From Novelty to Normal: 3DTV as Special Effect

From Novelty to Normal: 3DTV as Special Effect Simon Brown Abstract In cinemas and on television, the 3D viewing experience is marketed as being both...
Author: Russell Snow
2 downloads 0 Views 144KB Size
From Novelty to Normal: 3DTV as Special Effect Simon Brown

Abstract In cinemas and on television, the 3D viewing experience is marketed as being both more ‘immersive’ than 2D, and as an ‘experience’ which augments the normal 2D viewing experience. Focussing on 3D on television, this article presents an aesthetic analysis of a range of 3DTV content. In doing so it considers the extent to which the variety of 3DTV programming, coupled with its low market penetration, offers a barrier to 3DTV becoming familiar enough to move beyond being a gimmick or a special effect, and explores what 3DTV programme makers are doing to overcome this. Key words: 3DTV, Sky 3D, BBC 3D, Olympic Games, David Attenborough, 3D documentary, 3D football, 3D tennis ‘This is our world, as it’s never been seen before.’ The Making of Kingdom of Plants 3D

In a review of the 3D Pixar animated film Up (2009) Hans-Georg Rodek addresses the fundamental contradiction that lies at the heart of 3D, which is the need to be both visible and invisible at the same time. Rodek states that ‘the sensationally new technique [3D] is entirely subordinated to the logic of the narrative [but] this is where one’s doubts arise. Because D3D [digital 3D] is marketed as a sensation: with the obvious goal of being able to charge higher admission at the box-office. And for that it needs to be experienced as a sensation.’1 Scott Higgins also draws attention to ‘the dilemma of reconciling protrusion from the screen with the goal of absorbing viewers into the diegesis’, and argues that the problem for 3D is that for all it is promoted as being more ‘immersive’ than 2D, the world of popular narrative cinema immersion ‘only demands that the viewer be caught up in a coherent story world of Critical Studies in Television, Volume 8, No. 3 (Autumn 2013), © 2013 Manchester University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7227/CST.8.3.4

34

Critical Studies in Television 8/3

cause and effect.’2 The result of this contradiction, as John Belton argues (drawing upon William Paul’s seminal 1993 article on 3D ‘The Aesthetics of Emergence’) ‘if [3D] is ever to become the norm, it must cease calling attention to itself.’3 This is not a new argument. Discussing the British critical reaction to 3D films in the 1950s, Keith M. Johnston notes that, ‘it became a frequent concern for 3-D critics [that] the illusion of visual immersion promised by stereoscopy [was] anathema to cinema’s existing ability to immerse audiences through narrative’.4 Johnston also identifies a slightly different articulation of the same issue, noting that reviews of the very earliest films in the 3D cycle of the 1950s, a series of British documentaries made for the Festival of Britain, emphasised ‘the apparent realism created by 3D technology.’5 He also notes that later, in 1952–53, this gave way to an emphasis upon novelty, trickery and the gimmick.6 These dual concepts of realism/spectacle and invisibility/ visibility are a basic issue that arises with the introduction of any new technology into the existing conventions of film or TV; the need for that new technology to be interesting and identifiable enough to capture the audiences’ initial attention, but ultimately, in order to survive, to become a normalised part of the image landscape. Tom Gunning suggests that while new technology is met initially with astonishment, this is ‘inherently an unstable and temporary experience. One finds it difficult to be continually astonished by the same thing. Astonishment gives way to familiarity.’7 He suggests that what he calls a ‘discourse of wonder’ can draw our attention to new technologies ‘precisely as a spectacle’ which elicits curiosity and gives way in turn to ‘investigation and education [before] habituation dulls our attention’.8 All new forms of cinematic technology, including sound, colour and special effects, faced this progression from wonder to habitude. Rodek specifically references the latter in his review, saying, ‘When all you can say is that it blends in with our normal visual habits the special effect is soon special no more.’9 Elsaesser also applies the term to 3D, not only suggesting that with 3D ‘Hollywood had to come up with a new gimmick - a special effect - and to hype a new attraction,’ but also describing 3D as a ‘special effect in the field of cinematic vision.’ Furthermore he suggests, linking back to Belton and Higgins, that 3D ‘aspires to become, in the films themselves, an invisible rather than visible special effect’.10 Special effects therefore contain within them this same contradiction. On the one hand they use technology to make audiences believe they have seen something real that doesn’t actually exist, which necessitates the effect being hidden, but at the same time they must draw attention to the effect and make audiences aware of the ‘special’ nature of what they have seen. Discussing the technological advancement of computer-generated effects in cinema in the last forty years, Michael Allen suggests that, ‘the drive behind much of the technical development . . . has been towards both a greater or heightened sense of “realism” and a bigger, more breathtaking realization of spectacle.’11 Allen links this dual concept of realism and spectacle to the idea of ‘special’ by suggesting that while in

