2-D or not 2-D...

[therealfuster]

 

that is the question!

 

For me, some movies made originally in 3-D, are only worth seeing in 3-D as they had little else to recommend them. Last nite though, TCM showed a slew of films made originally in 3-D, and other than the Howard Hughes froth, with of all people Dale Robertson as Sinbad, the majority were well worth viewing in 2-D. I did enjoy hearing Dale's decidely Americana accent though, as he swashed and made the harem girls swoon.

 

I really always enjoy seeing Katherine Grayson and Howard Keel in Porter's "Kiss Me Kate" as it is marvelous, but it would be great fun to see the 3-D version. I did put on one pair of my spare 3-D glasses, hoping to get some effect, and there was a teeny bit of dimension. Same with "House of Wax' which interestingly was directed by a director with only one eye, thereby limiting his dimensional perception in real life, not just on film.

 

Stereoscopic visualization goes back to Euclid, who laid out the principles of binocular vision, even though there was no use of the process in ancient Greece. In the 1600's, there were some painters like Chimenti who experimented with stereoscopic paintings, not unlike comic books made in the 1950's, in 3-D...like ones with Mighty Mouse or the Three Stooges.

 

With the introduction of the Daguerrotype in 1839, one is getting much closer to the incarnation of stereoscopic vision on film, as the stereopticon is just the forerunner of the glasses that patrons used to see films like "Bwana Jungle", "House of Wax" or "Revenge of the Creature" in the Hollywood heyday of the 3-D extravaganzas.

 

In the 1890's, anaglyphic [two-color 3-D] lantern light shows in France pioneered the usage of 3-D for mass entertainment media outlets. The first 3-D film on record, though earlier attempts had been made both commercially and in amateur ranks, was in 1915 and the work of filmmakers Edwin Porter and William Waddell, showing scenes in New York and New Jersey in anaglyphic complementary colors. From that followed many others, only to be supplanted by the Teleview system, developed by Hammond and Cassidy in the early 1920's, which had two interlocked projectors from which came b&w images onscreen, which were rapidly alternated, simulating a three dimensional effect to the audience.

 

Sadly, in the Abel Gance tour de force of 1925, "Napoleon", certain scenes were shot in the red/green anaglyphic process, which to Gance's eyes had a very pronounced effect upon viewing, but were later edited out of the film.

 

In the 1930's, Edwin Land developed a light polarizing material, which could block out images on screen, which allowed for the projection of 3-D images with no color distortion. Polarized 3-dimensional films were being developed worldwide, with Italy having the first Polarized feature called "Beggar's Wedding in 1936. In 1939, Chrysler commissioned Polaroid and John Norling to produce a fifteen minute film for them for the New York World's Fair which was seen by over a million people. During World War II, a theater was built in Moscow to show lenticular 3-D films, with a lensed screen which negated the use of glasses for some in the audience. As before in its history, 3-D films went into a brief hiatus till their heyday in the Fab Fifties.

 

Though the home 3-D enthusiast had many outlets, including for the kiddies the View-Master, and for the adults the Stereo Realist camera for amateur home photography in dimension, the 3-D movie would not come back full force till 1952, with the release of "Bwana Devil" which premiered in LA at the Paramount theaters. Being mired in a bit of postwar depression, contributed to by the influx of televisions nationwide, movie moguls were not adverse to exploiting the novelty of the 3-D medium to sell films to the public. Jack Warner, wanting the studio to be a leader in 3-D, just as they had been a leader in the sound movement with "The Jazz Singer" bankrolled "House of Wax" with Andre de Toth being chosen as director, due to his previous interest in the 3-D process, using the Natural Vision 3-D equipment Much of the fine, well worked out, 3-D camerawork was done by Bert Glennon, later to shoot films repeatedly for Hitchcock

 

Unfortunately, "House of Wax" which had demonstrated the greatness of 3-D when used judiciously, and brought in millions at the box office, had not been appreciated by other studios fully, which did not take the same care in filming their 3-D epics, but just saw the process as a way to make a quick buck. Occasionally well done 3-D films did emerge, like Universal's "It Came From Outer Space" but others like "The Maze" and "Robot Monster" did more harm to the reputation of the medium than good. But after an auspicious start in 1953, the 3-D bandwagon had suffered many critical ruinations and was not the crowd pleaser it had once been, with Cinerama on the upsweep.

 

"Kiss Me Kate" was shown in test engagements by MGM, in both 3-D and flat versions. The 3-D version shown in Dallas, Columbus and Syracuse did significantly better business than the flat version cities, which gave some life back to the 3-D process as a film possibility. But the magnificence and quality of that film, was not a good prognosticator for 3-D as being more than a gimmick in films in general. The 1950's continued to be awash with the occasional 3-D flick, but it tended to be used for more flash than class and was a bit in decline by the late Fifties, even with A-grade films being produced like "I, the Jury", "The Glass Web", "Hondo", "Miss Sadie Thompson", "Creature from the Black Lagoon", "The French Line", "Phantom of the Rue Morgue", "Dial M for Murder", and even Grade Z flicks like "Cat Women on the Moon".

 

From the 1960's on, there were intermittent revivals, both in teen drive-in flicks like "The Bubble" or in adult sexploitation like "The Stewardesses" but not till 1974, with Andy Warhol's "Frankenstein" did one see much real widespread publicity about the process. Since then the 3-D film has again gone into decline, with only the occasional film like "Comin' At You" or a horror sequel using the technology.

 

One could only wish that some of the really well done 3-D films would be released on dvd for future enjoyment. Though I've taped things like "Hondo", and "Gorilla at Large" it would be fun to see some of the better films shown on tv. I must say the best 3-D I've ever seen in a theater was "House of Wax' in a revival a few years back. Much better depth than that in films like Warhol's version of the monster legend, or later films.

 

So....what film in 3-D would you like to see on tv, or TCM or be able to buy on a dvd?

 

Fus

 

P.S. Much of the information I have used, was gleaned from reading over the years, a fine book I own on 3-D called "Amazing 3-D" by Morgan and Symmes.

[zombi6422]

I have most of the classic hollywood 3-d films in 3-d format. They are great to watch. I really don't like them any other way. I see last night as kind of a missed opportunity because it would be great to have a 3-d festival instead of showing a collection of 3-d movies in 2-d.

[therealfuster]

nosiness, but where have you picked up most of your copies of 3-D films, in their original format?

 

Fus

[zombi6422]

They are in field sequential format which is so much better than anaglyph(red/blue glasses). With field sequential you see all the 3-d effects without the color distortion caused by the red/blue glasses.