filmspoons.de

Q: This is your first foray into 3D movie making. How did you use 3D to enhance the storytelling in a story like Hugo?

Martin Scorsese: I found that the setting of the story lent itself to using the elements of space and depth like storytelling—in other words, to use it as narrative—the train station itself, the interior of the walls, the interior of the clocks, the automaton and then, ultimately, Méliès making his first movies. It had a lot to do with the machinery, the mechanisms, very much 3D itself, which creates something beyond itself. In other words, the movies that could bring people together—the automaton, the moving cameras, the projectors—they create stories and images that go up on the screen and then, once they’re experienced, they’re gone. But, the emotional and psychological impact stays with you. Moviegoers have extraordinarily strong emotions and experiences.

James Cameron: I found the film very emotional. I felt like the audience was right there with the nuance of every moment, because they felt so present. They really felt present.

MS: See, yeah that’s exactly what I was after, rather than 3D being used with the camera flying around and things flying at the camera… that sort of thing. But I was actually trying to take the audience and put them in that world, and bring the children forward. It’s like seeing your children the first thing in the morning, when they come up the stairs, running, and you want to grab them, hug them, kiss them. That’s what I wanted the audience to feel like. I wanted that sense of taking and immersing the audience into that world, rather than having them looking through a stereo box.

Q: And you felt like the depth of the 3D could bring you in closer to those characters?

MS: That’s what we felt – saying, why’s it better this way.

JC: Yeah. But beauty of it is that you reacted to the 3D instinctively. You saw it and you said, ‘Oh, I can do this, and I can do that!’ You weren’t waiting for some 3D guy to tell you what you can and can’t do.

MS: Yes, that was the key thing—It was [DP] Bob Richardson and [stereographer] Demetri Portelli was really good on the I/O and [special effects supervisor / 2nd unit director] Rob Legato…

Q: Will you just say what the I/O is?

MS: That means ‘intraocular,’ there’s one lens for the right eye and one lens for the left—

JC: (Overlapping) Exactly. It’s the distance between the lenses.

MS: (Overlapping) And if you take it too far apart that’s when you…

JC: Ow…

MS: Yeah, that hurts. If we would do that, you would hear me scream. (Laughing and overlapping)

JC: You know, we made up a term – “brain sheer.”

MS: (Overlapping) Oh, that’s good. That’s good. (Laughing) But I’d always be yelling at Demetri, “For God’s sake, give me more I/O!” (Laughing overlapping) C’mon!

JC: (Overlapping) Then he’d hurt you. Then he’d show you (Laughing overlapping)

MS: Then he’d come in with his dial –

Q: And take it up to eleven. Well Jim, you’ve just seen the movie – were there things that you saw in this movie Hugo that that you felt the 3D really enhanced the experience of it?

JC: I think it doesn’t serve the film to talk about the 3D as if it’s a separate thing…any more than talking about the color in the film should be the lead story. I mean, of course, it’s a lead story that a filmmaker of Marty’s stature and pedigree is working in 3D…this breaking down of the bastion, this idea that 3D is for just hyper-commercial films, that sort of thing. But to me, it’s what Marty did—he integrated it with the color, with the composition, with the camera movement, with the acting. Everything—it’s like a 16-cylinder Bugatti firing perfectly on every cylinder, and 3D is one of those cylinders.

MS: That was an incredible thing, to hear you say that. It was absolutely terrifying at times, because people were looking at me saying, ‘Well, we’re all waiting to see.’ I said, ‘I’m just trying to put it all together.’ I did have a few moments, where the [actors’] hands reach out, but we cut away just in time, so it doesn’t become an effect.

JC: But your instincts were flawless, I mean, it’s absolutely the best 3D photography that I’ve seen. And for that reason, it’s constantly supportive of what you’re doing, artistically, and never detractive. I’ve always said that the 3D must only be adding value, and the second it’s not, get it out of there. You know? You never let it get in the way or draw attention to itself. It’s always just there. But, all of a sudden, I’m watching a shot of Sasha or Asa, and it just seems so real…but yet, at the same time, hyper-real. Almost dreamlike.

MS: Bob’s lighting and his use of the dust motes—he literally kept pouring in more dust…but also the sets, the color timing, all of that.

Q: You had alluded to it before, just that the whole nature of the setting—the train station, being inside the walls, the clock towers—things really lent themselves to playing with depth the way you are talking about.

MS: But the depth has to tell the story. Two years ago, I had the opportunity to go on a little family vacation, which I never do (laughter) you know, what I mean? And the only place I really wanted to go was Egypt. I was there with a number of Egyptian filmmakers, a Palestinian filmmaker and some others. And I said, ‘Now 3D is going to be the major thing.’ And this filmmaker said, ‘It might be, but it has to be in the script. It has to be in the story.’ I said, ‘You’re right.’

JC: (Overlapping) I think there’s a truth to that.

MS: And I got scared then. I said, ‘You’re right, I’ve got to think of it in the script.’ Then Gaspar Noé, who does these very tough movies, he said, ‘Are you going to try 3D?’ I said, ‘Yup.’ He said that the thing with 3D is that you should do these long takes—he’d just finished Enter the Void. He said, ‘If I were to do it, I’d take one long take, 20 minutes, characters coming and out, tracking them, then digitally combining it.’

JC: (Overlapping) That’s a fun challenge. I don’t think I’m ready for that one yet!

MS: (Overlapping) Me neither! I said, ‘Well, we’re already thinking this way. You know, but there’s a stigma. The fashion to say, ‘Oh, it’s a gimmick.’ But, you gotta understand when moving images first started, people wanted sound, color, big screen and depth. They did. I mean Lumière Brothers’ films have been restored, and two of them are in 3D. And Méliès was already going there – there’s a two-minute section of his films that are in 3D that have been restored. And everybody wanted color, so everybody tried color right away –

JC: (Overlapping) Yeah, and the cameras were enormous. They were the size of a Volkswagen.

MS: Yeah. [The filmmakers] Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger called it the Magic Cottage. ‘We’re going into the cottage,’ the camera. The thing was that color was not for serious film. Therefore, you had up until around 1965, the Academy [of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences] had two categories of Best Cinematography: black & white, and color. Because color was only relegated to musical, comedies, westerns—

JC: (Overlapping) Sword and sandal epics.

MS: (Overlapping) Yeah, sword and sandal epics, that’s it. But then, in ’69, [noted film critic/author] Andrew Sarris said, ‘All films are going to be made in color from now on,’ and we couldn’t believe it. It was quite a bit of a tussle to get Raging Bull made in black and white, until Irwin Winkler told the guys at United Artists at the time, he said, ‘Think of the ‘70s, think of what happened. All the pictures made in black and white were hits. Paper Moon, Last Picture Show and Lenny. They said, ‘Okay.’

JC: (Overlapping laughter) That’s what it took!

JC: And some day, somebody’s going to have the Woody Allen clause, which says that you can shoot a movie in black and white if you want to, in your studio deal. Right? For 3D. Because everybody will be 3D. And if you want to not shoot in 3D, you’re going to have to have the clause. And then some young Marty Scorsese guy will come along and say, ‘I’m gonna show them, I’m gonna make my movie in 2D!’

MS: (Laughs)

JC: (Overlapping with laughter) ‘Look at all the hits that were in 2D!’

MS: Exactly, I know! I know!

Q: You brought up the cameras—how did you feel about filming with these cameras? Was it a challenge at first?

MS: (Overlapping) Oh, it was a great challenge.

Q: Just the physicality of it?

MS: It was a great challenge, and a constant adjustment. But the thing is this, the story lent itself to shooting in a studio, which I don’t normally do. Bob Richardson loves a crane –

Q: (Overlapping) He’s your cinematographer.

MS: Cinematographer. And he had that rig on a crane. And we can move with the crane—we were able to move from set to set. So it wasn’t that easy, but it was feasible. It was doable. But, as I was saying earlier, if you get in that clock tower and you’re inside the mechanism of the clock, it’s very tight. But it’s all right, we’re going to move a wall. And you move a wall, but you’ve still gotta get that camera in there. And it was very hard. But even as we were shooting, the rigs themselves became smaller. Of course, we had to continue with our bigger one, and we got used to that. It was not a problem.

JC: Well, next film – we’ll have one half that size.

MS: Yup. But also –

JC: Oh, I want them smaller, too, believe me! Because I like to hand hold [the camera], so I don’t want some Buick on my shoulder.

MS: Well, that’s what happened with Larry McConkey, the steadicam operator. He had to create a rig, and he finally got a Segue.

JC: Mounted it on the Segue?

MS: Yeah. He was on that, and it was with the handheld.

JC: The thing is, it’s gone through a weird cycle, because when we were doing Avatar, I didn’t want to sacrifice mobility and a dynamic camera. So, I sacrificed the highest end of image quality by shooting on a 2/3rds inch chip—we’d been doing that for the documentaries, and I thought it was good enough. But the DPs came along and said that it wasn’t good enough. And so everything doubled in size. Overnight. And now it’s coming down again. But you’ve got to go through these waves of technology.

MS: (Overlapping) Right, right. But this was like the perfect storm. They use that phrase now, but it was perfect to do this type of picture with that rig. You see, it just seemed to come together. But then it was up to us to fulfill it, you know? And that was always an edgy situation because, you’re there—

Q: Well you were in a studio, too, which gave you more control than you would have—

MS: (Overlapping) More control, we had some exterior shots, but not much. You know, there was one [shot] outside the Théâtre de Paris, in that little square, we had the 3D camera on a crane, and it looked like a space ship. And the middle Paris—people standing on their balconies, eating dinner, looking at us, and Bob was flying by with his white hair flowing—

JC: (Overlapping) Yeah, I know. He just looks dramatic.

MS: (Overlapping) These guys saying, ‘Oh, these Americans!’ (Laughing)

Q: (Overlapping) Taking over Paris again. Jim, you’ve had some criticisms about some 3D projection.

JC: Well, it’s just the light levels.

MS: (Overlapping) This is the big issue.

JC: (Overlapping) You know, what we saw today, it looked like you were projecting at a good light level.

MS: (Overlapping) 11… 11.2… I think, foot lamp.

Q: And is that something that you have gotten involved in – or will get involved in?

MS: (Overlapping) Yes, we are involved in it now. (Laughs) Again, it’s kind of ignorance, in a way, I just didn’t know that most theaters don’t project at that high a light level. If you’re lucky, it’s a six. In most cases, a three.

JC: (Overlapping) Yeah, three to four.

MS: Three or four. So that means that we have to make two other versions of the film, to match those. And a lot of this has to do—well, they don’t want to burn out their bulbs.

JC: (Overlapping) Exactly. They turn the voltage down to extend the bulb life. But your film is about the magic of cinema. It’s about the very first days of the magic of cinema. And in its execution, the medium is the message. The movie is magical to watch. So you’ve exactly closed the ellipse in such an amazing and artistic way.

Q: Well, it sounds like all that you’re saying is that, bottom line, the 3D fit with the content of the movie.

MS and JC: (Overlapping) Yes, yes.

Q: The themes of the movie, and the legacy and evolution of filmmaking.…

MS: And they were going there [towards 3D] any way, they were doing it. But what really stopped it, I think, is just the way color was being designed at first. There were so many different versions, so many different techniques, systems, that people just gave up, in way. Except for Technicolor, the great Technicolor. And by 1935, three-strip Technicolor was gorgeous.

JC: (Overlapping) Can you imagine Méliès today, with the digital tools? I mean, the guy would be going crazy—

Q: Well, that’s one of the amazing things about watching the film…when you go through those long sequences of how Méliès was building these shots, with the depth and everything. When you think about how much thought was going into that already, from the very first day.

MS: Well, he was a genius. He was also a great magician. So he understood the illusion, and then he figured out how to do the illusion with film.

JC: It’s all tricks.

MS: And, of course, he was using orthrochromatic film, and the problem was that certain colors didn’t translate well to black and white. Red would go completely white, and things like that. And so he really painted the sets black and white, and a lot of the costumes were black and white, and people’s faces, black and white…until panchromatic film came in.

JC: Right. And then hand-tinted…

MS: And then they hand-tinted the frames, and they still do it. His great-grandson does it.

Q: Jim, did you see things in Hugo that were new to you in any way in terms of how the 3D was used and merged with the storytelling?

JC: What I saw was really just masterful artistry where the depth and the composition…everything fit the moment, dramatically, in every case.

Q: Can you think of an example that sticks out?

JC: You know, everything. I mean, it’s very subjective. You’re over people’s shoulders, but it felt important to be over their shoulders. Not distracting. There’d be shots or a POV that turns into an ‘over,’ where somebody walks into the shot…so that in a way you’ve just merged the audience with the character. So, the subjectivity of the film, I thought was really quite remarkable. I mean, the funny thing is that it’s really just an extension of a lot of the stuff that filmmakers do. You’ve been building depth into shots with lighting composition and staging all this time. Now, you just have that additional parallax cue in addition to it.

MS: I was thinking what [cinematographer] Gregg Toland could do with this. I mean, imagine Citizen Kane in 3D. I’m serious…I’m not saying do it, however.

Q: Well, talk about use of depth.

MS: Use of depth, well, that’s what they were going for—William Wilder, Gregg Toland, John Fort. They had it, and they used these special deep focus lenses that gave them more depth. It’s something that everybody’s been trying for…the systems haven’t been as good as they are now.

JC: Well, they didn’t have digital. See, with digital you’ve got real-time feedback. And they were working on two films—

MS: (Overlapping) Two films together (laughs). Two projectors together, if one goes out of sync, you’re… (laughs).

JC: (Continued overlapping) It was a day or so before they saw their 3D. So, you know, you can look through the eyepiece and you can correct the lighting. You can correct the composition. You can correct the camera move. But you can’t correct the 3D until you see it projected later. Now, we’re digital, so we’ve got a real-time feedback loop. And you’re looking at a digital 3D monitor, and saying, ‘Hey, do this, do that, more I/O, less I/O. More foreground. Bring something in.’ So it’s a real-time adjustment process.

MS: Yeah and in the case of the film that I really love in 3D—I remember seeing House of Wax, of course, and It Came from Outer Space. André De Toth directed House of Wax. And it still works.

Q: It’s incredible to think of, in terms of no depth perception—

MS: (Overlapping) Yeah, well, he designed shots, especially the burning of the museum—it’s quite something. But, the one that I like looking at, or the one that was not released in 3D was Dial M for Murder. I have a print of it and we screened it before we shot. That is interesting. There is only one major 3D effect in it. When Grace Kelly is being attacked, her hand comes out of the screen. But the rest of it is about the melodrama that’s going on. And you’re looking at the eyes of an actor’s, and the I/O is really strong. It was a little too strong.

JC: It was always too strong in those days. (Overlapping laughter) You know, I mean, we can control it now.

MS: Now we can control it. I mean, look, here we are we’re back on the stage with these actors doing this play. The furniture is in the foreground. The lamp is in the foreground. I said, ‘Well, it’s so natural.’ It just seems right. And the film was never released that way.

JC: And Hitchcock wasn’t a big 3D fan. It was thrust upon him by the studio. I think it’s very different, what you’re doing…because you’ve actually embraced it as part of your artistic medium, as additional colors to paint with, ones that you never really had before. I think from my standpoint, as a director, having the opportunity to do something new that I’ve never done before is so rare, after making movies for 30 years. And you’ve been making movies at least ten years longer than I have, so it must be an amazing thing…to feel like a kid again.

MS: Yes. But we got hit with challenges, too, you know, things happen. The children’s hours were very difficult for us. The dogs sometimes weren’t working, and then, they finally did—they were great.

JC: The dog is hysterical, by the way.

MS: A Doberman. The nose. It’s perfect, too. Yeah, we’ve been writing 3D into the script, and making reference to silent film comedies through a kind of silent film shtick that we were trying to do with Sasha [Baron Cohen]. It’s very delicate, very tricky.

JC: (Overlapping) It is tricky but, you know, I thought you rode that line flawlessly.

MS: Sometimes you work over the years and you say…even Ingmar Bergman said when he was in his 40s, I think, he has a quote—because I had done something with his archive, his film foundation, and we’ve got these books. Anyway, he said, ‘I don’t see how I can continue making movies 10 years from now. It’s so arduous. Walk over those rocks…and go there…get up, and do this. I don’t know that I have the energy for it.’ And so, at a certain point in time, you’re in your 60s…you’re in your late 60s, saying, ‘Can you do it?’”

JC: (Overlapping) Yeah, I really felt you were slowing down! (Laughing) When I watched this movie…I mean, the camera’s always barreling through crowds, and going up ladders.

MS: But that’s the thing that made us do it. In other words, that made me say, ‘Hey, let’s do this picture. Let’s get there! Oh, what are we going to do this morning?’ And we really would get into it. It was really like making a picture again for the first time.

Q: Does the way Hugo turned out, does that bode well for more live-action 3D movies, ones that are not in a genre considered more traditional for 3D films?

JC: Well, first of all, I’ve been saying for a long time that drama is being overlooked for 3D. People are thinking the obvious knee-jerk way, that it should be action.

MS: (Overlapping) Yeah, I agree.

JC: (Overlapping) Science fiction, or something visual. But, you know, if you’re spending $150 million on visual effects for a science fiction movie, it’s already going to look spectacular. (Laughter) It doesn’t even need the 3D that much. But something like this, where you have a great artist who has created this…lucid dream state. It’s not reality, but it looks real. And yet, it’s phantasmagorical at the same time. I think that people are going to go to school on this film. And I think it’s going to break some doors down in the minds of Hollywood of what’s possible.

