Scorsese and Herzog venture into 3D

Posted by · 7:52 am · April 14th, 2010

If you can’t fix it, you’ve got to stand it. And so it is, apparently, with me and 3D.

As I’ve written before, I’m not a big fan of Hollywood’s favorite rediscovered gimmick. As a gee-whiz novelty — expertly embellishing the odd genuine event film like “Avatar” — it works a treat. As a now-regular moviegoing ritual — awkwardly grafted onto dreary blockbusters like “Clash of the Titans” and “Alice in Wonderland,” making them even more invasive and exhausting than they need to be — it’s rapidly becoming an irritant. And until some genius fashions 3D glasses that can fit comfortably over an existing pair of spectacles, I’ll remain hostile.

Clearly, however, I’m going to have to find a way to love the third dimension, as it continues to seep outside the effects-driven blockbuster box, and even into the arthouse. The gentrification, if you will, of 3D took a forward leap this week with the news that both Martin Scorsese and Werner Herzog will be shooting their next projects in 3D.

While Herzog will be applying the technology to a documentary on France’s Chauvet Pont d’Arc Cave, an archaeological site containing the world’s oldest known cave paintings, Scorsese is taking a more mainstream leap, using 3D for his next feature, the children’s literary adaptation “The Invention of Hugo Cabret.”

Herzog’s project sounds about as apt a candidate for the technology as I can imagine; not being familiar with the bestselling source material for Scorsese’s film, I have no idea what possibilities this opens up. Given that his latest is, if nothing else, a supremely agile craft showcase, I trust the director has something a little more sophisticated in mind than hurling random objects in the direction of the audience.

Set in 1930s Paris, “Cabret” is apparently takes inspiration from the life and work of pioneering French filmmaker Georges Méliès — Ben Kingsley, fresh off “Shutter Island,” will star as Méliès himself. Perhaps, then, the use of 3D is an apt nod to an artist who would have been all over the technology himself. Still, to get me back in Scorsese’s corner, “The Invention of Hugo Cabret” will have to overturn my wariness of both 3D and worryingly ubiquitous child star Chloe Moretz. Nobody said it would be easy.




→ 15 Comments Tags: , , , , , , | Filed in: Daily

15 responses so far

  • 1 4-14-2010 at 8:55 am

    John said...

    All that 3D does is distract the audience and spoil the suspension of disbelief. Is it possible, when watching a film in 3D, to forget that you’re in a cinema and become absorbed in the story? Not to mention how the screen becomes tinted. I’d like to have a genie in a lamp to wish that Hollywood never makes another 3D movie, ever again.

  • 2 4-14-2010 at 9:09 am

    Speaking English said...

    ***Is it possible, when watching a film in 3D, to forget that you’re in a cinema and become absorbed in the story?***

    Are you kidding me? That’s exactly what 3D DOES do, and why “Avatar” was such a sensational success. That third dimension creates a depth and immersion that just can’t be paralleled.

  • 3 4-14-2010 at 9:34 am

    AmericanRequiem said...

    im really looking forward to this- but it has nothing to do with the 3d, thats for sure

  • 4 4-14-2010 at 10:10 am

    Marshall1 said...

    What creates a sense of depth and immersion are the writing and the characters, not the shallow tech aspect of it.

  • 5 4-14-2010 at 10:31 am

    Ben M. said...

    I think good 3D (don’t think Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans, or Up- the latter is a very good movie but does next to nothing with 3D- but rather Avatar, How to Train Your Dragon, and Hubble 3D) is an incredible experience that is starting to make me feel something is lacking when I see big spectacle films like Iron Man 2 and Inception being done in 2D.

    I’ve heard Scorsese praise the new 3D before and was predicting Cabaret would be in 3D but Herzog doing it is a surprise, still sounds like an interesting project and both directors are smart enough to actually shoot their films in 3D rather than go for quick and cheap conversions.

  • 6 4-14-2010 at 10:40 am

    James D. said...

    Well, I can always wait until the DVD and beat them at their game.

  • 7 4-14-2010 at 10:59 am

    Ben M. said...

    Or see them in 2D theatres, all these wide releases are also on plenty of 2D screens (often the majority of screens are 2D).

    Anyway while I’m a fan of 3D, I think at least a limited 2D release is a good idea for the people who don’t like or having problems seeing 3D even if 3D starts becoming the norm.

  • 8 4-14-2010 at 11:21 am

    Speaking English said...

    ***What creates a sense of depth and immersion are the writing and the characters, not the shallow tech aspect of it.***

    That’s fine, but I’m talking about aesthetics here. Visually and viscerally, 3D (when used correctly, as in “Avatar”) creates a sense of depth that immerses you in the film like no other.

  • 9 4-14-2010 at 11:48 am

    Al said...

    RIP Scorsese. You will be missed.

  • 10 4-14-2010 at 12:30 pm

    Chad Hartigan said...

    The only 3D film I plan on ever seeing, at the moment, is Jackass 3D

  • 11 4-14-2010 at 7:50 pm

    Maxim said...

    Herzog in 3d. Trully, the guy has discovered another dimension of suckage. There isn’t another director in the world who sucks more or repeats himself more than Herzog.

  • 12 4-14-2010 at 11:32 pm

    BurmaShave said...

    Little Troll Maxim Wants To Be Noticed.

  • 13 4-15-2010 at 5:58 am

    Glenn said...

    If Scorsese has to go 3D then 1930s Paris sure is an interesting way of going about it.

  • 14 4-15-2010 at 10:07 am

    Delmont said...

    I believe the tale is set around the turn of the century…

  • 15 4-18-2010 at 4:56 am

    He said, She said...

    1931 Paris, but there are references/flashbacks to turn of the century