It's been a while since my last update. I have been working on this blog; I've just scrapped everything I've posted because none of it has been good enough yet. Hopefully this won't be another post like that, because whether it is or not I'm posting it anyway.
First, a little context for what I'm talking about. In 3D film, you have the ability to render objects in front or behind the screen. In order to be able to describe the things in front and behind the screen, stereographers needed a way to address 3D space. They decided to name the space behind the screen, "positive space," because it increases the amount of space between the audience and the object. Conversely, everything that gets closer to the audience, or "pops out" of the screen, is said to be in the "negative space." I bring this up because there's been this trend lately to deem any use of negative space as "gimmicky." But such a blanket statement is too closed-minded. There are so many reasons that negative space can and should be utilized in 3D movies!
Now, I'm not talking about the lowbrow reasons, meant just for the fun of seeing things protrude from the screen that you can then touch. I should clarify. When I say lowbrow, I mean appeal entirely for the novelty. Things like the scene early in
Journey to the Center of the Earth where the lead character spits into a sink, just so the water can splatter well in front of the screen. With time, the novelty of this effect fades. The thing is that these shots aren't always inherently meant for the purpose of novelty, and should not be resisted just because they exist.
Not All Popout Was Meant to Be Gimmicky
The first reason I say this is because of the 3D version of
Finding Nemo (which not enough people have seen). If you've seen either version, you'll recall that early in the film, there's a scene where Marlin is exhibiting some comical cowardice by over-cautiously exiting and entering the sea anemone where he lives. The shot is framed so that, in the 3D version, Marlin and Nemo swim from out of the anemone and into the negative space. Conventional wisdom of 3D films would suggest that this scene must have then been shot to exploit the novelty of the 3D effect. While it does exploit it (very amusingly, I might add), the idea that it was framed specifically to exploit it is absurd.
Finding Nemo was originally created as a 2D film, and then was later re-rendered in 3D as an afterthought to capitalize on the new 3D boom. They never originally intended that scene to be experienced in 3D. Hence, it couldn't have been composed specifically for 3D. It's just the most logical way to frame that scene, whether in 2D or 3D.
3D Framing Effects an Emotion
But more than just negative space occasionally making the most sense, negative space can be used to positive effect (if you'll pardon the pun). First, because negative space literally brings an object closer to the viewer. This enables filmmakers to have a tool in their tool belt that typically has been only available to theatrical productions; position away from or close to the audience. That may seem unimportant at first glance, but how close a person or thing is to you affects your emotions toward them. If they are further away than it seems they should be, they feel emotionally unattached, withdrawn from your world (to use a word that applies both literally and emotionally, they appear distant). But if they're too close to you, they feel invasive, and you feel uncomfortable.
Let's take, for example, Hugo (a rightly celebrated champion of 3D cinema). There is a scene in which the titular character, Hugo, is confronting a grumpy toy maker to retrieve a journal that the toy maker had taken away. He instead finds that the toy maker has burned his journal. To compose the emotion of this scene in 3D, Martin Scorsese decided it would be useful to show a scene where Hugo is holding his ashen journal out into the screen, the camera facing upward, and the ashes floating into the negative space. The ashes come extremely close to the viewer (uncomfortably so). This sense of discomfort is then subconsciously transferred back onto Hugo, with whom we empathize at the loss of his journal. It's a beautifully composed scene, which doesn't work as well in 2D, and most certainly wouldn't be possible if 3D were forbidden to utilize negative space, as so many critics are calling for in their haste to declare 3D a useless gimmick.
Involving the Audience
Another valuable use of negative space is the mere fact that negative space is the area that the audience inhabits. Hence, unless a
floating frame is negating that effect, using the negative space is a way to invite the audience to explore their own role in the events unfolding on screen. I discovered this when playing the video game,
Batman: Arkham City. There's a scene in which Batman confronts Mr. Freeze about creating an antidote to a poison that the Joker used to poison Batman. Mr. Freeze decided to use antidote as leverage to force Batman into serving his own goals. Mr. Freeze crescendos his power over Batman by dramatically holding the antidote in front of him while he crushes it. The 3D version frames this so that Mr. Feeze's hand and the antidote reach in front of the screen. The first time I played, I subconsciously decided to try and reach for the antidote, as taking the role of Batman in this scene made me feel desperate. But I wasn't quick enough. Mr. Freeze crushed the antidote between my fingers. I played again at a later date and was a little quicker that time. Even then, however, my fingers passed right through the vial. Either way the message was clear. Despite my best efforts, that vial was unobtainable. I was weaker than Freeze, and that makes me desperate.
Not every situation is identical to the one in
Arkham City, but there are plenty of situations in which a filmmaker may want to include the audience in their film world by utilizing negative space. Perhaps they want to create a similar helplessness by showing failure to grab an outstretched hand in negative space. Perhaps they want to invite you into the magic of a birthday cake's candles by holding it close enough for you to blow them out yourself. It all depends on the script. But the point is filmmakers and critics do film a disservice by immediately declaring all use of objects protruding into negative space to be gimmicky. Negative space is potent when applied judiciously. And, to be honest, I'd like to see more of it.
