Oscar-Winning Editor Walter Murch on Why 3D Stinks

Oscar-Winning Editor Walter Murch on Why 3D Stinks (photo)

Posted by on

Walter Murch is no dummy. The man edited “Apocalypse Now.” He edited the sounds of “The Conversation.” He made maybe the scariest kids film of all time. On the subject of movies, this guy knows what he’s talking about. In a letter written to Roger Ebert and published on his blog, Murch explains why he believes 3D filmmaking is a creative dead-end. He worked in 3D while editing the theme park attraction “Captain EO” in the 1980s and has observed its return to prominence with concern. Here is part of his explanation why (read the full letter at RogerEbert.com):

“The deeper problem [with 3D] is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen — say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what. But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.

We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn’t. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the “CPU” of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches…consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to “get” what the space of each shot is and adjust.”

This letter is brief but damning. I would love to hear what a devout 3D convert like “Avatar” director James Cameron might say in response. Ebert, who has written extensively on the subject of (and his perceived inferiority of )3D claims it closes the discussion on the format forever.

Murch’s fundamental argument is that human beings are ill-equipped to handle the neurological strain of 3D movies. Essentially, 3D works on our minds the way alcohol works on our livers: by upsetting our normal anatomical functions. And as with alcohol consumption, the results vary: some find it pleasurable, others disorienting. Either way, you’ll probably wind up with a headache at the end.

As someone who still enjoys a cheap 3D gag (and the occasional glass of scotch), I still finds something intriguing about 3D. I read Murch’s superb analysis and see an opportunity. I’ve spoken in the past with members of the New York Stereoscopic Society and USC’s Entertainment Technology Center. These men understand three-dimensional filmmaking as well. They talk about the language of 3D filmmaking and how that language is different than the language of 2D filmmaking. They believe that language is still being written.

Murch is certainly right that 3D films work on brains differently than 2D films. And perhaps they do create some perceptual roadblocks for viewers. But couldn’t a smart and enterprising filmmaker use those roadblocks to his advantage in the same way that Steven Spielberg turned production roadblocks on “Jaws” to his advantage? The shark doesn’t work, you make a movie where you’re forever waiting for the shark to strike. If 3D cinematography disorients us, why not use it to tell a story about disorientation?

What I think Murch’s letter does explain conclusively is why movies shot in traditional 2D and then converted in post-production to 3D for exhibition do not and will not ever work. At this point, most of these films — like “Clash of the Titans,” “The Last Airbender,” or the recent “Green Hornet” — do not even offer much of a 3D effect. Essentially in these cases, you’re paying several dollars extra for the “privilege” of watching a blurry movies with glasses that bring the image into focus. In the case of “The Green Hornet,” the post converted 3D didn’t great a true three-dimensional effect, it simply turned the film into a series of 2D planes, flat actors at a remove from a flat background. In its worst moments, the movie looked like a projected celluloid diorama.

But even if the post-conversation process improved on a technical level these films still wouldn’t work because of the physiological processing differences between 2D and 3D that Murch explains. So if 3D has any hope of emerging as a legitimate artform, these fake 3D films have to die, or audience’s interest in 3D will dry up long before the medium’s true potential can be explored. If you don’t believe that, you’d have to be a dummy.

Watch More

Bro and Tell

BFFs And Night Court For Sports

Bromance and Comeuppance On Two New Comedy Crib Series

Posted by on

“Silicon Valley meets Girls meets black male educators with lots of unrealized potential.”

That’s how Carl Foreman Jr. and Anthony Gaskins categorize their new series Frank and Lamar which joins Joe Schiappa’s Sport Court in the latest wave of new series available now on IFC’s Comedy Crib. To better acquaint you with the newbies, we went right to the creators for their candid POVs. And they did not disappoint. Here are snippets of their interviews:

Frank and Lamar


IFC: How would you describe Frank and Lamar to a fancy network executive you met in an elevator?
Carl: Best bros from college live and work together teaching at a fancy Manhattan private school, valiantly trying to transition into a more mature phase of personal and professional life while clinging to their boyish ways.

IFC: And to a friend of a friend you met in a bar?
Carl: The same way, slightly less coherent.

Anthony: I’d probably speak about it with much louder volume, due to the bar which would probably be playing the new Kendrick Lamar album. I might also include additional jokes about Carl, or unrelated political tangents.

Carl: He really delights in randomly slandering me for no reason. I get him back though. Our rapport on the page, screen, and in real life, comes out of a lot of that back and forth.

IFC: In what way is Frank and Lamar a poignant series for this moment in time?
Carl: It tells a story I feel most people aren’t familiar with, having young black males teach in a very affluent white world, while never making it expressly about that either. Then in tackling their personal lives, we see these three-dimensional guys navigate a pivotal moment in time from a perspective I feel mainstream audiences tend not to see portrayed.

