Introduction
INTRODUCTION Looking at various newspapers, magazines and websites over the period 2004 to the present, it becomes apparent that our understanding of the reintroduction of stereoscopy (D3D) is anything but clear. There are disagreements among accounts of D3D regarding its artistic value, and its impact on the entertainment industry and audience. Over the 2004 to the present period, the digital screen period, I have seen D3D cast as an evolutionary step for the industry: ‘Why wouldn’t we want this Darwinian edge in our workplaces, in our sports and entertainment, in all our peak visual experiences?’ (Cameron in Cohen, 2008). I have seen it described as ‘the next great revolution’ of cinema (Giles & Katzenberg, 2010, p. 10) and as a facilitator of art, one that could aid the audience to enter the realm of the on-screen performer (Wenders in James, 2011, p. 22). I have also seen it described as artistically limited, with claims, such as, director, Werner Herzog’s ‘[that] you can shoot a porno film in 3D, but you cannot film a romantic comedy in 3D’ (Herzog in Wigley, 2011, p. 29). Newspaper headlines have described it as a health concern: ‘3D film strikes two movie-goers with bout of motion sickness’ (Helliwell, 2010, p. 2).2 As well, I have seen arguments expounding the idea that stereoscopy’s reintroduction is simply evidence that the popular film industry lacks ideas. For example, popular film critic, Roger Ebert, has argued that D3D was just ‘[a]nother Hollywood infatuation with a technology that was already pointless when their grandfathers played with stereoscopes’ (Ebert, 2010a).
[Show full text]