The Passion of 3D

The fact that Martin Scorsese has discovered the magnificence of 3D has not gone unnoticed. In his most recent statement, he provided a bit more insight into his enthusiasm. Even though this took place more than a month ago, I am still none the wiser as to what the chap is carrying on about. I mean, I understand that he likes 3D, just as an oil painter who is as taken with marble may start chipping away at sculptures. Let me return to my point of contention in just a moment.

Anyway, the director of Hugo claims to experience a love for the technology and aesthetics that runs so deep (and, one might add, newfound – there is the slightest hint of evangelism in his line of reasoning) that he would just adore to have all his films made in 3D. Of course Travis Bickles’ ‘You talkin’ to me’ scene:

Jake LaMotta’s fight scenes:

or the Edwin S. Porter reference in Goodfellas:

would perhaps have been injected with a bit more pep through this enhancement.

On the other hand, Scorsese has expressed that neither Mean Streets nor New York, New York would work in 3D. Why not? These two films celebrate the director’s hometown, one of the most three-dimensional places on Earth. (Anyone who’s ever visited New York can agree that a wide-eyed walk through Manhattan gives the impression of peering through a stereoscope.) It’d be nice to see Johnny Boy strut his stuff in 3D.

Just for the record, I must clarify that I want none of these films to be any different than they are (I take that back… Scorsese can do whatever he pleases with Kundun). Not to draw comparisons, but should Michelangelo have entertained the notion to recreate his fresco The Last Judgement as a sculpture, however brilliantly he wielded a mallet?

Albeit, I will happily indulge Scorsese’s fantasies. But here’s the thing. He listed a few films apart from his own, which he believed would work in 3D. He named two (2) that he would love to see in stereoscopic glory: Jeff Nichol’s Cannes’ contestant Mud, and Ingmar Bergman’s The Passion of Anna. These two films, out of all the imaginable candidates down through the history of film. I have yet to see Mud and thus have no point of view on this matter. But The Passion of Anna! Perhaps Bergman’s most faded, most conscientiously flat film! And one that contains as many close-ups as Persona, a shot angle which rarely does the actors any justice in 3D (the Avatar lesson).

Where is the 3D potential in The Passion of Anna? Not exactly here?

Or here?

And hardly here either.

Any ideas?

Please reply to Sleepless in Stockholm.