Between the lines: the agendas behind recent releases

Shrek Forever After shows why 3D won't save cinema

The big screen needs drama, humour and heart, not a technological quick-fix
Shrek Forever After
That sinking feeling … Shrek Forever After

Long, long ago, when Avatar hype was at its zenith, the future of cinema seemed clear. More modish media were making the movies look old hat. Ever-bigger HD home flatscreens seemed set to empty the plexes. Pirates were threatening the industry's revenues. Yet the picturehouse would rout these foes. It had found a killer weapon that could crush them all: 3D.

  1. Shrek Forever After
  2. Production year: 2010
  3. Country: USA
  4. Cert (UK): U
  5. Runtime: 93 mins
  6. Directors: Mike Mitchell
  7. Cast: Amy Sedaris, Antonio Banderas, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy, Eric Idle, John Cleese, Julie Andrews, Justin Timberlake, Maya Rudolph, Mike Myers, Walt Dohrn
  8. More on this film

So far, it's looked as if this might be true. People have flocked to this year's scad of stereoscopic sensations, in spite of the hefty ticket-price premium they've commanded. Across the world, Avatar alone took nearly £2bn. In Britain, only 40% of that film's screenings were in 3D , but these yielded 80% of the take, so thoroughly was the 2D version spurned. Almost as striking in its way was the success of StreetDance 3D, a £5m Britflick that elbowed aside big-budget 2D dinosaurs like Robin Hood and Prince of Persia to top the UK box office chart.

Understandably, producers, distributors and exhibitors are making hay. This year, Hollywood will deliver over 30 big-budget 3D films, compared with a mere handful in 2009, even though 3D shooting can inflate production costs by as much as a third. Britain's screens, of which only one in six can currently handle 3D, are now being hastily and expensively adapted. In the wake of the conversion of Toy Story 2, studios are looking at possible 3D makeovers for other superannuated blockbusters, like Titanic, Star Wars and Terminator 2.

However, we've been here before. In the 1950s, 3D was wheeled out to upstage television, the industry bogy of that era. A craze ensued, but in three or four years it had petered out. This time, things are supposed to be different because the technology's better. Yet we still have to put up with those annoying goggles and "vergence accommodation conflict", which can give cinemagoers headaches, nausea, eye strain or blurred vision.

Figures as illustrious as Roger Ebert and even Mark Kermode have given 3D the thumbs down on aesthetic grounds. Yet stereophiles usually dismiss such naysayers as old fogies, resistant to any kind of change. So, as the initial commotion dies down, this seems a good moment for a detached assessment of what 3D really has to offer. Shrek Forever After presents itself as a suitable test case.

Unlike Avatar or How to Train your Dragon, this film can't justify its format with extravagant aerial conflict. On the other hand, it's not one of those retrofitted, pop-up-book cheapos such as Alice in Wonderland or Clash of the Titans. It's been made by a pre-eminent production-house in genuine top-of the-range stereoscopy to enhance the swan song of one of the most admired of franchises. So what does 3D do for it?

At my local Cineworld they had trouble getting the projection system to work, so I was able to compare the intended experience with an inadvertent 2D version. Blurry this may have been, but its much-enhanced brightness made the official product seem wan and under-powered.

The spectacles were irksome, isolating and 80p extra, but I didn't end up bilious or half-blind, perhaps partly because DreamWorks has shown the self-control (so rare nowadays) to limit this film's running-time to 93 minutes. The depth of field didn't seem too unnatural and it enabled a few wow moments.

What, though, of Ebert's claim that 3D can damage appreciation by distracting audiences from what it portrays? That didn't seem too much of a problem, but this was largely because, after a bit, I stopped noticing the 3D effect. It seemed to contribute nothing of real significance to the experience.

Doubtless 3D will continue to play a part, at least for a while, in films that depend on spectacle. Unfortunately, spectacle is a demanding mistress. She requires you to keep capping what you've already done with something yet more amazing. Perhaps the next big thing will therefore be 4D. Smell-O-Vision and Odorama have already been tried, as have vibrating seats, water sprays simulating rain and air-jets simulating wind. Sadly, they all flopped even more quickly than have previous incarnations of 3D.

I found Shrek Forever After both gripping and rewarding, but this wasn't because of its 3D wrapping. The film worked for me because of the appealing characters, disciplined storytelling, acute observation, wit, wisdom, warmth, intelligence, flair, charm and exuberance which the Shrek series has, on the whole, displayed, even though so many other recent films haven't. If cinema is to flourish, it's to these qualities that it must look, not to technological doohickey.

Today's best video

Latest reviews

More from Between the lines

David Cox on the hidden agendas of the latest releases