‘Crows’ vs. ‘Avatar,’ or: 3D vs. Total-Dimension Immersion

• Authors: José Manuel Martins
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

3D film’s explicit new space depth arguably provides both an enhanced realistic quality to the image and a wealth of more acute visual and haptic sensations (a ‘montage of attractions’) to the increasingly involved spectator. But David Cronenberg’s related ironic remark that “cinema as such is from the outset a ‘special effect’” should warn us against the geometrical naiveté of such assumptions, within a Cartesian ocularcentric tradition for long overcome by Merleau-Ponty’s embodiment of perception and Deleuze’s notion of the self-consistency of the artistic sensation and space. Indeed, ‘2D’ traditional cinema already provides the accomplished “fourth wall effect,” enclosing the beholder behind his back within a space that no longer belongs to the screen (nor to ‘reality’) as such, and therefore is no longer ‘illusorily’ two-dimensional. This kind of totally absorbing, ‘dream-like’ space, metaphorical for both painting and cinema, is illustrated by the episode Crows in Kurosawa’s Dreams (1990). Such a space requires the actual effacement of the empirical status of spectator, screen, and film as separate dimensions, and it is precisely the 3D characteristic unfolding of merely frontal space layers (and film events) out of the screen towards us (and sometimes above the heads of the spectators before us) that reinstalls at the core of the film-viewing phenomenon a regressive struggle with reality and with different degrees of realism, originally overcome by film since the Lumière’s Arrival of a Train at Ciotat (L’Arrivée d’un train en gare de la Ciotat, 1896) seminal demonstration. Through an analysis of crucial aspects in Avatar (James Cameron, 2009) and the recent Cave of Forgotten Dreams (Werner Herzog, 2010), both dealing with historical and ontological deepening processes of ‘going inside,’ we shall try to show how the formal and technically advanced component of those 3D-depth films impairs, on the contrary, their apparent conceptual purpose on the level of contents, and we will assume, drawing on Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze, that this technological mistake is due to a lack of recognition of the nature of perception and sensation in relation to space and human experience.

Keywords

EN

3D film experience; Akira Kurosawa’s Dreams; James Cameron’s Avatar; realism

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Film and Media Studies
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 8
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 79-96

Dates

published

2014-09-01

online

2014-09-25

Contributors

author

José Manuel Martins

• Department of Philosophy – Universidade de Évora, Centro de Filosofia de Lisboa

References

• Brooks, David. 2010. The Messiah Complex. New York Times 7. 1. 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html Last accessed at 12. 04. 2014.
• Cheng, François. 1991. Vide et plein: Le langage pictural chinois [Empty and Full: the Language of Chinese Painting]. Paris: Seuil.
• Elsaesser, Thomas. 2011. James Cameron’s Avatar: access for all. New Review of Film and Television Studies vol. 9 issue 3, 247-264. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17400309.2011.585854 Last accessed at 12. 04. 2014.[Crossref]
• Marks, Laura. 2000. The Skin of the Film: Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment, and the Senses. Durham: Duke University Press.
• Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1960. L’oeil et l’esprit [The Eye and the Spirit]. Paris: Gallimard.
• Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1969. Le langage indirect [Indirect Language]. In La prose du monde [The Prose of the World]. Paris: Gallimard.
• Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1945. Phénoménologie de la perception [Phenomenology of Perception]. Paris: Gallimard.
• Murphy, Mekado. 2009. A Few Questions for James Cameron. The New York Times 21. 12. 2009. http://carpetbagger.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/a-fewquestions-for-james-cameron/ Last accessed at 02. 04. 2014.
• Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1947. François Mauriac et la liberté [François Mauriac and the Liberty]. In Situations I. Paris: Gallimard.
• Shaviro, Steven. 1993. The Cinematic Body. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Sobchack, Vivian. 1992. The Adress of the Eye: A Phenomenology of Film Experience. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Winters Keegan, Rebecca. 2007. Q&A with James Cameron. Time Magazine 11. 01. 2007. http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1576622,00.html#ixzz0a69HUhNB Last accessed at 12. 04. 2014.
• Žižek, Slavoj. 2010. Avatar: un exercice d’idéologie politiquement correcte [Avatar: a Politically Correct Exercise of Ideology]. Cahiers du Cinéma no. 654 (March): 66-69.
• Žižek, Slavoj. 2010. Return of the Natives. New Statesman 04. 03. 2010. http://www.newstatesman.com/film/2010/03/avatar-reality-love-couple-sex Last accessed at 12. 04. 2014.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/ausfm-2014-0027