Daily Archives: April 19, 2012

Stereoscopic Cinema and the Origins of 3-D Film 1838 -1952

Sometimes I watch terrible movies so you don’t have to, and occasionally I even read boring books so you don’t have to. See how good I am to you?

But seriously, Stereoscopic Cinema and the Origins of 3-D Film 1838-1952 is probably going to be more interesting to silent film fans than anyone else, including 3-D film fans or stereographers. The never ending parade of patent numbers remind be of the “he begat then he begat who begat blah blah blah” section of the Good Book – you know the set up before the action and character development. But still, you can skim the patents and just read the cool parts, of which there are many.

Check out my review over at Toronto Film Scene:

Stereoscopic Cinema and the Origins of 3-D Film 1838 -1952

3-D film is all the rage these days, not least because the Hollywood superstructure decided to invest heavily in the production and distribution of this technology. “This is it!” they say, “3-D is here to stay this time!” “You’re gonna love it!” But as Ray Zone thoroughly demonstrates in Stereoscopic Cinema and the Origins of 3-D Film 1838-1952 inventors, technologists, filmmakers, and production studios have been chasing that stereoscopic dragon for a long, long time. CLICK ON TO READ THE REST


Anthony Hopkins as Alfred Hitchcock

Yesterday the world got it’s first peek at Sir Anthony Hopkins as Alfred Hitchcock. Can you tell which is the real Hitch?




(The answer is the second one.)

I rather like the idea of a movie about the making of Psycho. I dig the idea of Helen Mirren as Alma, and Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh – no brainer! Hitch himself, though, that’s a tough one to cast. Sir Anthony Hopkins is certainly a very meticulous actor, and I’m hard pressed the think of an actor more likely to pull it off. But that photo of Anthony Hopkins as Alfred Hitchcock looks like, well, a photo of Anthony Hopkins as Alfred Hitchcock. The pose that Hopkins is striking up there is a familiar one to Hitch fans, but that imperious attitude was a role that Hitchcock played, not actual imperiousness. I think.

Therein lies the challenge of the role of Hitch. He directed a lot of fine actors, but he was also a pretty good actor himself. If you don’t believe me, just watch his bits from Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Genius, in their own way. Who exactly will Hopkins be playing? Actor Hitch, Director Hitch, comically fat man Hitch, or actual guy Hitch? Do we know much about actual Hitch, really? It’s all very confusing.

I suppose pawing at Scar-Jo will go a long way to getting in character.

%d bloggers like this: