Depth of Field Differences Between Tangled in 3D and 2D

Thanks to Mrkazador of AVS Forum for the excellent find and screen caps.

James Cameron, amongst other headline proponents of 3D, laud the format for giving a feeling of "looking out the window." Part of this is forsaking one of the oldest cinematography tricks in the book - depth of field. Directors and directors of photography commonly use shallow depth of field, that means having things at a specific distance in focus while the rest is out of focus, to highlight an actor or object that they wish you to pay attention to. This cannot be done if you want to achieve the window effect because things in the distance are required to be in focus along with the things that truly require our attention. Up to now there really hasn't been a movie that allows you to analyze the artistic decision between an infinite or shallow depth of field because it's a decision that is made as the camera is filming. Tangled has been rendered differently in 2D and 3D so that the 2D version looks and feels more like a traditional film while the 3D version is able to take advantage of its format. This is the first time that I've been depressed to not have a 3D TV on hand.

Note: It can be difficult to tell the difference at this resolution, so click on the pictures to see the difference at 1920x1080(1080p)

2D

 

3D

2D

3D

Disclosure: I saw this movie twice in theaters in 3D, once in November and once in December. I've watched it at home twice three times many times in 2D 1080p via Blu-ray.

Asking the Impossible

I very rarely watch TV shows when they are first broadcast. They make you sit through commercials, they come on at a set time that may not fit your schedule, and you have to remember to actually tune in. I haven't watched a show with any regularity since the cancellation of Arrested Development until this season of History's reality show Top Shot. I would be remiss to not mention that I regularly watch The Amazing Race with friends, but I don't think that counts because it's not something I would do on my own. This is all not to say that I don't watch shows that are currently in production. Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Star Wars: The Clone Wars, and Dexter are all great and I watch them as soon as they come out on DVD or Blu-ray.

The interesting thing about both Top Shot and The Amazing Race is that their formats don't require contestants to game each other because players aren't voted out. You could be the scum of the Earth and treat the other teams like crap, but as long as your team doesn't check in last you have a chance to win The Amazing Race. Top Shot is similar to this, but with a twist. The team that loses the team challenge then votes two team members to compete to see who is booted off the show. This creates a dynamic where being friendly or in an alliance is rewarded, but it isn't required. A team could vote for someone every time, as long as that person wins the elimination challenge they are still on the show and able to win. Skill is paramount.

My problem with both, and reality television in general, is that the producers are asking me to judge and root for people that I don't know beyond what happens to be filmed and edited together. In the real world you are a jerk to do that.

Better Late than Never

Last night I was able to rectify an issue that has plagued me since childhood. I finally got around to watching Who Framed Roger Rabit? thanks to the magic of Netflix. There's no reason to beat around the bush, the first thing you have to talk about is the interaction between "toons," humans, sets, and props. It really does work extremely well. Giving animated characters and props a feeling of mass while also having them react so naturally to the real world is an impressive technical achievement. The design of alternate LA and the practical sets is also spectacular, they feel hyperreal. Something in every shot is always exaggerated to give it the feeling of a world that is very practical, yet also otherworldly in a whimsical cartoon way. The bright, low contrast look also contributes to the hyperreal sensation in a most wonderful way.

Unfortunately there is more to a movie than just effects and design, and that is where my issues with this movie appear. Having so many classic animated characters together in one place is a hallmark of this movie, and of course it's a fun concept. The problem is that it never quite lives up to the promise of the awesomely hilarious Daffy and Donald dueling piano gag. By the end of the movie, there really isn't much joke to it beyond to having them all together. The Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny scene is a particular let down. If their respective owners are to paranoid to let them actually do something funny with each other then they shouldn't have used them together. My other issue with the film is that the tone is very disjointed. The writers and Zemeckis should have committed more to the noir and genocide story or the absurd screwball of the toons. My real issue is probably Christopher Lloyd's portrayal of Judge Doom. It's too on the nose and serious for the world around him. An over the top and in love with himself Judge Doom would have made it feel more right.

I desperately wanted to love this movie, but in the end I can only say that I like and appreciate it. It's unfortunate that this movie didn't have that last little bit to take it from good to great. Three Acme Disappearing and Reappearing Ink jars out of five.

Cynicism with Love

The tumblr Hell Yeah Tangled recently linked to an article on Hathor Legacy titled "Pride and Possession: Magic Flowers, Hair, and Women (and the Kidnappers Who “Love” Them)". Negative analysis of Beauty and the Beast, especially of the Beast, always makes me a little nervous. Am I missing something, or are the critics being cynical about Beast's motives?


Comparing Beast to Gothel is an odd choice. Both hold captives who can escape very easily and stay captive as a sort of sick choice, but that is only the setup in both respective movies. The story of Beauty is that Belle's presence, from when she volunteers to replace her father to the end when she mourns and loves who Beast became, serves as a reminder of what humanity is to someone who had lost touch with his humanity. The spell is reversed when Belle reciprocates his love at the end of the film, but he had already redeemed himself when he learned from her example and released Belle out of the human feeling of compassion. Beast needed Belle's love to undo the spell, but his early forced attempts to woo her fail dramatically and everything after that is presented to suggest he isn't conspiring against Belle. Gothel is an entirely different case. Gothel is shown to plot against Rapunzel from the moment she discovers that the hair loses its magic until Gothel dies. She never repents for becoming a captor and spends the remainder of the movie trying to recapture Rapunzel in order to restore the status quo of using Rapunzel for her own ends.

Bonus content from the cutting room floor:
Taking Disney Animation to task for (almost) universally negative portrayals of stepmothers is beyond fair and something that should be done. What isn't fair at all is to say that Gothel is a stepmother who serves as any kind of commentary about love or family. She is nothing more than a kidnapper who lies about her relationship with Rapunzel in order to keep Rapunzel pliant.