Lost in the debate over the future of 3D is the question of how independent art-house films could take advantage of the added dimension -- in ways that have nothing to do with the shock value of horror films or the spectacle of action movies. In an article at Salon, @mattzollerseitz asks the question of what could happen if filmmakers begin to use the use 3D technology to make films that are more abstract or more intimate than their 2D counterparts.
In Matt's words:
The result could be genuinely revolutionary. It could let us experience movie storytelling -- and movies, period -- in a new way. It might even give rise to a new art form, one that's related to its ancestor, cinema, but that takes off in new directions and does things we can't even imagine yet because so few people in the entertainment industry have been willing to look beyond entertainment as they've always known it.
Regardless of whether you buy into all of Matt's arguments, art-house 3D is a new and largely unexplored genre. Indie-friendly 3D cameras like the Panasonic AG-3DA1 and its Sony counterpart are beginning to hit the market, but even mentioning "art-house" and "3D" in the same sentence begs the question of whether the actual art houses themselves will ever feel the need to add 3D capability -- as most of us can attest, indie theaters are having a hard enough time maintaining old equipment, much less adding new projectors (and glasses). When it comes down to it, it would probably take a break-out film -- the indie version of Avatar? -- to convince theaters to even consider it.
First things first, though. Anyone out there have any experience shooting in 3D?
Link: Salon: 3-D filmmaking's radical, revolutionary potential
