Jeffrey Katzenberg: Still the Harold Hill of 3-D

Ever since I weighed in a week ago on Jeffrey Katzenberg's grand pronouncement that someday soon all movies will be in 3-D (whether we want them to be or not), I've been deluged with an incredible array of impassioned and intelligent commentary on the subject from people far more learned on the subject than myself. But where is Jeffrey? He hasn't returned my calls for years, but that shouldn't stop him from writing a response to my critique.

As it turns out, he actually did write a response that his people sent along to my editors late last week. But alas, the response came with a series of non-negotiable demands, notably that The Times must run his response on the front page of the Calendar section, above the fold--i.e., in the same prominent position that my column originally ran. Although my editors assured him that no one, no matter how much of a Hollywood big shot, had ever dictated that their letter be run on the front page--in other words, not even Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey's old partner Steven Spielberg or the late Charlton Heston, who set the modern record for most letters-to-the-editor by a famous actor--Jeffrey took his marbles and went home.

I'm not allowed to run the letter or quote directly from it, but I will say it was awfully cute, in a sitcomish way--sort of like most of the dialogue in "Shrek 3," with Jeffrey joking that he doesn't have either Harold Hill's charisma or thick head of hair. He said he'd be willing to accept his inner Harold Hill if I'd admit that I was a Luddite when it came to technological change. I'd be eager to debate Jeffrey on the subject any time he wants, but until then, I'm happy to encourage more of my readers to weigh in with their own thoughts on the subject. On Friday, I gave time to Jim Miller, a big 3-D proponent who made an articulate defense of the new medium.

Today, I'm going to turn the mike over Rob Hummel, president of the Digital Cinema division of DALSA, a leading manufacturer of digital imaging components and Machine Vision cameras. Rob has a long resume, having overseen the restoration of "Gone With the Wind" and "The Wizard of Oz," served as a senior technology executive at Warners and head of animation technology at DreamWorks. He's not so sure the 3-D boomlet will lead to great movies.

But keep reading--I'll let him speak for himself:

"It's hard enough to do a movie where you can make the story work," Rob told me. "But if you do a movie in 3-D, then you're adding a large new set of technical concerns that weren't there before. Your eyes can't keep up with all the rapidly changing depth cues. It makes it especially harder to do fast-cutting. I know Jim Cameron disagrees with me. He says he isn't having to cut 'Avatar' any differently, but I think it adds another layer of difficulty to the filmmaking process.

"You have to remember that this is still a visual medium. But in 2-D, you're dealing with composing your shot. In 3-D, you have to worry about where every object falls in the visual plane. The big problem is that you can't see the depth cues beyond about 15 feet, so you're really having to use a gimmick to create all these depth cues that your brain doesn't see in real life. I mean, go outside--if you look at the night sky, you don't see the stars in 3-D. And 3-D isn't real life. It doesn't look like reality. It mimics reality, but it doesn't look at all like reality. 

"People are always looking for the magic bullet that will make successful movies, that will generate more box office. But that comes from great storytelling. If 'The Dark Knight' had come out in 3-D, I bet everyone would say that it was a huge hit because it was in 3-D. But it was a success because Chris Nolan told a compelling story. My background is in visual technology, but story trumps technology and everything else every day of the week."

Photo of Jeffrey Katzenberg by Fredrick M. Brown / Getty Images

Comments

[Ed Meyer]

Patrick - Isn't it clear that Jeffrey Katzenberg is just self-promoting. Katzenberg has appointed himself to be the spokesman for Digital 3-D, however, it must be known that he is not speaking for the multitudes of us in Hollywood, who are producing the upcoming 3-D films.

[Arye Michael Bender]

If we are ever to grow, we need visionaries.

Visionaries, like Mr. Katzenberg, expand the envelope to an extreme, so that the rest of us may redefine the middle ground.

Here the middle-ground means fine pictures making the best possible use of an added dimension.

- Arye (Leslie) Michael Bender

[Timber]

My favorite films of all time are "The Maltese Falcon" and "The Big Sleep" (like many immigrants, I worship the ghosts of Chandler, Hammett and Faulkner). Both are excellent stories, brilliantly realized, and neither is in color, widescreen, or surround sound.

