Why The Focus Convergence Problem Is Actually a Good Thing

I'm referencing an article written by Roger Ebert that heavily references Walter Murch. In that article, the two argue that 3D cannot be a viable format due to the way it changes how your eyes work. It's not something that should be impossible for your eyes to do (it requires using your exterior and interior eye-muscles separately), but it's understandable how that can be stressful to your eye muscles. It's similar work to trying to lift your ring finger when the rest of your fingers are clenched.

Modern stereographers seem to try and solve this dilemma by spending the majority of a movie converging on the object at which you're meant to be looking. Inf films that do this, you're mostly converging and focusing on the same object, so your eye muscles are once again in unison. Frequent 3D cinema goers will therefore naturally look at the focal object, since it's the one that provides the least resistance for their eyes. Once you understand this, and once audiences have been trained to accept this, this makes it one of the most powerful tools that 3D cinema gives a filmmaker.

I noticed this recently when I was watching Hotel Transylvania in 3D. I didn't expect much from the 3D because the director of the film has gone on record saying he only made it 3D because the producers of it forced him to make it 3D. But there was one scene that (probably unintentionally) really stood out.

In the film, Dracula is attempting to plan his daughter's 1,018th birthday, but is being shown up by a human hiker that randomly wandered in and quickly became the life of the party. The scene shows all of the hotel's monster guests crowded around the human hiker, while Dracula is screaming in the background and vying for their attention. When this shot was composed in 3D, the crowd and the human were converged, standing right where the screen was, and Dracula was placed firmly into the positive space.

What interested me about this scene was that Dracula was moving, making noise, and by all means should have been drawing attention to himself. In fact, I tried to pay attention to him, but I found myself experiencing resistance. Because he wasn't converged and the other characters were, I felt like I actually couldn't look at him.

At that point it dawned on me. I can use 3D to hide things in plain sight. While art has typically involved the use of line and color to draw a viewer's eye to a desirable object, 3D has the ability to draw a viewer's eye away from an unintended object. This, of course, works the opposite way for objects coming into the negative space (which may explain why people are under the impression that negative space is the only part that actually makes something 3D), with negative space objects drawing attention away from where the viewer's eye naturally wants to rest.

Admittedly, this isn't a brand new discovery. Alfred Hitchcock already knew about and applied this concept to 3D film in his movie, Dial 'M' for Murder, and I know of at least one other person I've personally met who has noticed this before. Still, it's an interesting concept that is not commonly understood by those inside or outside of the film industry. By creating areas that are actually uncomfortable for your eye, the filmmaker is given complete control to hide or emphasize subjects of a scene. And this can be used to effect some powerful emotions.

For example, let's say you're hypothetically creating a movie about a ninja, and he needs to sneak into his target's abode unseen. You could converge on objects other than him with him in positive space, and he'll feel like a superb expert of his art, since the audience feels compelled not to see him. Conversely, if you want to make him appear vulnerable, you can converge on him with guards in the positive space of the shot, or even shoot with him protruding into the negative space. Suddenly, he's calling attention to himself and not seeing his enemies coming. You worry for him, because you feel him slipping in his stealth.

Or assume you've been tasked with remaking Cipher in the Snow, or some other movie with a protagonist that doesn't draw attention to himself. Telling his story with him in the positive space of the picture will immediately communicate how withdrawn and lonely he is, before a line is even uttered or a gesture made to make him into an emotionally withdrawn character. He's withdrawn emotionally because he appears withdrawn physically.

All this would not be possible if we managed to somehow solve the focus and convergence issue, because objects would no longer cause discomfort in these kinds of shots. You'd be able to stare at Dracula too easily, making him lose his desperation. 2D film is therefore too distracting for certain messages, while 3D makes distraction a non-issue. And to me, that's an amazing quality, not a problem challenging its existence.

So with all due respect to Mr. Ebert and Murch, I disagree with your assessment.