I just got home after seeing Avatar with my son. Was it the best film I’ve ever seen? No. The 3D was annoying. 3D movies have to have everything in focus to work. The viewer’s eyes change focus as they look from object to object, person to person. In the case of Avatar, 3D was clearly an after thought. The scenes devoid of computer magic were shot like any other movie – which means focus shifts within shots. Close things are clear, the background is blurry, unless it comes into focus because someone enters the room, or for some other reason. This soft and sharp focus happens because it takes a whole lot light – which cost money – and special lenses – which cost even more money – to keep everything in a shot in focus. Orson Wells did it in Citizen Kane. In a very famous scene Charlie Kane was typing in the foreground – his form totally in sharp focus; in the background – far off in the distance – Hezekiah enters through a door, and he is in sharp focus, and stays in focus as he walk forward towards the camera. But Wells did it using a split screen. He shot himself typing using perfect light and sharp focus. Then he shot Joseph Cotton walking towards the camara. Then he joined both pieces of footage to make it look like it was happening in one shot. My point is that perfect focus is very difficult and expensive to do. But you have to have it for 3d to work. Because everything in Avatar wasn’t in perfect focus, the 3D was annoying. It worked well with the CGI stuff, and that is what made the movie special, and worth seeing again. Was it the best movie ever made? No. Will it change the way movies are made? Not likely. Was the story original? No, but it was a story worth telling and wonderful to watch being told in such spectacular fashion. I am definitely going to see it again, but when I do I am going to see it in 2D.
No comments:
Post a Comment