From Novelty to Normal

35

many cases what is represented by CGI is impossible in the real world, nevertheless it must be ‘sophisticated and “photo-realistic” enough to persuade the audience that . . . it would look exactly like its screen depiction does.’12 This, Allen suggests, ‘reduces “the spectators” sense of their “real” world . . . replacing it with a fully believable artificial one.’13 While Allen does not make this argument overtly, implicit in his assertion is the idea that the artificial world must be believable enough so that audiences forget the real world and thus become immersed in the one on the screen. Just as with 3D, Allen’s argument implies that special effects are immersive, connoting realism by using technology to create a more realistic and involving viewing experience. Yet at the same time, because the conventions of cinema use the narrative to draw in the viewer and immerse them in the fiction worlds, special effects also draw attention to themselves and encourage the audience to stand back from the diegesis and admire the effect by highlighting the ‘special’ nature of the technology. While these are fundamentally cinematic arguments, Helen Wheatley has recently adapted this discourse for the medium of television through a discussion of the use of high definition imagery in programmes that focus on the British landscape, notably the BBC series Coast (2005–). Highlighting the interplay between images of nature and CGI-based HD technological enhancement, she makes a case for this type of programming to be considered as ‘spectacular’ television which invites a ‘contemplative gaze’, linked to the positioning of the flat-screen HD TV on the wall as a kind of picture frame of mobile images, viewed as if it were a piece of art in a gallery.14 She argues that elegantly framed shots of the landscape invite ‘moments of contemplation or breaks from narrative progression.’15 Wheatley’s linking of spectacle, contemplation and special effects as a distraction from narrative progression has obvious links to the pull between narrative immersion and 3D immersion in cinemas outlined above, but also to Allen’s assertion that special effects strive towards increased realism, which in turn related back to 3D in Johnston’s argument about the first 3D films in the 1950s. Having established these links, in this article I wish to discuss 3DTV as a special effect, something sold as spectacular that must nevertheless negotiate a position between realism and spectacle and between visibility and invisibility in order to ensure its long-term survival. In this respect 3DTV faces a far greater challenge than cinematic 3D for two specific reasons. First, it must negotiate this position within a far more diverse range of 3D content and second it must do so in the face of considerably lower market penetration and a far less structured rollout strategy. Since April 2010 Sky 3D is the only dedicated 3D channel in the UK, and at the time of writing there are no plans for more. Virgin Media, the second major supplier of a subscription television service in the UK offers only minor 3D content via an on-demand service, meaning that the BBC is the second biggest player in the UK 3D market. Even then, having announced in February 2013 that the high profile 50th Anniversary episode of flagship family programme

36

Critical Studies in Television 8/3

Doctor Who will be filmed, and shown, in 3D, the BBC was clear this was not a long term commitment to 3D but rather another step in what they referred to as their 3D ‘trial’.16 Writing in the Huffington Post in response to this announcement, Keith M. Johnston declared that the broadcast represented merely an ‘event,’ and that ‘the current focus on 3D event television does not appear to be a long-term sustainable broadcasting model.’ He concludes that a 3D Doctor Who special ‘is not a strong enough reason to commit to [this] technology’.17 If 3DTV is, as yet, merely an ‘event’, it is still a long way from making the transition to normality required, according to Belton et al., to ensure its acceptance and long term survival. While the industrial model of 3DTV may remain ‘event’ centred and so deny 3D the opportunity to make the transition from novelty to normality through the fostering of habitual viewing practices, nevertheless an analysis of the different aesthetic patterns being adopted by a range of different 3D programmes can illuminate how 3DTV broadcasts are addressing the challenge of negotiating novelty and familiarity. 3DTV as Special Effect The most obvious place to start is with a programme that links both 3D and special effects. Sky 3D’s documentary Flying Monsters 3D (2010) tells the story of the pterosaurs, a species of giant flying creatures from 220 million years ago, some of which had wingspans of up to 40 ft and could fly half way around the world in a single flight. These creatures are rendered using CGI, most often in an entirely CG world but, in one memorable sequence, flying over the real contemporary world alongside writer and presenter David Attenborough in a glider. While this moment was highlighted in much of the media coverage of the film, the emphasis was less upon the seamless blending of CG pterosaur and modern glider, than the fact that Attenborough himself was up in a glider at the age of eighty-four.18 Despite the amount of CGI that went into the programme, the focus of the press coverage of the show was more upon the presenter and the 3D than the CGI. This is a very different emphasis to that which accompanied the BBC’s seminal series Walking with Dinosaurs (1999), of which Flying Monsters 3D is a direct descendant. There the focus was on the lifelike recreation of dinosaurs using CGI and other technologies. Eleven years on, the use of CGI warrants scarcely a mention in favour of 3D and the spryness of the presenter, despite the tone of the show being virtually identical to the BBC’s original. The reason for this is partly due to the more commercial nature of Sky, as opposed to the BBC, but also to the normalisation of CG technology to tell such stories on television, due to the success of Walking with Dinosaurs and its follow up series, Walking with Beasts (2001), Walking with Cavemen (2003) and Walking with Monsters (2005). Post 2005, the drive towards the realistic depiction of this extinct natural world through the use of special effects has become sufficiently standardised so that it is no longer as noteworthy, and the effects alone are no longer ‘special.’ With Flying Monsters 3D therefore