Anthony: I feel like Frank and Lamar continues to push the envelope within the genre by presenting interesting and non stereotypical content about people of color. The fact that this show brought together so many talented creative people, from the cast and crew to the producers, who believe in the project, makes the work that much more intentional and truthful. I also think it’s pretty incredible that we got to employ many of our friends!

Sport Court

Sport Court gavel

IFC: How would you describe Sport Court to a fancy network executive you met in an elevator?
Joe: SPORT COURT follows Judge David Linda, a circuit court judge assigned to handle an ad hoc courtroom put together to prosecute rowdy fan behavior in the basement of the Hartford Ultradome. Think an updated Night Court.

IFC: How would you describe Sport Court to drunk friend of a friend you met in a bar?
Joe: Remember when you put those firecrackers down that guy’s pants at the baseball game? It’s about a judge who works in a court in the stadium that puts you in jail right then and there. I know, you actually did spend the night in jail, but imagine you went to court right that second and didn’t have to get your brother to take off work from GameStop to take you to your hearing.

IFC: Is there a method to your madness when coming up with sports fan faux pas?
Joe: I just think of the worst things that would ruin a sporting event for everyone. Peeing in the slushy machine in open view of a crowd seemed like a good one.

IFC: Honestly now, how many of the fan transgressions are things you’ve done or thought about doing?
Joe: I’ve thought about ripping out a whole row of chairs at a theater or stadium, so I would have my own private space. I like to think of that really whenever I have to sit crammed next to lots of people. Imagine the leg room!

Check out the full seasons of Frank and Lamar and Sport Court now on IFC’s Comedy Crib.

Watch More

Millennial Wisdom

Charles Speaks For Us All

Get to know Charles, the social media whiz of Brockmire.

Posted by on

He may be an unlikely radio producer Brockmire, but Charles is #1 when it comes to delivering quips that tie a nice little bow on the absurdity of any given situation.

Charles also perfectly captures the jaded outlook of Millennials. Or at least Millennials as mythologized by marketers and news idiots. You know who you are.

Played superbly by Tyrel Jackson Williams, Charles’s quippy nuggets target just about any subject matter, from entry-level jobs in social media (“I plan on getting some experience here, then moving to New York to finally start my life.”) to the ramifications of fictional celebrity hookups (“Drake and Taylor Swift are dating! Albums y’all!”). But where he really nails the whole Millennial POV thing is when he comments on America’s second favorite past-time after type II diabetes: baseball.

Here are a few pearls.

On Baseball’s Lasting Cultural Relevance

“Baseball’s one of those old-timey things you don’t need anymore. Like cursive. Or email.”

On The Dramatic Value Of Double-Headers

“The only thing dumber than playing two boring-ass baseball games in one day is putting a two-hour delay between the boring-ass games.”

On Sartorial Tradition

“Is dressing badly just a thing for baseball, because that would explain his jacket.”

On Baseball, In A Nutshell

“Baseball is a f-cked up sport, and I want you to know it.”

Learn more about Charles in the behind-the-scenes video below.

And if you were born before the late ’80s and want to know what the kids think about Baseball, watch Brockmire Wednesdays at 10P on IFC.

Watch More

Crown Jules

Amanda Peet FTW on Brockmire

Amanda Peet brings it on Brockmire Wednesday at 10P on IFC.

Posted by on
GIFS via Giphy

On Brockmire, Jules is the unexpected yin to Jim Brockmire’s yang. Which is saying a lot, because Brockmire’s yang is way out there. Played by Amanda Peet, Jules is hard-drinking, truth-spewing, baseball-loving…everything Brockmire is, and perhaps what he never expected to encounter in another human.

“We’re the same level of functional alcoholic.”

But Jules takes that commonality and transforms it into something special: a new beginning. A new beginning for failing minor league baseball team “The Frackers”, who suddenly about-face into a winning streak; and a new beginning for Brockmire, whose life gets a jumpstart when Jules lures him back to baseball. As for herself, her unexpected connection with Brockmire gives her own life a surprising and much needed goose.

“You’re a Goddamn Disaster and you’re starting To look good to me.”

This palpable dynamic adds depth and complexity to the narrative and pushes the series far beyond expected comedy. See for yourself in this behind-the-scenes video (and brace yourself for a unforgettable description of Brockmire’s genitals)…

Want more about Amanda Peet? She’s all over the place, and has even penned a recent self-reflective piece in the New York Times.

And of course you can watch the Jim-Jules relationship hysterically unfold in new episodes of Brockmire, every Wednesday at 10PM on IFC.

Watch More
Powered by ZergNet