Whenever this controversy stows itself away in the recesses of my memory, something happens to shake off the dust bunnies.  Today, Jeffrey Katzenberg released a statement explaining that film is inherently immersive, and that 3D makes it even more so.  His thesis is that 3D is the missing ingredient in every film experience, and that the public says as much with their dollars.  He goes on to say that in less than a decade, every film, in every genre or budget range or medium of exhibition, will be shot and viewed in 3D.

Now, I was told by numerous reporters that if I wanted to give 3D a chance to make it's case to me, the Robert Zemekis Beowulf was my best shot at being convinced.  While I liked the movie quite a bit, the layered aspect of the film was evident and distracting to me - especially because the layers of perspective changed shape as the characters moved.  To me, it looked like a pop-up book on acid.

This was a good print.  I didn't see any ghosting, for the most part.  I wasn't moved to motion sickness.  My issue was with the actual 3D effect itself.  Should every film be a pop-up book that won't stay still?  Compositionally, it messed with the shots.

Is a film a representation of life?  Here lies the real question.  Katzenberg says that because we see in three dimensions, we should watch movies in three dimensions.  What he's failing to account for is the screen.  We're watching a projection onto a screen, when we watch a film.  Screens are an inherent part of film presentation, and of the medium of cinema.  All the very best films embrace the limitation of the screen, in the same way that Shakespeare embraces iamabic pentameter.  When one makes a movie, one is working in a particular format, with particular tools.

When someone breaks those boundaries, it should be for a specific effect.  At that point, one is commenting on the nature of film.  Make it count.

When an artist simply disregards those boundaries, they disregard all the qualities that make movies great.

Yes, some artists paint beyond the canvas.  Some extend the canvas.  Some even do it exclusively because they can.  In those cases, the message is "Look what I can do!"

My question isn't whether that's a worthy message.  My question is whether it should be ubiquitous.

Cinema is a representation of life, yes.  By definition, cinema is what happens when you trap a life, or a bunch of lives, on a screen for a certain amount of time.

Do away with the screen, (or the amount of time,) and you're either defying cinema or creating something else.  In my opinion, the 3D hurts the screen, and the screen, as I previously observed, hurts the 3D.  Absolutely, 3D can be used to tease and comment on what cinema is.  At the same time, to truly move beyond the screen, you need to let it go.

Until we do that, I don't think 3D will be as ubiquitous as Mr. Katzenberg suggests.  Once we do that, we're not making movies anymore.

I think it's a grand vision.  In the meantime, filmmakers, please learn to love the screen.  That screen is where all the magic and the possibilities and the drama and the wonder lives, whenever the lights go out.

And don't worry about trying to close the gap between the screen and the audience.  If they're sitting in a theater, they've done that already.