From Novelty to Normal

37

the emphasis shifts from the content - the CGI dinosaurs - to the 3D mode of delivery, an effect which, being new, carries with it once more the connotation of ‘special.’ In other words, what Flying Monsters 3D demonstrates is that the use of CGI in this particular genre of television has made the transition from novelty to normal, and the CGI is now taken for granted, meaning that the new technology involved, 3D now becomes the selling point. In May 2011, accepting the BAFTA award for best Specialist Factual programme for Flying Monsters 3D, producer Anthony Geffen announced that, ‘this is the moment when 3D has come of age in television’. In his acceptance speech he pointed out that writer and presenter Sir David Attenborough was the first, and would probably be the last, person in television to win a BAFTA in black and white, colour, high definition and 3D.19 This statement is significant for the purposes of this article for two reasons. First, despite the fact that Attenborough is an accomplished naturalist and a genuine expert in his field (as opposed to merely a presenter of nature programmes) and has for several generations been the calm and authoritative voice of the natural world on television, the achievement for which Geffen singled him out was purely technological. Second, the list as stated, from black and white to colour and then to HD and finally to 3D contains within it a sense of progression, the idea that technology moves on, with the new becoming old, the novel becoming the familiar. Immediately after the award, John Cassy, director of Sky 3D, made this point explicitly, saying, History tells us that the driving theme of TV innovation has consistently been about achieving better picture and better sound. Silent films moved to pictures with sound - initially in black and white and then colour. Analogue moved to digital and then digital to HD. And we believe that 3D is the next stage - the historic theme of creating an ever more immersive and realistic viewing experience remains at the core of all these developments.20

Cassy’s statement reinforces the paradox between technological innovation and audience immersion and realism, something which the promotion of the show attempts to address by emphasizing both. Attenborough said, ‘It was an obvious subject for 3D as dinosaurs are stuck on the ground, but the pterosaurs we brought to life fly around. It is this sort of imagery that’s great for the format . . . (3D) adds a perception that might otherwise be lacking from a species so unimaginably impressive.’21 Attenborough also describes 3D as ‘the ultimate refinement,’ which allows the audience to ‘see, in more greater detail than before, some part of the natural world’.22 Such statements aim to capture how 3D can offer a mixture of both the spectacle of the scale and majesty of the pterosaurs ‘reborn’, and the paleontological detail that anchors that spectacle within the world and reminds us that these are real fossilised creatures. 3D therefore augments the subject matter for the viewer both in

