Ok, that’s a bit strong as a description of the film Coraline. But there were moments seeing it this weekend where I flashed back to that first viewing of Star Wars in 1977, to that moment where the Imperial Star Destroyer came in from the top of the screen, and you realized that all the films you’d ever seen with “special effects” were basically nothing like this film, even though you recognized some aspect of the technology or the style or the genre as preceding that moment of amazement.
Even without the 3D, Coraline is a great film both visually and in terms of its storytelling. Think twice about taking younger kids: my 8-year old was freaking out in parts, and she’s a fairly sophisticated consumer of fantastic imagery and fairy-tale narratives. There were a lot of people in the audience with younger kids still, and you could hear a wave of whimpering fearfulness at some points in the last half of the film. Still, I’d agree with A.O. Scott in the New York Times: this is a good kind of unsettling, scary story for kids, that opens up some potent issues in really good and imaginative ways. As I said to my daughter afterwards, the film is partly about the disturbing moment in childhood where you begin to recognize that your parents have weaknesses and that not everything in the world exists for your own benefit, a moment that comes at different times in different kinds of childhoods. I think I’m going to write a bit about the film over at Terra Nova, because I also think it has some smart things to say about virtual worlds and imaginary play.
However, back to the 3D for a minute: this is the first film I’ve ever seen where the 3D really seems not at all a gimmick, but a sustained part of the aesthetic, something that adds not just literal layers to the visuals but layers to the storytelling, to the experience of seeing and thinking about the film. If you can see it in a 3D theater, do so.
Huh. I watched it in 3D, and it hurt my eyes a little bit, and the only moment I really truly appreciated it was the cone-shaped web at the end, and I kinda felt it could have been flat. Can you say more about the layers it added to the storytelling? (Note: I have not seen 3D for decades, so you might be comparing it to more gimmicky movies that I don’t know).
I need to see this movie. I love – LOVE – the book. The book is pretty creepy, too, and I don’t suggest it for kids who are easily frightened. I would have loved it as a kid, but then I loved the gory and creepy aspects of fairy tales.
So here’s what I remember noting.
First, there’s a use of 3D that’s “ordinary”, by which I mean simply adds dimensionality on an ongoing basis to the visuals of the film. Most other 3D that I can think of seeing saves the 3D for stunts only, and is otherwise a 2D image, whereas with Coraline, I think they were consistently attentive to dimensionality.
But second, the use of startling or strongly expressive 3D is really marked in the middle act of the film, when Coraline’s experiencs in the other world are all about delight and wonder. The initial experience of Ashland, though there’s dimension to it, is mostly flat-feeling, aligning with the grey and drab image of Coraline’s reality. The Other Mother’s world on first sight is bursting with dimensionality: Coraline travels up and down, things fly above her, things move below her. When that world turns terrifying, it still has dimension, but now it’s often about falling, with Coraline poised above the dimensional action or deep down below (the web, the Other Father falling through the bridge, the eyes falling away from Coraline’s grasp, the looming button-moon).
Third, the really “stunt-like” moments in the 3D, where the action is directly aimed at the audience, are also very tellingly thought out, they’re not merely stunts. One of the early ones is a needle stabbing through a button as the Other Mother makes a Coraline doll–the needle comes straight at your own eye.
Ah, thanks, yes, I see what you mean.
The needle was very amazing. Although, steeped in Edward Scissorhands, I was reading that early scene as friendly and loving, and was totally shocked when the same hands came back at the end *not* friendly.
Your post title crushes me. I liked the book, but my eyes lack depth perception. I have no idea what would happen if I tried to watch a 3D movie; probably either see it only in 2D or have to whip the glasses off before I got a splitting headache.