I notice in Ebert's reviews an appreciation of films as mere entertainment in cases where is what they intend to be, and an appreciation of films as art if that is what they aspire to. In fact, one of my annoyances at his (often excellent) reviews is that he seemed to apply consciously lowered standards when he thought that a film wasn't aiming too high, which led to him recommending films that were close to mediocre, because they hit the mark they were aiming for. There is a certain integrity in this, of course.
Ebert's complaints about 3D movies were not the grumblings of an old man but largely justified: they are dimmer and usually worse than the 2D version. I've seen stunning exceptions, though: the best is an IMAX documentary called Hubble 3D, which is the best use of 3D film I've seen and superb all around.
I think he did a great job voicing his own standard, which I think makes a lot of sense, in his review of Shaolin Soccer (https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/shaolin-soccer-2004):
> "Shaolin Soccer" is like a poster boy for my theory of the star rating system. Every month or so, I get an anguished letter from a reader wanting to know how I could possibly have been so ignorant as to award three stars to, say, "HIDALGO" while dismissing, say, "Dogville" with two stars. This disparity between my approval of kitsch and my rejection of angst reveals me, of course, as a superficial moron who will do anything to suck up to my readers.
> What these correspondents do not grasp is that to suck up to my demanding readers, I would do better to praise "Dogville." It takes more nerve to praise pop entertainment; it's easy and safe to deliver pious praise of turgid deep thinking. It's true, I loved "Anaconda" and did not think "The United States of Leland" worked, but does that mean I drool at the keyboard and prefer man-eating snakes to suburban despair?
> Not at all. What it means is that the star rating system is relative, not absolute. When you ask a friend if "Hellboy" is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to "Mystic River," you're asking if it's any good compared to "The Punisher." And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if "Superman" (1978) is four, then "Hellboy" is three and "The Punisher" is two. In the same way, if "American Beauty" gets four stars, then "Leland" clocks in at about two.
> And that is why "Shaolin Soccer," a goofy Hong Kong action comedy, gets three stars. It is piffle, yes, but superior piffle. If you are even considering going to see a movie where the players zoom 50 feet into the air and rotate freely in violation of everything Newton held sacred, then you do not want to know if I thought it was as good as "Lost in Translation."
The critic that seems to be most compatible to my tastes, and relatively close to Ebert, is James Berardinelli from http://www.reelviews.net. I almost never feel different about films than he does, so it's a great way to filter the deluge of films.
Similarly, Alan Sepinwall, who currently writes for Hitfix, seems to be be very close to my tastes when it comes to TV Shows. Sadly, Hitfix is one of the worst sites I've ever visited, but I bother going there for his take on new and old shows.
(His re-reviews of classics like The Wire are really nice, by the way. Lotta stuff I missed that he points out and makes me appreciate the show even more).
Up front (and especially a front corner) the bottom-top and center-edge of the screen is different enough in depth that if I'm trying to take in the whole canvas my eyes are working on adjusting focus basically all the time.
Lytro and Magic Leap have developed technologies that record and display the entire depth of field, respectively, rather than a particular point of focus. The technology simulates how light enters the eye at different angles, so that as you change focus, the light field is there for you to focus on, no matter the depth. It's like a volumetric recording of sorts.
If this technology were to make it to a movie theater, it may or may not require a 2d screen, but the point is that it overcomes the issue you talk about.
Not to mention, I don't think Magic Leap has released any products.
3D still exists, some are required to shoot in it or have it converted in post, but it seems more a strategy to capture more profit from non-American markets than to actually punch forward any sort of cinematic innovation. If 70% of your blockbuster's money is going to come from overseas, might as well mine it for all it's worth.
I helped convert a ton of movies to stereo from 2011-2013 in the height of all this. It was a nice pay day but the companies involved had to keep moving to different tax-efficient locales and using cheaper labor to actually make money. Unless you were able to get a director shoot in 3D, a much more complex task, then you get stuck with the labor-intensive conversions to add your $5-10 to a ticket price.
But hey, maybe it will work out. I'll be happy not to pay for it.
I think you're conflating the focus of the movie camera on the original scene with the focus of the cinema viewer's eyes on the projection screen.
What Murch is referring to is the focus "setting" of the human viewer being set to the distance to the projection screen. The focus of the movie camera and depth of field at that end has little to do with it.
His point is that the [2D] cinema viewer can sense the flat focus setting of the fixed distance to the projection screen, but at least other depth cues (such as parallax) are also fixed and therefore consistent. 3D viewing involves dynamic parallax but the focus distance to the projection screen remains fixed, and it is the difference that causes problems for the viewer.
The bokeh of the movie camera has nothing to do with this aspect.