124611/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

I know about the real 3-D movies using the polarized system and interlocked projectors. I even saw it at the 3-D Film Festival in Hollywood. That's why I was flabbergasted by the idea that my friend, who claims to be knowledgeable about movies, claimed that anyone would ever have, or could have, capitalized on the craze for real 3-D movies in the 1950s by making fake 3-D movies out of 2-D ones.

 

[Richard--W]

Oh, you mean converting 2-d (lower case, please) films to 3-D films? No that didn't start in the 1950s. It started recently, in the digital age. Flat films in the public domain -- including some prints of Night of the Living Dead (1968) -- have been converted, yes. And they look as crappy as you would expect. Conversions will always be problematic because stereoscopic films are staged, designed, and shot differently from flat films. But it's being done on new productions now as well. Big mistake.

 

Sorry I misunderstood you.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I'm told that some outfit in New Zealand is taking flat copies of movies made in 3-D and converting them by placing two flat images within a stereo window. Of course, they don't say that on their website and I imagine more than one person has been disappointed with their 3-D DVD of JIVARO or MONEY FROM HOME.

 

When released, SADIE was considered pretty racy stuff. In fact, there was a heated battle with the Memphis film censor who refused to allow the film to be screened in that city!

 

[Richard--W]

Well, that's Memphis for you. Always over-reacting. They didn't like Elvis doing the shimmy-shimmy-shake at the county fair, either. Maybe it was the screaming that frightened them, the sound and sight of their wives and daughters losing control. Compared to Elvis, Rita is tame. She doesn't do anything except fill a tight dress, sing a suggestive song, dance a little, and pal around with the sailors. I guess those Memphis folk just lost their heads over Rita's red hair and voluptuous figure. The pre-code version with Joan Crawford showed some skin and was less guarded in referencing prostitution and depicting sexual adventuring. I like the fact that Miss Sadie Thompson takes its drama seriously, but it's a thin adaptation and too watered down compared to previous versions. I mean, it's even tame compared to other popular soap operas of the 1950s. It' still a good film, however, passionately acted, beautifully composed and expertly shot in depth.

 

Isn't that right, Jack?

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Oh, you mean converting 2-d (lower case, please) films to 3-D films? No that didn't start in the 1950s. It started recently, in the digital age. Flat films in the public domain -- including some prints of Night of the Living Dead (1968) -- have been converted, yes. And they look as crappy as you would expect. Conversions will always be problematic because stereoscopic films are staged, designed, and shot differently from flat films. But it's being done on new productions now as well. Big mistake.

 

Sorry I misunderstood you.

No problem, but thanks for clearing it up. I know about the conversions now, and even with some of the "real" 3-D, it doesn't always work. I think it added little to Toy Story 3 because so many of the shots have a shallow depth of field. Ironically, the 3-D versions of parts 1 and 2 had more effective (but subtle) 3-D.

 

[Jack Theakston]

SADIE is certainly one of the best of the '50s titles and not worth missing.

 

Shooting in 3D is always walking a tightrope of too many gimmicks and not enough (people will complain either way). If you look at the gimmick shots in something such as CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, for example, they work seamlessly in the context they're placed (such as the native throwing a lamp a the Creature's POV shot).