I think it's total B.S. when people claim that colorizing a film ruins the film. Besides being over-dramatic, think abou
-
PillowRock — 16 years ago(November 30, 2009 04:12 PM)
I think it's total B.S. when people claim that colorizing a film ruins the film.
I disagree, for reasons that I'll get into further down.
I'm not one who thinks that colorized versions should be banned (assuming that the B & W version is also kept readily available). It should be your priviledge to be able to buy a DVD of the colorized version if that is your preference.
However, colorizing a movie does screw it up. Whether the extent of that damage constitutes it being "ruined" is a bit of semantics that I won't bother to argue (although, if the colorized version is on TV and the B & W is not, so that the choice is colorization or nothing, I won't bother to watch).
There is no reason for the film to be in black and white.
Neither is there any particular reason for the film to be in color.
Do you figure that all of Ansel Adams' photographs should be "colorized" because "there is no reason for them to be black and white"?
Had the exact same films been released a few decades later, they would not have been in black and white, but color!
Probably true, in most cases. However, it was not made in color. The movie, in its totality, was designed and made with and for that B & W film stock.
If it had been made in color every single visual element would have been designed executed differently in order to make it look the way that they wanted on the color film. As it was, it was all designed to look good in B & W photography. This applies to the lighting, the sets, the costumes, the makeup, and the props. All of the visuals add up to make a particular (often subconscious) impression on the viewer, and assigning colors where the film makers had intended B & W textures will change that.
The visuals were not designed to be shot in color. They were also not designed to be viewed as color tinted B & W (which is what colorization really is). They were designed to be at their best in B & W, and they are. (You might be able to argue that some of the very low budgeted movies produced at "poverty row" studios did not have this level thought and professionalism applied to their design. However, generally speaking, nobody is putting the time and money into colorizing those movies anyway.)
So let's say that you're going to colorize a movie. Who is going to assign the colors the colors? The technicians doing the colorization are not going to have the artistic vision of those directors, cinematographers, costumers, etc. I've seen anti-hero private eye Sam Spade (as played by Humphrey Bogart) dressed in a pastel lime green suit in a colorized movie. It's amazingly stupid that anybody would have ever thought that was a good costuming choice for that character in that 1940s detective story.
And what if they have color stills that were taken on the set? It still doesn't mean anything. Remember what I said about those things being designed
for the B & W film
; they weren't necessarily meant to appear to the audience as the color that they were on the set. The blood running down the drain in the shower scene of
Psycho
was actually chocolate syrup, because that's what looked good on the B & W film; should a colorized version of
Psycho
therefore show chocolate brown "blood"? In the original version of
Frankenstein
James Whale had Karloff's makeup done in green; not because he wanted the creature to be green, but because he knew that green would appear as a "deathly white" on his B & W film stock. (Unfortunately, marketng people aren't necessarily any brighter about this concept than colorizing techs. They got hold of some color stills from the set, and proceeded to show Karloff as green in the publicity posters. Directors did not have veto power over such things back then. By all accounts, written and verbal from everyone who actually worked on the production of the movie, that was not the intent of the green makeup.)
I don't think the colorization of the movie was bad at all, in fact the colorize version was the first time I watch when I saw the movie the very first time
If there is fairly new colorization of
34th Street
(over the last few or several years), I've succeeded in avoiding it.
However, the old colorization (which was the only way that it was available for a number of years during Ted Turner's big push to impose colorization on movies that his companies owned the rights to) was horrible. Kris' red lips would float around in his beard semi-randomly as he moved his head. Whatever technique they were using did not do a good job of tracking that relatively small moving target from frame to frame. Some things, such as some of the busier wallpaper patterns, they didn't eve attempt to color. The contrast between the colorized items on screen and the still-B&W things really just jumped out at me.
Seriously, I could never come close to getting through an attempt at watching the old colorized version of
Miracle on 34th Street
. I was constantly too distracted by all of the oddities and incongruities.
Anywa -
JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies — 15 years ago(December 25, 2010 11:32 AM)
Probably true, in most cases. However, it was not made in color. The movie, in its totality, was designed and made with and for that B & W film stock.
If it had been made in color every single visual element would have been designed executed differently in order to make it look the way that they wanted on the color film. As it was, it was all designed to look good in B & W photography. This applies to the lighting, the sets, the costumes, the makeup, and the props. All of the visuals add up to make a particular (often subconscious) impression on the viewer, and assigning colors where the film makers had intended B & W textures will change that.
Regardless of that, I feel this film and many others look better in color. They may have been designed for B&W, but color still works better for them in my opinion.
http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies -
PillowRock — 15 years ago(December 29, 2010 11:56 AM)
I feel this film and many others look better in color.
It's not a piece of decoration for your wall. What "looks better" is entirely beside the point.
Adding color washes to the B & W photography changes the overall emotional impression and response that the series of moving images evokes. The colorization makes you
feel
a different movie than the one that film makers produced.