38

Critical Studies in Television 8/3

terms of spectacular contemplation and intellectual detail while at the same time the subject matter offers in return a platform in which to demonstrate the possibilities of 3D on television and so promote 3DTV itself. As Gunning argues with respect to early cinema, we should never forget that ‘in the earliest years of exhibition, the cinema itself was an attraction. Early audiences went to exhibitions to see machines demonstrated (the newest technological wonder . . .) rather than to view films.’23 Flying Monsters 3D is likewise as much about the attraction of 3D as a new technological wonder which improves the experience of watching television as it is an educational depiction of a heretofore largely unknown creature of the natural world. 3D has replaced CGI as the marketable ‘special effect’, specifically to breathe new life into a genre of CGI based television documentary that, by 2010, was no longer ‘special’. In Flying Monsters 3D, the 3D usurps the use of CGI in the making of what Attenborough himself calls ‘event television.’24 A similar rhetoric appears in the follow-up project for 2012, Kingdom of Plants 3D, shot at The Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew. While the series dispensed almost entirely with CGI in favour of other forms of technological innovation, specifically time lapse and macrophotography, to show plants coming into bloom, adapting to the seasons and pollinating, as with Flying Monsters the promotional material for the series highlights technology in relation to both immersion and spectacle. Attenborough stated that ‘while time-lapse photography allows you to see things that no human being has ever seen before, the added element of 3D takes the audience even further still’ while John Cassy said ‘Kingdom of Plants 3D is at once an immersive, compelling and truly breathtaking viewing experience.’25 Again, an attempt is made here to contextualise the relationship between the 3D spectacle and the realism of the subject matter. While the ‘Making of’ documentary that accompanied the series both on TV and on 3D Blu-Ray focuses almost entirely upon the various technologies used to capture the images (such as the lightweight 3D helicopter camera designed to look like an insects eye-view), Attenborough was at pains to say that ‘the viewer shouldn’t be dazzled by technical splendour . . . but enlivened by the insight it gives you.’26 This is most clearly seen in the sequence which displays the ancestral tree of plant life as a CGI image within one of the research rooms at Kew, growing out of the floor and expanding upwards towards the ceiling. While the focus of the script is upon the evolution of plant species and is therefore entirely about ‘insight’, the image, in both 2D and 3D, is spectacular in its composition, taking a leisurely pace and emphasising high and low angles to highlight the size and spectacle of the CGI tree. This interplay between the natural world, CGI and other technology such as macrophotography, and 3D is the natural successor to the kind of spectacular television outlined by Helen Wheatley. While the documentaries maintain a form of narrative progression - Flying Monsters through the story of the rise and fall of the pterosaurs and of their archaeological discovery, Kingdom of Plants through the progression of the various plants through the seasons - this

From Novelty to Normal

39

narrative is interrupted by spectacular 3D moments, such as the glider scene, the ancestral tree scene or the many gentle time-lapse sequences of plants opening their petals. Yet these moments not only invite contemplation of the spectacular nature of their CGI or 3D effect, they also exist as part of the narrative, using spectacle to impart knowledge and understanding of the subject matter. As such in these documentaries 3D is indeed the natural successor to CGI, or the extraordinary wildlife photography that has been part of the lexicon of TV nature programmes. What we see is 3D taking on the role once performed by these now familiar technologies and therefore being both special and new, but in a way that is part of the tradition of these types of programmes. ’As it is’: The Aesthetics of 3DTV 3D documentaries are only one type of 3DTV programme, and part of the challenge of discussing 3DTV is that it is simultaneously very limited - there is not much 3D content to discuss - and diverse, encompassing sports programmes, live events, educational programming and, latterly, drama. Across this varied spectrum however a number of consistent themes emerge. The first is the negotiation between highlighting the special immersive nature of watching in 3D while at the same time not allowing the technology to detract from the immersion of the normal viewing experience, and the second is the way in which this tension is negotiated by drawing upon and interacting with traditional aesthetic tropes. This can best be illustrated through an examination of sports coverage, in which we can see broadcasters negotiating a language for 3DTV. Like the documentaries above, and indeed almost all UK 3D content, 3D sports coverage is generally also broadcast in 2D, but 3D sport brings with it a live aspect absent from the documentaries. Not only does the live-ness connote ‘event’ status even without 3D, but also the items chosen for 3D treatment were and are selected because they are also very special events. The first 3D live football match was Manchester United v. Arsenal, shown as a test by Sky in nine UK pubs in January 2010, while the April 2010 launch of Sky 3D, also in pubs, was marked by another significant game, Manchester United v. Chelsea. Most high profile of all was the decision to broadcast a portion of the London 2012 Olympics in 3D not just on Sky but also on the BBC. This is consistent with other non-sporting live programmes selected as part of the BBCs 3D trial, notably the 2011 final of Strictly Come Dancing and the 2012 Last Night of the Proms, both of which carry event status even without 3D, the first as the finale of one of the BBCs flagship family entertainment programmes, the second as a traditional flag-waving national spectacle and a fixture of the annual viewing schedule. Such coverage also includes specific challenges not faced by feature films or the Sky documentaries, because 3D is still a relatively minor player compared to 2D coverage. Often the 2D and 3D coverage has different directors, and only in very rare cases, such as the 2012 Horse of the Year Show, are only 3D

