On the first day he created 3D. And on the second, he had a tantrum because people weren't using it properly.

So this week saw the release of not very anticipated 3D caving thriller Sanctum or, to give it its full US title, James Cameron’s Sanctum.  Haven’t seen it, can’t imagine I will, and so I’ll reserve judgement.  To some degree.  I haven’t heard anything positive though.

It’s supposedly based on the true story of a group of cavers (one of them co-writer Andrew Wight.  Kerching!) who were stuck for two days when a cave collapsed around them.  It was shot with the same 3D techniques used for Avatar and is the second feature directed by Alister Grierson, but who cares about all that shit, I see James Cameron’s name on the poster!  Yes, the man who gave the world hope, the man who invented dreams, and children.  The man whose nickname I’m told is ‘Iron Jim’ (though I’m dubious anyone but himself has ever referred to him as such.  From here on in however, I’m absolutely going to).  He’s also the man who had a big old paddy over Alexandre Aja’s slap in the face of pretentiousness, Piranha 3D, last year declaring the film “exactly an example of what we should not be doing in 3D”, then babbling on about how a film of this type “cheapens the medium”.  Who the Sam Worthington is he to be instructing film makers on how they should be using their technology?  Well I suppose he did invent 3D.  And motion pictures.  What an utter prick.

See the thing is, 3D absolutely is a gimmick, and is best served with cheesy shocks and cheap thrills; that’s what it’s for.  Actually that’s not what it’s for, it’s to make film piracy more difficult and bring punters back to the cinema, where they will be charged a weighty mark-up on their already outlandish ticket price, before having it sheepishly explained to them that the glasses will cost them further.  Nevertheless, in my mind at least, 3D is best enjoyed with comedic shocks and over-the-top scares.  Indeed, the best use of 3D I’ve seen thus far would be in Joe Dante’s ludicrously enjoyable The Hole. 

I’m obviously mistaken however, as a far higher authority tells us that 3D is about immersion, drawing the viewer further into a film’s world than has ever been possible.  Again, I am forced into disagreeing with Iron Jim, as I find full immersion difficult with an ill-fitting pair of plastic specs sitting on my snout and ghostly double-images floating about in the space between me and the screen.  As I said, I do think 3D has its place, but to me it has the exact opposite effect to what Iron Jim is so keen on telling us.  3D has the somewhat Brechtian effect of distancing the viewer from the art, giving us something to enjoy and consider outside of the story we see unfolding and making us conscious of the mechanics behind the art.  What a complete and utter prick.

As I have said, I can’t really give an opinion of Sanctum, but I won’t pretend it didn’t raise a smile to see it underperforming at the box office.  After all, it’s made far less in its opening weekend than Piranha did.  And if you’re gonna take a true story of an ordeal suffered by several people (not just your co-writer), turn it into a 3D thriller and promote it as a horror flick , maybe you should also give some serious thought as to who’s really “cheapening the medium”.  You prick.