3D cinema invariably invokes questions of distinction: beyond the obvious dimensional effect, what are the differences between 2D and 3D cinema? For technology writer deSouza , 3D acts ‘as a whole new “medium” of storytelling and is to be explored and exploited as such for creating a new genre of movie and storytelling that has not been possible before’ (as cited in Zettl 2012, p. 158). If deSouza’s claim is correct, what is the ‘new genre’ and ‘new storytelling’ provided exclusively by 3D cinema? What are the qualities of this new mode of storytelling that ‘has not been possible before’? Or, from a more concrete perspective, what can 3D technology, in its new digitised incarnation, contribute to visual storytelling beyond visual trickery or spectacle that is also genuinely different from 2D cinematic narratives?

Against the backdrop of stereoscopic 3D cinema’s resurgence and its integration with digital technologies, I will attempt to answer these questions by arguing that contemporary digital 3D cinema has advanced as a storytelling medium in using stereoscopic effects for sophisticated narrative purposes. Hence, conventional associations of 3D with spectacle rather than narrative are not adequate in considering digital 3D as a storytelling medium—rather than supplanting narrative, 3D can be used to enhance and deepen it. Indeed, 3D can provide a level of experiential immersion that contributes to, rather than impedes, the modes of narrative immersion that Hollywood favours. Drawing on a range of contemporary examples, most of which are Hollywood productions, I will demonstrate how filmmakers have explored stereoscopy’s narrative potential. In doing so, I will argue that recent 3D films tend to display a formal paradigm that I call ‘the Aesthetics of Recession.’

The Aesthetics of Recession, marked by their departure from the ‘protrusion effect’ that has sometimes taken prominence during previous 3D booms, are crucial to the development of new narrative techniques: they allow for a more measured and nuanced deployment of spatial effects, producing dynamic and immersive ‘spaces’ in which narrative tropes and techniques can be deployed. Under the Aesthetics of Recession, emphasis is on the positive parallax (the space behind the screen) rather than the negative parallax (the space in front of it). This marks a difference between contemporary 3D and its antecedents, which often placed greater emphasis on the negative parallax. I argue that it is this key strategic shift—under the new paradigm of the Aesthetics of Recession—that unleashes 3D’s narrative potential, because the positive parallax space provides a much more stable foundation for filmmakers to orchestrate narrative encounters and effects. This foundation, however, is very different from the flat plane of 2D cinema. We can understand this difference as fundamental and even ontological: 3D’s visual field is best represented as an ‘oval sphere’ with imbalanced spatial duality, a model that is fundamentally different from 2D imagery’s ‘flat canvas.’ The screen (as the zero parallax) in 3D cinema resembles a window inserted between the positive volume (positive parallax space) and the negative volume (negative parallax space), both of which are transparent and extend in opposite directions. The inserted window not only demarcates the oval-shaped entity but also provides a nexus for the two spatial volumes; moreover, it does not equally divide the dual volumes in this oval sphere, but rather grants infinite depth to the positive volume behind the window while retaining limited swell for the negative volume in front of the window.

Despite the contemporary emphasis on the positive parallax, negative parallax effects have not been abandoned. Rather, they are used sparingly and incorporated into the new strategy, in order to enhance narrative and immerse the audience in the illusory cinematic world of the diegesis. This more controlled approach helps contemporary digital 3D cinema establish a sense of ‘hyper-realism’ that is grounded in human perceptual capabilities associated with our eyes’ binocular vision. Stereoscopy’s ‘reality effect’ is ideal for the kinds of immersive stories that Hollywood favours. Indeed, the films I will discuss here are primarily Hollywood films: they represent some of the most successful and dominant productions in the current 3D era and are exemplary of recent trends in digital 3D cinema. On the basis of stereoscopic hyper-realistic effects, 3D filmmakers have explored different types of spatiotemporal relations that contribute to stereoscopic narrative, which I will discuss in the following chapters. In particular, my elaboration will concentrate on how the different types of constructed stereoscopic ‘timespaces’ provide environments for dramatic change and actions; how the staging depth of the 3D field screen engenders dramatic encounters between characters; how the volumetric space can be used to multiply characters’ psychological perspectives and to identify them with, or distinguish them from, spectatorial perspectives; and how the symbiotic coexistence of flatness and depth in stereoscopy can be used to frame the dramatic and ontological qualities of characters and spaces. All these new narrative techniques, I argue, can be linked to the Aesthetics of Recession: all of the films I discuss here make sparing use of the negative parallax, while drawing action and attention into the deep space of the positive parallax.

The investigation of digital 3D cinema’s narrative effectiveness is, therefore, the main contribution of this book to stereoscopic media studies, in which commentators tend either to downplay or simply deny 3D’s narrative potential (Belton 2012, pp. 187–195; Sandifer 2011, pp. 62–78; Paul 1993, pp. 321–355). Of course , not all discussions of 3D are primarily concerned with narrative per se. In her book 3D Cinema: Optical Illusions and Tactile Experiences, M. Ross (2015) puts aside such debates and focuses her discussion on 3D’s unique visual mode and artistic forms. One must also note that considerations of narrative in 3D overlap with other concerns, including spatiotemporal relations, concepts of realism and the framing of spectatorship . Kerbel (1980) commented that ‘images in depth raise questions about realism vs. expressionism, mise en scene vs. montage , and the audience’s relationship to the screen—in short about the very nature of the film medium’ (p. 12). All these questions ‘about the very nature of the film medium’ are either directly or indirectly related to narrative issues: for example, both ‘realism vs. expressionism’ and ‘mise en scene vs. montage’ have very clear narrative resonances, while ‘the audience’s relationship to the screen’ can be seen as tightly entwined with the reception of narrative. Therefore, narrative issues are closely tied to ‘the very nature’ of the cinematic medium: all of cinema’s narrative tropes and techniques are derived from and determined by its fundamental material and formal properties, or, to put it another way, its ontology.

To return to Kerbel’s above point, then, what is exactly ‘the very nature’ of the stereoscopic film medium? What is the ontological and phenomenological difference between stereoscopic 3D and flat 2D? Furthermore, what is ‘the very nature’ of digital stereoscopic cinema? Has its ontological nature changed from its predecessor—filmic stereoscopy ? After answering the series of questions in Chap. 2 and 3, I will go on to excavate how the ‘very nature’ of digital 3D cinema engenders unique narrative capabilities. These capabilities have arguably been overlooked during previous 3D booms, in which the greater emphasis has been on powerful spectacle—a quality that has long been recognised as 3D’s advantage. Within this framework, I will examine how contemporary 3D filmmakers harness 3D spectacle and incorporate it to leverage narrative values.

I argue that it is the transformative strategy of the ‘Aesthetics of Recession’ that eventually makes the two elements—spectacle and narrative—work together for storytelling within the stereoscopic context. In 2D cinema, the two elements have been accompanying and competing with each other for over 100 years. As King (2002) noted , ‘[e]lements of spectacle and narrative co-exist across the history of Hollywood cinema, in varying combinations’ (p. 184). For King , ‘narrative’ is defined in two senses: The first ‘refers to “plot ” or “story ”: the on-going events of a film, both as depicted on screen and as the viewer is invited to recreate them. The second refers to thematic structures such as the patterns of oppositions, negotiations and in some cases imaginary reconciliations that can be found in—or read into—Hollywood narrative structures’ (p. 183). In this project, I will mainly adopt ...