Having just seen Piranha 3D at the cinema, a very strange sensation dawned on me. A sense of actual enjoyment. Sure, I’d seen Avatar, and a few other films in 3D. And yes, I’d even been to see the 3D show at Tokyo Disneyland. It wasn’t as though this was all new to me. But somehow the enjoyment factor finally was. I’ve always felt 3D fails to blend seamlessly into my enjoyment because it is set up with such obvious visual attempts at impressing me. In Avatar there are scenes where little pollen-specks float towards the camera. That’s purely for the visual, that adds nothing to the enjoyment of the story for me. A lot of the 3D stuff ends up feeling that way for me. Add in the fact that the edges of the screen feel like an obvious break from the 3D (even though it is a break from a 3D picture to a dull 3D world) which never ceased to annoy. All those annoyances and awarenesses seemed to disappear in this new installment of 3D film. And it really begs the question, isn’t 3D really made for horror?

A big part of the great appeal of the 3D effect is the ability to shoot things out at you, make it seem like something is about to smack you in the face, or to gently tease you with its presence before you, as though you could reach out and touch it, which of course you never can. Now with most films, that sensation is of little use to you as an audience member. Who wants to watch a drama about late Victorian England, where the tree-branches are closer than they seem. Nobody, that is of no interest to you at all. Most films, whilst they can do it, have little reason to. Sure, some action sequences might get more out of their explosions or fights, but they also run the obvious risk of losing perspective while trying to add in as many cheap shots of bullets coming forward as possible. With horror, this is just not a problem. Half the point of some of the shots (and even scenes) is to try and sell the idea of something popping out at you, or approaching you. It works in two ways, something slow and steady creeping closer to you than you like (picture Samara from the Ring, or a legless zombie crawling out of the screen) or stuff that is supposed to just fly at you (thinking of things like The Tall Man and his balls, a hand from the dark, or even a carnivorous fish). Half the shots in horror were designed for the clever trick of 3D.

On the flip side, 3D can try to enhance beauty. And whilst it is quite nice to see a pretty face on screen, that surely doesn’t compare with the greatness of some of the staple shots of horror, which traditionally feature female nudity. Admittedly these days, in a world where Taylor Lautner gets posters sold faster than any horror icon, perhaps that is shifting. But either way, it seems quite clear that 3D benefits the voyeuristic aspect of a good horror movie. And certainly does so far more than any traditional drama or comedy would. In true spirit of classic horror, the female form is used to accentuate all manner of things. Although that is the story for another article.

Having finally been converted to the idea that a 3D movie can be more than just a headache, it just remains to see if it can become feasible as a horror-staple. Although it seems like everyone and their grandmother is cashing in on 3D at the minute, from kids films to action films (and no doubt only a step or two from 3D documentaries, pornography and reality TV) the real test is if it becomes a stable and mainstream media. If so, horror stands to be one of the greater benefactors of the trend. And the more the technology develops, the greater the potential for serious jump-scares, creepy scenes, and gratuitous violence and nudity will become. Time will tell if there are good things on the horizons for horror, but at least after seeing one 3D horror film, one fan is sold. The only thing I need now is to see how my favourite Uwe Boll can use this technology to some new and perverse degree.