40

Critical Studies in Television 8/3

cameras used and the 3D and 2D feeds both drawn from 3D cameras (a process referred to as 5D).27 As a result when selecting camera positions not only must those responsible for 3D coverage consider those most suitable for 3D, but also they must negotiate positions around traditional 2D cameras, and also around the amount of space available within the sports arena. The result of this is that 3D sports coverage faces logistical challenges in trying to build a familiar language and set of conventions, not just across different sports, but often within the same sports. Despite this fact, there are certain broad trends emerging. The first of these has been to produce coverage that offers a mixture of standard 2D and specialist 3D visuals. Eurosport’s 3D coverage of the French Open in 2012 for example maintained a number of the camera positions from the 2D coverage, notably the two cameras positioned at the net, each looking in the opposite direction and covering one half of the court. Aligned with these were two cameras placed in the two right hand corners of the court, broadcasting alternately from ground level and waist height, most often used during slow motion replays. The images from these cameras were identical in both the 2D and 3D broadcasts. The principal difference in the 3D-only coverage was the baseline camera, which in 2D was positioned at the standard high angle looking down on the court and in 3D used a different camera positioned behind the player at slightly above head height, looking through the court and allowing for a greater sense of depth as the ball moved back and forth. Like the 2D high angle, this was used exclusively for game play. At a panel discussion on 3D sports at the 2013 3D Creative Summit, held at the BFI South Bank on 27 and 28 March, Duncan Humphreys, Creative Director of Can Communicate (responsible amongst other things for the BBC 2011 3D Wimbledon coverage) and Steve Smith, Senior Football Director of Sky Sports, both referred to the game play camera as ‘the camera one position’, the principle angle used for watching a sport.28 While in the case of Roland Garros this angle was different between 2D and 3D, it nevertheless served as the standard angle for the viewing of the match. This bespoke camera one position was augmented by exclusive 3D shots of the crowd, designed specifically to enhance the sense of depth of field. A dedicated camera which never appeared on the 2D coverage was set on a track just below the highest of the tiers in the stand and moved above the heads of the crowd, focussed upon the ranks of spectators, while another camera was set at a low angle looking up across the crowd into the highest part of the stands, capturing crowd members in the foreground and background. The difference between these 3D shots and the more traditional positions is marked. The 3D shots are angled in such a way as to provide a continuous progression of depth, either across the heads of the crowd or, in the case of the baseline camera, from foreground player to net to background player, with the ball acting as a link between them, its movement offering a continuation of the depth space. By contrast the side shots of the players tends to give a sense of ‘flat depth’ - a background with a

From Novelty to Normal

41

single object, the player, in the foreground. The mixture of adapted 2D and what the industry called ‘native’ 3D images works to provide both familiar coverage of the match - the corner angles for the slow motion replay and the net angle shots of the players preparing between rallies - and angles available only in 3D, allowing the viewing experience to be both familiar and special, augmented by 3D rather than replaced. The same idea underpins 3D football coverage, although firstly the difference between 2D and 3D is less marked and second the camera positions necessarily vary from game to game, depending upon the availability of space in different grounds. This variety from match to match makes an analysis of 3D football coverage difficult, but again, broad trends can be identified. Unlike in tennis, the difference in the view for in-game football play (the camera one position) is less marked between 2D and 3D, tending to be taken from a high angle in the stands on or near the centre line. The actual angle can vary from ground to ground. As Steve Smith pointed out at the 3D Creative Summit, at Tottenham Hotspur’s ground the 3D camera is placed on a gantry below the 2D camera, giving a lower angle.29 A comparison of the 3D and 2D footage from Liverpool’s ground shows that at Anfield the 2D and 3D cameras are placed side by side.30 The general aesthetics of football coverage follow a few basic rules with some variation. During play, that single camera one position is used with occasional cuts to closer shots, usually from the touchline, when the play happens to coincide with the placement of a touchline camera, which tends to be a roving steadicam. Edits are more likely to occur during breaks in game play (for corners, free kicks, throw ins etc.) when the time is filled by medium shots or medium close ups of players (from the waist or chest upwards) or, in some cases, the manager, or, very occasionally, the crowd. 3D maintains a very similar pattern, the principal difference being that during breaks the shots of the players are always long shots showing the full body of the player. This is augmented by 3D-only cameras in positions that can vary from ground to ground. Again in the case of Anfield, 3D cameras are set at the corner flags at head height, offering views in depth of action in the quarter of the pitch by the two penalty areas while another 3D camera is behind the goals, higher up in the stands. Between them, these angles offer relatively minor 3D content and effects. The long shots of the players as opposed to the 2D medium shots, do frame them more against the pitch, thus offering a greater sense of depth, but this is limited and is really only greater in relation to what it would be if medium shots were used. Overall 3D angles are used sparingly. Partly this is because they are reliant upon where the action takes place, but more importantly, as Steve Smith again pointed out at the 3D Creative Summit, the aim is not to force 3D shots into the footage, but to use them as part of a more rounded 3D experience that serves the narrative of the game. This is a crucial point. While 3D camera positions are selected, within logistical boundaries, in order to provide moments that have extra impact in 3D, the main aim of 3D sports coverage is moving towards the service of the game

