OSC muses about Thor, rips 3D

http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2011-05-12.shtml

> At first glance, the reason why the comic book movie *Thor* works so well
> might seem to be the superb casting. When you have gods in a movie, the
> silliness factor jumps exponentially, and the fact that we aren't laughing
> at the dialogue could easily be due to the talent of Anthony Hopkins as Odin
> and Rene Russo as Frigga.
>
> But in this case, it is also due to the script, which takes the absurd
> premise and turns it into something that actually approaches epic. The key
> is that instead of pontificating gods, above the realm of human
> understanding, these characters are portrayed as a family of powerful people
> with really cool toys -- and instead of being mythic, the universe is
> science fictional, so that a faint whiff of believability is maintained.
>
> Thor is heir to the throne, but, like many a royal heir in history, he's
> just a little too eager to take control and run things his way. The result
> is that he provokes a war with an ancient enemy (the frost giants) and is
> exiled to Earth, along with his hammer (you know, the thing that makes
> thunder and lightning). The trouble is that along with the hammer comes a
> curse -- no one can wield the hammer except Odin's "worthy" successor.
>
> Meanwhile, Thor's younger brother, Loki, the trickster of Norse mythology,
> is working through plots within plots, none of which make sense but all of
> which serve to complicate the storyline.
>
> Loki is able to get around rules that everyone else -- including Odin and
> Thor -- seem to be bound by, which makes the story seem arbitrary (anything
> can happen, so you begin to lose interest in what actually does happen); but
> compensating for this deep flaw in the storytelling is the pretty good
> acting of Chris Hemsworth as Thor and Tom Hiddleston as Loki.
>
> Oh, yeah -- when Thor comes to Earth he meets formulaic Americans (what if
> he had landed in Nigeria or Samoa? Oh, but that never happens in comic
> books, does it; intergalactic heroes are drawn to America like tornados to
> trailer parks) whose actions amount to nothing -- they are there to be
> kissed and/or saved.
>
> It's a comic book, and we should be pleased that it moves quickly and
> entertains us while we eat stale popcorn for a couple of hours. It does not
> come close to rising to the level of *Spider-Man* or *Iron Man* or *Batman
> Begins*, but it manages not to be embarrassing, which is actually quite an
> achievement, given the silliness of the original material.
>
> By accident, I watched it in 3D. (Both the 7:00 and 7:30 showings were 3D
> and we didn't want to wait around till 8:20 for the 2D.) The glasses were as
> heavy and annoying as usual, but I must commend director Kenneth Branagh for
> *not* beating us over the head with the 3D. That is, we didn't get a lot
> of fake-looking effects thrown at us; the 3D was part of the storytelling.
>
> However, 3D directors have not yet learned that 3D turns film directing
> into something closer to stage directing. In 2D film directing, focus serves
> to force the audience to look where the director wants them to look; items
> and people in front of or behind the focal point are blurry.
>
> But with 3D, everything is in focus. So if you have something or someone
> closer to the audience than the person who is talking, they will steal the
> audience's attention. For instance, my 17-year-old pointed out an annoying
> sequence where Odin's ornate staff is right in our faces. The staff isn't
> important in the scene, but because it's closer to us and in focus, our eyes
> keep getting drawn to it.
>
> For the first time, because of 3D, film directors have to pay attention to
> stage placement in a way that they never had to before, if they're going to
> control audience attention. Good stage directors are skilled at this; film
> directors almost never are.
>
> The truth is, though, that while Branagh handled the 3D as naturally as I
> think it can be handled, the 3D added nothing to the film experience; it
> never does. Branagh's achievement was that he annoyed us less than usual
> with 3D films; in fact, he hardly annoyed us at all. But is that a reason
> for us to adopt 3D as the norm? I hope not. Three dimensions are absolutely
> contained in so-called 2D film; in fact, 2D is closer to the way our eyes
> experience the world than 3D is.
>
> So no matter what you do, 3D is going to be unnatural and unnecessary. As
> the "coolness" wears off, it is not going to become an essential part of
> moviemaking. It's just going to be a way to distinguish theatrical films
> from ordinary home viewing -- because if you think most of us are going to
> put on special glasses just to watch television, think again. And 3D will
> only be useful in special effects extravaganzas -- the movies we really care
> about and take seriously will not use it.
>
> I mean, would *The King's Speech* or *Black Swan* have made any sense in
> 3D? And if they had been filmed in 3D, would anyone have taken them
> seriously? 3D is a marker of *trashiness* in filmmaking. Expensive trash,
> but trash. Which is as good a summation of *Thor* as you can find. I had a
> good time watching it. I will never watch it again, and by August I'll
> probably forget it ever existed. So will you. But that doesn't mean it isn't
> worth twenty bucks plus popcorn and soda for a night out in May.
>
>
Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |*
*
-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot