Manopause: 3D and HiDef

I live in reality. Granted, what is my reality could be very different from yours. In mine, for instance, Mariah Carey is a spiritual deity to whom I pray every night as she belts a high D# and makes the mutt in the apartment next to mine whimper. To some, my stating this would be considered blasphemy, to which I inquire: What psyche ward are you staying in? Does it have white padded walls, or grey? But I digress...

Reality is fickle. We all live in some form of it; have different views of it; and some even enjoy spending their days waxing poetically about what the truth surrounding its many incarnations is. (And to these brilliant souls, I bellow: Shut up you dirty Kants!) The point is this is life. We live. We breathe. We love. We hate. And a lot of the time we just want to forget about it all and be carried away, forgetting our stresses and woes and live somewhere else for an hour and forty seven minutes.

Movies - or I suppose I should say films lest I incur the ire of the purists out there - provide us with that oh-so-necessary escape. Whether in a theatre surrounded by dozens of strangers, or at home scrunched up on your favourite worn-down couch, these snippets of lives not our own can transport us away from the everyday and let our imaginations run rampant. I have had quite an issue with the world of features as of late, however, because the upward trend in 3D and HiDef filmmaking have ignited an era where plots are secondary, acting is third on the list, and graphical stimulation takes prominence.

I don't care for high definition. I don't hate it, but it just doesn't really do anything for me. In fact, it almost detracts from a film's experience. I have been conditioned to watch a movie from a hazed lens, letting the actors and story twists be central focus. I don't care how "real" transforming robots look, because I know it's a falsified reality and that's what keeps me coming back for more. But when you can almost smell the sweat of a burly firefighter because the intricate detail of the droplets on his brow trick you into thinking you can, I become uncomfortable.

The same goes for those films released in 3D. To me, this gimmick is unnecessary. Take Avatar, for instance. Looks cool on the big screen, sure, but watch it at home on your old TV or a laptop and you might notice something: The plot blows and the acting is terrible. But this didn't seem to be an issue during its tenure at the cineplex. No, all I heard was how amazing Avatar was, but, I never really heard anything about the story. It was all hype surrounding the production. Does an over-produced, under-written film have more merit than a cheap indie with a hell of a lot of heart? In my humble opinion, it doesn't.

If a film would fall flat without its graphic elements then it's not a good film. How can filmmakers justify negating plot and talent in favour of producing simply the awe factor? Movies can be great with just a sprinkling of visual wow and a whole lot of personality. Take the original Star Wars series. Lucas created a fantastic franchise where the story was paramount, and while the graphics, which still stand strong to this day, were important for the films' successes, what made the series was the heroic journey of Luke, Han, and Leia. When the films were rereleased 20 years later with added CGI effects, they just weren't as captivating. Their magic was lost, hidden in the excess.

I'm apprehensive towards the future of the film industry. I relish losing myself in the stories and characters, not the effects and hoopla. I won't wear 3D glasses at the theatre. If a film can't stand on its own two feet then I have no use for it. And that, my friends, is my reality.

Image courtesy Creative Commons.