42

Critical Studies in Television 8/3

itself. Manolo Romera, Director of the Olympic Broadcasting Service, made a similar point when commenting upon the 3D Olympic coverage, We do not want to do tricks with sport. We want to show it as it is but we also want to show the viewer what is possible in 3D.31

The phrasing here - the ambition to show sport ‘as it is’ but also to highlight ‘what is possible’ - has obvious links once more to realism and spectacle. In sports coverage, just as in film, realism is a set of aesthetic conventions. Each sport, be it tennis, golf, football or rugby, has its own identifiable shots and sequences which form a language of representation which, in turn, tell the story of the sporting event and connote ‘reality’ (i.e. when one watches tennis on TV, this is what tennis looks like and this familiarity allows the viewer to engage with the excitement of the event). In the examples above, 3D coverage both supports and enhances the ‘realism’ of football and tennis on television through the mixing of traditional 2D angles with the special effect of bespoke 3D angles. Significantly this sports coverage of the Premier League, or Roland Garros, or other competitions like the Ryder Cup, represents regular 3D programming, albeit weekly or annually. What we see therefore in this interplay is a variation of what is visible in the 3D documentaries discussed above. There the use of 3D is spectacular but also nudging towards normalisation by being part of a convention of technological innovation within nature programming. The use of such new technology is to be expected, and so the novelty factor is both separate from, and embedded in, the aesthetics of the programme. Regular 3D sporting events, over the course of many broadcasts are also seeking to define a consistent language for 3D broadcast adapted from already existing conventions that through habitual watching can also become conventional themselves. In a very real sense therefore the fact that normalisation has not taken place in these genres is more to do with the aforementioned lack of market penetration. Despite the fact that on a national scale relatively few people watch 3DTV, for regular and dedicated viewers of 3D football this largely consistent aesthetic means that the 3D coverage has the potential to simply become Premier League soccer ‘as it is’. This familiarity through regular programming is very different from the one-off events that form part of the BBC’s 3D trial, and so these offer a different approach, in some cases eschewing traditional representative patterns altogether. The 2D and 3D coverage of the 100m men’s sprint final at the London 2012 Olympics for example used entirely different angles. 2D used the familiar view from a high angle in the stands. The camera looks back down the track from the finish line allowing an overall clear view of all the runners in each lane and making it easier to see them in relation to each other, concluding with a side-on view at the finish. In 3D on the other hand, the camera is set at ground level on a track and moves parallel to the runners. This angle would make it more

From Novelty to Normal

43

difficult to distinguish the individual runners in 2D, since they are in front of each other, but the 3D allows each runner to be separated by their relative depth to each other in the image. Unlike the 2D image, which was basically a pan to the right, the rapidly moving ground level 3D camera also captured the speed of the 100m final, breaking completely with standard coverage in favour of offering a visual spectacle that competed with the spectacle of the runners themselves. However the coverage of the 100m final is quite unusual since 3DTV tends to be less kinetic in its aesthetics than 2D. This is less noticeable in sports coverage such as tennis and football, since in general the major part of the footage is game play which tends to be seen from one angle with infrequent (in the case of football) or no (in the case of tennis) cuts to other angles except during breaks. Outside the world of sport the change in pace is much more visible, as for example the performance of the Spice Girls at the Olympic closing ceremony indicates. The stadium was set up as a series of runways mirroring the Union Jack that converged at a central point by the time the Spice Girls arrived in five brightly coloured taxis from which they exited singing Wannabe, moving together into a line to begin their synchronised dance moves. This took just over a minute, and in the 2D coverage there are eleven shots. The sequence opens with a long shot from a high angle of the five taxis converging on the centre of the Union Jack. It then cuts to a ground level shot of Mel B exiting the cab, then a shot of Geri Halliwell, followed by a cut back to the original long shot. From there the cycle repeats, cutting from Mel B to Halliwell, then back to the long shot, before changing to a shot of Mel C taken from a distance with a zoom lens, then back to the long shot as the girls converge at the centre of the flag. There follows a shot of Emma Bunton from a slightly higher angle with a long lens, ending as they line up with a frontal shot showing all five of them together. In 3D this same sequence consists of only four shots, all from entirely different angles. It opens with the same tableau of all the taxis but from a lower angle, level with the raised centre of the ‘flag.’ That shot is maintained as they exit the taxis, cutting to a side angle not seen in the 2D version, again from an identical height as the vehicles, which then zooms out. It then cuts to a high angle shot with a zoom of Emma Bunton, the camera panning right as she moves into the line with the others, then cuts to a low angle shot from the front left as they go into their dance. The remainder of the 2D sequence includes medium shots, high angle and aerial shots, plus images of the crowd, all of which are entirely absent in 3D. Similarly the sequence where Fatboy Slim performs Funk Soul Brother for example consists of thirty shots in 2D and only nine in 3D, and while there is one shared image across the two - a frontal long shot of the giant plastic octopus - the emphasis of the 3D footage is on low angles (a contrast to the higher angles of 3D football) and tableau in which the movement comes from zooms, rather than the 2D footage which uses a mixture of rapid editing and hand held camerawork alongside aerial shots and high angles to create a more kinetic effect. A