And both of them would look amazing in 3D. The best 3D film never made is assuredly "Citizen Kane", so perfectly designed for the medium was it. One might ask, are there any films NOT suitable for 3D? At first blush, something like "My Dinner With Andre" would be a prime example, but on reflection, that's entirely wrong. I think it would be much improved.

What comes to mind as examples of truly poor candidates would be animated films which depend on flatness or spatial ambiguity, the classic UPA style or "Peanuts" cartoons, or films over-reliant on camera lens distortions for their effect, especially extreme fisheye curvature or telephoto foreshortening, but also including to a degree common techniques like selective focus.

Scorcese's recent "Shine A Light" might end up five songs too long instead of the current three (excessively claustrophobic editing was evidently forced by focus problems on the Arri 765 taking the master shot). But jokes aside, 3D only brings one thing to a film; spatial clarity. A heightened sense of which either works to the film's advantage or it doesn't.

With all due respect to Mr. Hummel, there's nothing in his resume to indicate that he should be particularly knowledgeable about 3D, or anything in his comments to suggest that he has ever dealt with it professionally, other than to argue his preconception of impracticality with Mr. Cameron, whose notion of tying convergence to focus I might quibble with, but who is in fact an experienced practitioner, not an armchair general.

And one of Mr. Hummel's statements, that gimmicks are used to increase the sense of depth in the far background, is only relevant to 2D to 3D conversion; one cannot shoot multiple stereo spaces simultaneously any more than one can focus on multiple disparate objects.

As for whether current 3D photography looks like real life, well, I hate to break it to a guy who rents cameras for a living, but that's the nature of photography generally. Cameras may not "lie", but all refractive lenses distort. Perhaps he'd like to provide pinhole diffraction lenses in PL mount?

But he is right on one count, that there's no guarantee that any of the recent crop of commercial cinema 3D releases will be any good, but that's partly a function of budget and expectations.

With only a thousand theaters and no home entertainment revenue stream, it's hard to justify a significant outlay even for a mixed 2D and 3D release, and 3D-only releases are close to impossible. Which explains the second-string character of many upcoming 3D releases. And quality of storytelling is and always will be a problem at every level of the movie business, regardless of any other attributes.

But if it's a good story, does that mean one doesn't need to shoot in color, or use surround sound? Are they a wasted or superfluous effort? Frankly, I think it's a ridiculous argument similar to the idea that we shouldn't have a space program while the poor still exist. Technical improvements to the medium are necessary on an ongoing basis. Not every film will or should use all the technology available to it, and some will inevitably go overboard.

With the blinding level of hype which has accompanied the recent 3D "boomlet", we who've been in the field for the long haul have been bracing for the inevitable backlash, when the critics realize that 3D doesn't make them breakfast every morning. I guess it begins here.

BTW, there is an easy test for which subjects aren't improved by 3D. Look at the scene, close one eye and see if it's better that way.

[Dan]

Timber, did you also argue that colorization was a good idea? It doesn't matter if the movie would "look good" in 3D. What matters is that the film was not shot for that format, and that's what this is: a new format. Trying to force old films into a new format because it's new is pointless and it's an insult to the legacy of filmmakers who are no longer here to offer their thoughts.

[hogarth]

Mr. Hummel is correct that "gimmicks" ARE used to enhance the sense of depth. That is, the effective ocular separation of the lens elements is increased. This creates spatial distortion that gives the effect of increased depth. It is a "gimmick", in the sense that we cannot do this with our eyes - only the taking lenses of a 3D rig can do this.

3D is wearing on the viewer, who must wear special glasses to keep the two images separate. Even with circular polarization, there is still ghosting to contend with; despite the tricks employed in the ReelD system to create "anti-ghosts", it is still apparent in many scenes.

There have been very few movies made in 3D that weren't just as good viewed as "flatties". I challenge anyone to name more of them than can be counted on the fingers of one hand. "Kiss Me Kate" is probably the only 3D movie made to date that truly MUST be seen in 3D to fully appreciate.