MS: Well, I think so. That’s the thing, I mean, the bigger screens…obviously, IMAX is great, really wonderful. But 3D IMAX…drama in 3D…every subject can encompass this medium, any subject. Shakespeare in 3D. It’s been seen in theaters. What Time Warner should do is take Dial M for Murder and make a transfer to digital. Re-master it into 3D and sell it in 3D. And that’ll show you it’s a dramatic film, it’s 3D and it works.

Q: Cameron’s converting Titanic right now—would you ever convert any of your old films?

MS: I don’t know if I’d ever convert them, but why I’m saying Dial M for Murder is because it was shot in 3D. I’ve seen it in 3D. And it’s effective as a drama, as a melodrama. And the actors—I mean, Grace Kelly in 3D!

Q: Right. 2D is pretty fantastic. (Laughter overlapping)

MS: You know, Ray Milland, Robert Cummings, all these people—wonderful. And you’re watching people talking and moving, and that’s it. Every now and then you see them change the camera angle, and you try to figure out why. You know, it’s a minor Hitchcock, but that’s the beauty of it—because you can really look at it and study it, in a way. ‘Why is it effective?’

Q: Well, you’ve been so big on preservation, would you ever want to go back and restore some of those great 3D films, like Kiss Me Kate?

MS: Kiss Me Kate in 3D is very, very good, the dance sequence with Ann Miller at the beginning is remarkable. You know the film The Bubble, right? That was [filmmaker] Arch Obler, who did the Bwana Devil. He had a demonstration in the late ‘60s. It was Jay Cox and myself in New York, and we were fascinated by 3D and heard that there was going to be this new 3D system that he came up with. And there’s a scene from The Bubble, and something happens in the bar. There’s a beer bottle or whatever and the two actors suddenly say, ‘Watch,’ and it’s a sci-fi film… and the beer bottle starts to float. And it floated literally right here. You could grab it. Now that’s something we should talk about (laughs).

JC: Well, you almost had that effect, when Sasha comes looming down on the kid and his face comes right out of the screen. And the audience feels like a little kid getting yelled at by an adult.

MS: (Overlapping) By somebody in a uniform—like, ‘Oh, I’m going to get in trouble when I get home.’ And you really felt that with him. That happened on set, and Sasha was just improvising. He got closer and closer, and Richardson’s moving and Demetri’s focus…(laughter overlapping) and we’re all looking at each other, going, ‘Whoa!’

Q: But it’s a very subtle move in the movie, but with the 3D, it’s just magnified by the medium at that point.

JC: I felt that the audience was right there with every nuance of what was happening, you know, how you can read an audience at a screening? You can feel the warmth, you can feel the appreciation. Little titters of laughter. Just little things that generate appreciative laughter. I just felt they were right there with you all the time—first of all, it’s masterful filmmaking, but I think that the 3D actually enhances that, because they feel so much more involved. It also enhances the production design.

MS: Oh, yes. I can’t tell you…even at the worst moments, when you’re waiting, things are broken…then, the image comes up and it’s in 3D, and you have that extra element. It is special. And if you’ve got to take a break or something, you say, ‘Never mind. I’ll wait. Literally.’ Every shot was special. And we pushed everyone as far as we could to fit into the nature of what we were trying to do within the story. But I don’t like this idea of the prejudice of it. I think we should be open to all forms, especially after what you [Cameron] have been doing. We were up at George Lucas’ place up in the Ranch a few years ago, for a seminar on digital projection. They showed a film of you, an interview, and also part of a documentary you had done on the sequence outside Titanic, but it was in 3D. And I said, ‘Of course, this is where this has got to go.’ This was about eight years ago. Once I saw that, I knew that that’s where it would go. I never thought that I would have the chance to do a 3D film. I was kind of disappointed, until Hugo.

Q: Why, why did you think that?

MS: First of all, the equipment is pretty big and I tend not to use it. But the subject matter I was dealing with…I don’t know…a film like Aviator was made now, maybe that. You see?

JC: I can’t imagine Aviator not being even more riveting in 3D, or even Raging Bull. How about black and white 3D?

MS: (Overlapping) See I love that. That’s –

JC: (Overlapping) Because now, you’re messing with the brain; you’re saying that it’s artificial, but it looks real. Now you’ve got the moving sculpture, the moving marble effect.

MS: (Overlapping) Right. And don’t forget the first wave of 3D—okay, they did everything in 3D, but not all of it was very good—but there was a lot of black and white 3D. It was fantastic.