44

Critical Studies in Television 8/3

similar slower editing pace is visible in the BBC’s 3D broadcast of the 2011 final of Strictly Come Dancing, with forty edits on average during the dance sequences in 2D, and only 20 in 3D.32 Across the range of 3DTV there is therefore little by way of consistent style, mainly due to the different types of programmes with which 3D must engage, simultaneously negotiating its own internal logic (the pace of 3D editing must generally be slower and composition must be carefully considered in order to create an appropriate effect) and the familiar representation of those programmes already established in 2D, recognisable and standardised aesthetic conventions that connote the ‘reality’ of the sporting or live event. While some sports coverage uses a mixture of traditional 2D and 3D images, others do not. Equally the editing pace of the 3D Olympic ceremonies is slow compared to the 2D version, suggesting this notion of stately viewing and spectacle as put forward by Helen Wheatley, yet at the same time the 100m in 3D is far more kinetic than in 2D because of the use of the ground level camera travelling parallel to the runners at high speed. In that case, as with the closing ceremony, 3D generally uses lower angles than 2D, as it does in tennis, while 3D football tends to use higher angles. The competing agendas - on the one hand not to interfere with the range of shots and angles with which audiences are familiar (realism) but on the other to highlight the possibilities and advantages of 3D (spectacle) - are therefore driven, in part, by the programmes selected for 3D treatment, which in turn deny the possibility of a coherent 3DTV aesthetic. This also precludes the development of a clear identity for 3DTV, which is essential for it to move beyond being a ‘special effect’ to a normalised part of the televisual landscape, just as colour and, to a lesser extent, HD, have done before it. 3DTV is, at least for the time being, shot, marketed and presented as a special effect that sits on top of both the normal run of programming and the standard programme aesthetics as an added attraction designed to draw attention to itself and promote the continued expansion of 3D through subscriptions and sales of 3D enabled TV sets. To return to Johnston’s dismissal of 3DTV which opened this piece, it is true to say that the focus on event status which marks the current 3DTV strategy denies precisely the kind of normalisation that is necessary for 3D to shed its associations with being a special effect. However, it is equally true to say that there is a difference between the one-off events seen as part of the BBC trial and more regular 3D programming, like football, which has developed its own 3D aesthetic, as have the 3D documentaries produced by Sky. It is not enough to say that 3DTV is solely a novelty or a gimmick, even though because of limited availability of content for the vast majority of viewers that is precisely what it is. Looking closely at 3DTV suggests that what is happening is a series of aesthetic experimentations, at various stages of development, which are seeking to define the new language of 3DTV. While it many be many years before viewers have enough exposure to 3D content to begin to learn that language themselves, and thus for 3DTV to journey from novelty to normality in the eyes of the viewers,

