Alice in 3D Land

I watched Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland last night at the Imax in Bradford. I have to admit to being very behind when it comes to the latest 3D revolution, but maybe that's because the last one was so under whelming.

I went to an Imax in London years ago with my parents. Back then they were still handing out those awful cardboard glasses that you had to hold on with one hand during the film to stop them sliding off - and it wasn't even a film! We watched a series of still photos of historical New York. Many were taken from the top of sky scrapers and cranes so of course the 3D effect helped you feel the height a little bit more but it was all pretty dull.

Now suddenly this year everyone's been talking about Avatar and then it goes and wins a ton of oscars and I'm wondering if there's something I've missed. So I went to see Alice with an open mind yesterday.
The downsides first - of course it's more expensive, £9 at the Media Museum although the ticket seller was quick to tell me that most Imax's are £13 per full price adult. Still, you don't have to go to an Imax to see a 3D film. You do still have to wear the glasses though if you do go to an Imax, I soon discovered, but at least these days they're proper plastic ones and mine almost fitted well enough that I forgot I had them on.

The upsides - the film, of course had been made for 3D viewing and there were some great touches, if a little obviously laid on, like the March Hare's habit of throwing china right at you through the screen (actually made me flinch :). A number of times you watched Alice being chased from front on so that she was also running through the screen at you. Her fall through the rabit hole was pretty dramatic and any flying scene in 3D is always worth it's weight in extra entrance fees.
For those who've never experienced 3D, when you put the glasses on it's a little like you're suddenly watching a stage performance. Due to the added depth of the picture the action flows forward into the room as well as backwards behind the characters and there's less of a boundary between you and the picture. This definitely helps you to lose yourself in the action and adds to that suspension of disbelief feeling that we're all looking for when we go to see a film. I did find though, during the busiest action scenes that I actually got a bit dizzy and lost the thread a little, but maybe that's just me.

If you're expecting anything more dramatic and revolutionary than this though you'll be disappointed. It's good, but it's not all that. It adds to the general all round experience, as someone pointed out a bit like surround sound which we now take completely for granted; but are we going to simply expect it in future in the same way that we expect surround sound as an experience enhancer which we've got used to very quickly. Watching a film in 2D just won't cut it anymore, a bit like watching black and white when you're used to colour. I think it's quite likely that there'll be a generation of children who will grow up complaining that "2D is boring".

So does this mean that every film will have to include flying objects, chase scenes and heights, because one thing 3D can't do is enhance the plot? What about your ordinary romantic comedies, sure they don't need 3D but if everyone's doing it..? My question is, will the language of film, the way we read the screen change in order to allow for making the best of 3D? How about a film shot totally from a character's point of view? This isn't a new idea idea but it could work so much better in 3D. Maybe this time the revolution is really here. I just hope it means you can get your own glasses that actually fit!