2D allows the moviemaker much more latitude to tell his story than 3D, paradoxically, since the restrictions of 3D prevent the use of many effects we have come to think of as the visual lexicon of cinema.

[Timber]

I'm on the fence with colorization. I haven't seen it look much better than the hand-tinting that used to be done many years ago to individual B&W prints, but I keep thinking that better must be possible. As to respecting the filmmaker's intent, well, until the ownership structure of filmmaking changes or judges favor droit d'auteur, Directors and DoP's are not going to be the ones determining what happens to a film in its afterlife.

One could just as easily make the argument that transferring older films to video or television of any type, from broadcast to DVD to Blu-Ray, let alone editing to fit a time slot, breaking them up with commercials or making "full-screen" 1.33 versions of 'Scope features, is a grosser violation of the original intent, which was 35mm film projection in a darkened theater at the correct aspect ratio. And where's the outrage over that?

I say, get over it. And while I personally would like to see more 3D conversion of older films, it's as unlikely an event as new unaltered 35mm prints being struck of "It's a Gift" (fondly remembering Charles Sellon, Morgan Wallace and Elwood Dunk's fine work in that film).

There's very little actual 3D conversion of ANY films going on, despite the tsunami of hype that has broken over 3D generally. "G-Force" over at Sony Imageworks being an exception, and perhaps "Dawn of the Dead" at In-Three. Which is strange, because the economics aren't that bad - between $5m to $15m for a typical feature end to end, depending mostly on whether you ask a small independent company or a large multi-national.

I have to believe that considering the 3D per-screen average multiple, studios can make money on less than 1000 screens on a tentpole film with that outlay, in a mixed but predominantly 2D release as has successfully been done with animation. The fact is, 3D is something producers like to talk a lot about, but not actually do anything with, Mr. Katzenberg notably aside. But again, animation is different.

And BTW, no-one's being forced to either produce or buy tickets to a 3D film, and the numbers of actual 3D projects being made are only a drop in the ocean of 2D films, hardly a threat to the status quo.

Trivia question: one film entirely converted from 2D to 3D and one partially converted are both currently playing back-to-back in Los Angeles. What are their titles?

[Timber]

BTW, some comments betray a lack of understanding of 3D processes. Here's a link to a free author-approved PDF download of Lenny Lipton's "Foundations of the Stereoscopic Cinema":

http://www.stereoscopic.org/library/index.html

Lenny is among other hats the Chief Technology Officer of Real-D, the dominant supplier of digital stereo projection equipment.

[Jim Krisvoy]

Look, a good or great 3D film is just that, when all of the elements click. In the 50's, this didnt necessarily happen often enough because the production equipment and projection could be cumbersome to varying degrees and interfere with quality in both production and presentation. The early 80's were worse off, because the filmakers seemed to be at constant odds with the equipment and scripts they had to work with; and of course, the technical limitations of single strip 35mm 3D in exhibition didnt help matters at all.

Now, producers and exhibitors have at their almost immediate disposal the technical resources available to make better 3D films more often. The combination of elements do hold true to make any film a good or great one, or at the very least compelling enough to entertain an audience. While the play is always going to be the thing, aesthetics do play a key role these days in how a film is received by an audience. Presentation technology to show it is now state of the art and available in a few configurations to exhibitors.

If the films hold up, so will 3D this time around.

[Ed Mazza]

As many have stated, 3D offers new challenges to movie making. Through technology, trial and error, these challenges can be overcome. As with each new change to the visual medium, there comes a learning curve. We moved from silent to sound. We moved from black and white to color. The next step is logically 3D. It won't be forced. It will just come.

After working previsously as Marketing Director at Opticality Corp. (now NewSight, formerly X3D), I have been extremely interested in 3D. With recent technology trends such as digital television, increased bandwidth to the home, Spielberg filing a patent on large screen (movie theater size) 3D without glasses, Philips, NewSight, Alioscopy and many others developing 3D screens (without glasses), 3D is moving forward, . Jeffrey Katzenberg won't tell us when. However, he is right. It will come and it won't be overnight. To the theater and to the home. Demand will dictate.