Q: Maybe we should ask Paramount to bankroll a conversion of Raging Bull?

MS: Uh… wait, that’s UA. It’s MGM/UA. I guess. I don’t know who owns it anymore. I own it (laughs)!

Q: Tell me about how you approached the actors in terms of the 3D aspect. Did it change how you approached what you asked for in terms of the performances or how you staged things with the actors?

MS: Not really. I mean…well, we found that blocking certainly was what was changed. You literally moved people to make them a little more prominent or a little less prominent…and that sort of thing.

JC: But you’re moving people around, anyway, for lighting and for 2D compositions.

Q: So there’s nothing specific to what might have been added. because you were now going for different things with the 3D?

MS: No, other than the shots we had designed to work in a special 3D effect.

Q: Like what? Can you give me an example?

MS: (Overlapping) Yeah, when Isabelle falls, almost being trampled by all the people in the train station. She comes toward camera. I do that two or three times with her. You cut away fast enough. But that had to be built, of course, and that was specific—she had to hit a certain spot, and we only got one good take on that. It was tricky, of course, because you don’t want her to get hurt, with the people coming towards her. That was interesting to do in 2D, but in 3D, it was much better—because when you’re a kid that size and those people are coming at you. I think this is what it must feel like. And then, of course, the scene with her face and the shoes on top of her, which is really an old silent film technique…I thought, ‘What would it look like if we super it?’ (Laughs)

Q: Tell me what that means?

MS: So, we there was a plexiglas floor. We chose the right shoe soles of the actors, and we got our shot, and that’s what’s great about the high-def is we supered him right away. And then, we had her open her eyes—and we thought, ‘Let’s try it. We can get away with it, it’s not too tricky.’

Q: That’s incredible, that you can do that stuff on the fly with this equipment.

MS: It is great. The key is the high-def. I’ve gotta tell you, even when we ran some 3D films, Kiss Me Kate, House of Wax and Dial M for Murder—

JC: (Overlapping) It’s great to study them.

MS: Yeah, it’s wonderful, and I have these prints. But, there is one print for the right eye, one for the left. And the projectors are in sync, and there’s only one place in New York that has that capability, and that’s the Film Forum. You have to do it in the morning.

JC: I didn’t even know that you could still run two-strip film—

MS: Yeah, you can. The only thing is, every now and then, it goes out.

JC: Yeah, ooh, that’s an eye-ripper. The glasses come off.

MS: (Overlapping) The whole crew yelling, ‘Oh, stop it!’ (Laughs)

JC: You want to see a whole audience take their glasses off in perfect sync? But the funny thing is, you had kids, you had dogs and you had green screen. And so the 3D was the least of your worries.

MS: The least of my worries. (Laughter)

Q: Jim, is there anything to sort of sum up—how 3D was incorporated into this movie and how it seemed to fit so well, in your sense. Is there a takeaway for the industry and the filmmakers?

JC: Look, I can just tell you my reaction, which was that it was a joyful film for me to watch…to see a great artist embracing the new tools of 3D so perfectly. I didn’t get the impression anywhere that there was a shot that you were probably disappointed in when you saw it, because it seemed like everything worked and everything cut to everything beautifully. It was such a beautiful experience—to see it integrated, where it wasn’t muted and pushed into the background, or kind of stepped on or toned down, which some filmmakers do in reaction when 3D is thrust upon them by the studio. They wind up making a movie in 2-and-½-D. This was 3D. It was right there. It was vibrant and it was full, and yet, it was never in the way. It was always supportive. I enjoyed it immensely. And I think that you, Marty, you’re going to have to brace yourself for talking about 3D a lot now, you know? (Laughter overlapping)

MS: I like it!

JC: That’s good! That’s good! But I mean, all of the other things that you do, people are going to sort of take for granted. You know, like how about great directing, great shot design, great acting, great performances? (Laughter overlapping) All that stuff’s just going to be toward the end—it’ll be question 25. You know, they’ll never get to that!

MS: But it’s such an exciting chance now for the medium to really expand this way. Really. And ultimately, everyone getting on-board—the guys who are making the cameras, the people working with the theater owners, please give us the light!

JC: Please give us the light.

MS: Yeah! We need that light.

Q: We should make up some t-shirts.

MS: Literally, for all of us to work together, because it’s going to be to everyone’s benefit.

JC: Yeah, it’s a whole new world.

Foto: Angela George at http://www.flickr.com/photos/sharongraphics/