From Novelty to Normal

45

amongst programme makers this language is already being defined and the process has already begun. Notes 1 Quoted in Thomas Elsaessar, ‘The “Return” of 3-D: On Some of the Logics and Genealogies of the Image in the Twenty-First Century’, Critical Enquiry, 39, Winter, 2013, 237. 2 Scott Higgins, ‘3D in Depth: Coraline, Hugo, and a Sustainable Aesthetic’, Film History, 24:2, 2012, 96,198. 3 John Belton, ‘Digital 3D Cinema: Digital Cinemas Missing Novelty Phase’, Film History, 24:2, 2012, 194; William Paul, ‘The Aesthetics of Emergence’, Film History, 5:3, 1993, 321–55. 4 Keith M. Johnston, ‘A Technician’s Dream? The Critical Reception of 3-D Films in Britain’, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 32:2, 2012, 252. 5 Ibid. 248. 6 Ibid. 249. 7 Tom Gunning, ‘Re-Newing Old Technologies: Astonishment, Second Nature, and the Uncanny in Technology from the Previous Turn-of-the-Century’, in David Thorburn and Henry Jenkins (eds.), Rethinking Media Change: The Aesthetics of Transition, MIT Press, 2003, p. 41. 8 Ibid, p. 45. 9 Quoted in Elsaesser, ‘The “Return” of 3-D’, 237. 10 Ibid, 218, 219, 221. 11 Michael Allen, ‘From Bwana Devil to Batman Forever: Technology in Contemporary Hollywood Cinema’, in Steve Neale and Murray Smith (eds.), Contemporary Hollywood Cinema, Routledge, 1998, p. 127. 12 Ibid. p. 127. 13 Ibid. 14 Helen Wheatley, ‘Beautiful Images in Spectacular Clarity: Spectacular Television, Landscape Programming and the Question of (Tele)visual Pleasure’, Screen, 52:2, 2011, 242. 15 Ibid, 243. 16 Andy Quested, ‘Mr Stink in 3D’, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/posts/ mr_stink_3d, accessed 17 March 2013. On 5 July 2013 the BBC announced it was suspending 3D programming indefinitely due to a public lack of appetite. 17 Keith M. Johnston, 2013, ‘Why Doctor Who in 3D Still Isn’t Enough for Me to Invest in 3DTV’, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-keith-m-johnston/3d-tvdoctor-who_b_2675789.html, accessed 17 March 2013. 18 Lucy Sewards, ‘Atta boy: Sir David: Britain’s favourite naturalist flies through the air with dinosaurs in this amazing new 3D TV show’, 2010, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ tvshowbiz/article-1339263/Sir-David-Attenborough-flies-air-dinosaurs-new-TVshow.html, accessed 24 January 2012. 19 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhebRqvsEUg, accessed 24 January 2012. 20 John Cassy, 2011 ‘Flying Monsters wins BAFTA - The Start of 3D TV’s Next Chapter’, http://corporate.sky.com/skyviews/d6870e7cdb7a4e8e998fa2e8b9974067/ flying_monsters_wins_bafta_the_start_of_3d_tvs_next_chapter, accessed 24 January 2012.

46

Critical Studies in Television 8/3

21 James Mitchell, ‘David Attenborough’s Flying Monsters 3D’, http:// www.3dtvwatcher.co.uk/david-attenboroughs-flying-monsters-3d-1098/, accessed 24 January 2012. 22 Anon, ‘Attenborough Goes 3D with Flying Monsters’, http://news.sky.com/story/ 771378/attenborough-goes-3d-with-flying-monsters, accessed 21 January 2012. 23 Tom Gunning, ‘The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator and the AvantGarde’, Wide Angle, 8:3-4, 1986, 65-6. 24 Tim Dams, ‘Attenborough Soars in 3D’, 2010, http://www.televisual.com/blog-detail/ Attenborough-soars-in-3d_bid-208.html, accessed 24 January 2012. 25 Anon, ‘David Attenborough’s Kingdom of Plants Bursts onto Sky 3D’, 2012, http:// skyatlantic.sky.com/kingdom-of-plants/attenboroughs-kingdom-of-plants-3d-burstsonto-our-screens, accessed 1 September 2012. A similar emphasis on technology can be seen in the early promotional material for Attenborough and Geffen’s new Sky 3D series about insects, Micro Monsters 3D, which at the time of writing is scheduled to broadcast in June 2013. 26 ‘The Making of David Attenborough’s Kingdom of Plants 3D,’ Disk 2, Kingdom of Plants 3D DVD, Go Entertain, 2012. 27 Robin Broomfield, 3D Sports Showcase, Panel Discussion at 3D Creative Summit, Ravensbourne/BFI South Bank, 27 March 2013. 28 Steve Smith and Duncan Humphreys, 3D Sports Showcase, Panel Discussion at 3D Creative Summit, Ravensbourne /BFI South Bank, 27 March 2013. 29 Steve Smith, 3D Sports Showcase Panel, 3D Creative Summit. 30 Discussion of the 3D Anfield coverage is from a comparative analysis of the 2D and 3D broadcast of the Premiere League match between Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur played on 10 March 2013 and broadcast on Sky Sports 1 in 2D and on Sky 3D. 31 Leon Watson, ‘BBC to screen Olympics in 3D as organisers plan up to 10 hours per day of coverage with extra dimension’, Daily Mail online, 1 September 2011, http:// www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2032240/BBC-screen-Olympics-3Dorganisers-plan-10-hours-day-coverage-extra-dimension.html, accessed 25 July 2012. 32 Rachel Joseph, ‘Strictly Come Dancing 3D - 3D Storytelling 2012’, http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=ZdnGFnpIoTg, accessed 25 July 2012.

Simon Brown is Director of Studies for Film, Television and Media at Kingston University. He has published articles on a range of contemporary television programmes, including Alias, Dexter and Supernatural and in 2013 co-edited and wrote a piece for a special issue of the journal of Science Fiction Film and Television, commemorating the 20th anniversary of The X-Files. E-mail: [email protected].