The Hobbit in 3D

Not far away was his hiding place, of which Bilbo knew nothing, and there he kept a few wretched oddments...which included a pair of overpriced 3D glasses.

As regulars will have guessed, I am not a fan of this whole new 3D malarky that is forcing its way into our cinemas and I apologise in advance for yet another article on the subject. It is, however, proving to be a relentless nuisance. Which mostly, I can put up with; Avatar was alright, as is the new Alice in Wonderland. They are fairground rides more than films and whilst they are about as much the future of cinema as Tommy Wiseau is, I can sympathise with the argument that they are a good bit of throw away fun.

There is a point though, where the buck must stop. A point where we say "enough is enough" and get on with making proper cinema. More importantly, this point must come before filming of The Hobbit begins.

That's right folks, it has recently been rumoured that the first part of The Hobbit, due for release in 2012, may be shot with a million Buddy Holly lookalikes in mind. Pressure is being put on director Guillermo Del Toro, from above due to the huge success of the aforementioned fairground rides.

Now, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings happen to be relics of literature and film that are very close to my heart. I happen to believe that they are some of the finest novels ever written, probably the best of the twentieth century, and that Peter Jackson's epic trilogy is the best film trilogy in history - yes, leagues in front of Star Wars, even when it was in its original, unbarstardised, trilogy form. So when Warner Bros. and New Line start nudging Jackson and Del Toro and whispering "3D, please" I start to get very worried.

Why all the fuss, some may ask. Why get so up tight and bothered about it? After all, it'll look really cool. The reason is because 3D ruins films by subtracting from the plot. If you read my review of Avatar you will understand, and hopefully agree, how it could have been so much more if plot was not sacrificed for 3D action set pieces. And that is when the story is designed and written for 3D from the very start! Can you imagine the possibilities of decimation three dimensions could bring to The Hobbit, a work of art and literature?

The magic, the utter brilliance of The Lord of the Rings film adaptations was that you really felt like you were looking through a window into Middle-Earth. The factors that made it believable were the pacing, the scenery and the softness. You can have all the Helms Deep esqué battles you want, but what really sells Tolkien's world is the more passive scenes - the Shire, Lothlorien and Fangorn forest.

Once 3D starts rearing its ugly head into the picture you know what is going to happen. Dialogue, and therefore characterisation will be cut, as will plot development and immersion. Notice that word? Immersion. It is the story that immerses you in a film, not 3D. You can chuck all your flashiness you want at a film but what makes the audience care are the characters and the stories. And it is these kind of vital and wonderful properties, which are so abundant in the novel of The Hobbit, that will be cut just so we can see another shot of Smaug looking out of the cinema screen and breathing fire on us.

What is more, I feel the chances of it being made in 3D are very likely. The success of the gimmick, plus the fact that it is a special effects heavy fantasy movie mean there are lots of excuses to have stuff flying at you and sticking in your face. Furthermore, Weta, Jackson's special effects maestros, were responsible for those in Avatar, the only wholly good thing about the movie. It all seems to add up. I bet the execs went back to their homes after watching Avatar and put on the famous ring-landing-on-the-finger scene from The Fellowship and thought it was the perfect candidate.

I conclude by asking people to listen to what I have to say and take action against this 3D nonsense. It is fine when James Cameron is knocking out some second grade alien adventure that could have been something more, but when something is something more...well, it just will not do. They cannot do as they please, sabotaging one of the finest works of literature ever created. So I ask, if anyone knows of a petition of some sorts and is serious about sending it to the executive producers. Please, let me know and I will gleefully sign it (post the link in the comments section for others to see also).

Finally, to those who are still unconvinced and think a 3D Gollum is a pretty neat idea. I ask you two questions: will you still be "amazed" by 3D come 2012? And, even if the answer to that is yes, it may make you animate your exterior as you duck and gasp, but will it kindle the interior and touch you? Where it really matters.

Oscar Results

The Hurt Shocker: Excuses and analysis.

I know! I was so sure of myself, wasn't I? And I said I would be writing a smug post-Oscar article when instead I find myself on the back foot writing a self-defending explanation of why I was wrong about the most important prediction - the best film category.

As you probably know, The Hurt Locker won best film when I predicted that, due to its box office intake, Avatar would. Firstly, let me be smug for a short while. It'll be quick! I promise: I was right about everything else. All of the other categories came in straight and true to my predictions so if I was the gambling man that I'm not and had placed a bet on all of them, I would be up...by a lot!

Also, all of my "Oscar ground rules" still ring true. In fact the reason why The Hurt Locker won best picture was because of them (rules number 1 and 3). I simply had applied rule #3 wrong and thought that Avatar would win.

So now I have defended my misapprehension we should turn to the matter of whether Kathryn Bigelow's war drama deserved to win best film and indeed all the awards it did on Sunday night.

Well Mark Boal's pickup for best screenplay was entirely deserved. The balance between drama and comedy in The Hurt Locker is nothing short of sublime. The palm wetting tension is built and then short bursts of humour allow you to pause for a second to wipe your brown before being plunged back into the anxiety. Tarantino talks about "playing" the audience like an orchestra with his writing, well Boal has managed this to an equal measure, if not superior.

However, none of this suspense would have made if off the page if it wasn't for Bigelow, the new most famous female director in the world. For that reason alone she deserved the best director award. Yes, there was plenty of politics involved with her being the first female director to win it, but it was deserved simply for the quality of her directing. Furthermore, there are little nuances she chose to employ that would have escaped other directors completely. An example would be during the highlight sniper battle where the background remains out of focus and is shot from the protagonists' view for the large majority of the scene. The main character takes a shot and the viewer anticipates the outcome with hung breath just as the characters do, staring through the blurry desert heatwaves.

Oscars that were maybe misplaced on this film? The achievements for sound and sound editing slightly jarred with me. Paul Ottoson and his team did the job to an unfailing degree but was it above and beyond? Was it extraordinary? The usual war sounds such as bullet whizzes and meaty explosions have all been done before. Compare The Hurt Locker's sound to the sci-fi epic Avatar in which the forest has more sounds designed for it than most movies do in the entirety and you start to wonder whether the Academy was hailing Locker simply for reason number three; more awards make more of an advertisement, they are market drivers.

Finally, should the movie have surprised us all and overcome Avatar for the best picture award? Well it was certainly the better film, so definitely in that respect. If it were up to me Avatar would not have even been in the running for the category. But was it the best film of 2009? Just out of the nominees I would have said An Education and Inglourious Basterds were of equal merit. Let alone foreign films like Let the Right One In whose only hope of an award is criminally in the "Foreign Language" category - as if a film in a language other than English is not capable of reaching the same standard, you would have thought the Academy would have learned after Pan's Labyrinth.

However, The Hurt Locker is probably the best war drama since Saving Private Ryan and definitely the best treatment of the Iraqi war on film. It also presents the more controversial story of a man who actually enjoys war and it never opts for the predictable narrative. And it might - just might - show Hollywood that you can glitz us with all the 3D gimmickry you want, but what really matters in film is a decent story and that is the past, present and future of cinema, and always will be.