Part of that is that it can change which elements in the frame tend to draw the viewer's attention (for example: drawing your eyes to a red thing when they would otherwise have been on a character's eyes). Another part of that is that good B & W photography often plays with shadows in ways that color photography does not replicate very well. A lot of it is simply the subconscious effect that colors tend to have on people (similar to the wall paint colors in rooms modifying the moods of people in them: blue rooms tending to be a bit calming, etc.) -
JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies — 15 years ago(December 29, 2010 02:03 PM)
What looks better is not at all beside the point. Films are a visual and aural medium. The way a film looks is a major component in how much I like it. Adding color
can
certainly change one's emotional response, and in this case, I have a more positive emotional and aesthetic response to the film in color. The emotions are in the individual viewer's head by the way, not the film itself. Each person is different there.
You hardly need to repeat that a colorized film is different. That's not at issue. My point is that I like the different version better in this case.
Not everyone's attention is drawn to the same things, whether a film is color or black and white, in its "original" form or not. Your attention might be drawn to different things due to colorization sure. My attention typically is drawn to different things on each viewing anyway, by the way. In this case, I like the experience better when the film is in color, and my attention is drawn to the various things it is drawn to.
B&W cinematography can maybe result in contrast re shadows in a way that a colorization wouldn't, but again, I
like
the colorization better here, so if that's a difference with this film, I like it better without the same kind of contrast in the shadows.
I do not buy the notion of subconscious minds, by the way, and even if I did, I certainly wouldn't buy some oversimplistic universal generalization about colors and emotions, but that's a whole other can of worms.
http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies -
jbaker1-2 — 4 years ago(September 02, 2021 04:57 AM)
Your opinion and a five dollar bill will get you a crappy latte at Starbucks.
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it. -
Zebra 3 — 12 years ago(November 24, 2013 05:14 PM)
The blood running down the drain in the shower scene of Psycho was actually chocolate syrup, because that's what looked good on the B & W film; should a colorized version of Psycho therefore show chocolate brown "blood"?
Yesa special edition for chocolate lovers only, and you're not invited!
'Huuutch!' - Starsky -
zeeboe82 — 16 years ago(November 29, 2009 07:29 AM)
I prefer the colorized verison. That's the one I always watch.
http://www.myspace.com/planetgilson -
JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies — 15 years ago(December 25, 2010 11:30 AM)
Same here. Most black & white films I prefer in colorized versions if they're available.
http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies -
lousvr — 16 years ago(December 02, 2009 08:00 PM)
I LIKE BOTH THE COLORIZED AND THE B&W ergo
I HAVE BOTH THE COLORIZED AND THE B&W
I enjoy the movie so much I watch the B&W at Thanksgiving and the colorized on Xmas Eve
As Bugs use to say.. 'What-a bunch of ma-roons' -
Jokers_Wilde — 16 years ago(December 10, 2009 09:47 AM)
As do I. I tend to watch the colourized version more, though (for some reason).
A local TV station used to play it on Christmas Eve night every year (technically, Christmas Day at midnight). And, even though I had the DVD with just the black & white version, I would stay up to watch it. One year, it was offered in colour.
I was literally blown away! I was constantly looking for the DVD of the colourized version. It was then said it would be released before the holidays a couple of years ago.
Joker's Wilde
RIP Victoria "Tori" Stafford (2000-2009)
-
EvilSpaceApple — 16 years ago(December 13, 2009 10:44 AM)
With most b&w films, I would be 100% against colorization. Casablanca? Notorious? Out of the Past? Please.
But Miracle on 34th Street should have been made in color. Christmas looks more Christmasy in color, and the reds and greens would have made it a natural choice for color. B&W adds nothing, in terms of texture, nuance, what have you.
I'm still not for colorizing in principle. But this film is an exceptionfor me.
WE SLEEP. THEY LIVE.
-
-
nymetsnl2009 — 16 years ago(December 13, 2009 09:22 PM)
Colorizing a BW movie is taking away from it's authentisity.Also when they colorize it, it just doesn't look right. Let's put it this way, if you take a 64 1/2 Ford Mustang and put seat belts in it and put custom wheels and everything else that it didn't have back then it drops it's value. The same goes for movies back then in BW and they get colorized. You also could just watch all the lame remakes in color and don't watch the BW, the original version.
-
EvilSpaceApple — 16 years ago(December 14, 2009 06:59 AM)
"By the way if they wanted to film it in color they could have, the Wizard of Oz came out few years before and it is in color. "
Oh, I certainly am aware the technology existed at the time. Which makes me think it was more than likely that it was done in B/W not for artistic but for financial reasons. It was a "small" film, probably conceived mainly as a money maker, so I think the Fox folks felt, well, maximize the profits by filming in B/W..
so yes, if they had wanted to, they would have. My hunch though (and it isn't more than a hunch, I'll admitI have no solid evidence to backit up) is that they didn't want to not b/c they felt it should be black and white but b/c color was more expensive.
I repeat: I am not for colorizing in general. In 99 case out of 100 it does diminish the original. But for a film potentially replete with the glorious colors of the seasonbegining with Kris' red suit, add to that the parade, the decorated tree, the store set, and so onI AM for coloring this film for those who wish to have an idea of what it might have looked like.
As long as it doesn't replace the B/W altogether, which would be a crime.
WE SLEEP. THEY LIVE.
-
CarolVickiFan84 — 16 years ago(December 15, 2009 12:07 AM)
It waas black and White to cut cost because Zanuck didn't have high hopes for the movie, infact he didn't think it was gonig to be hit at all at first.
Maureen O'Hara, Ireland Best Actress. Got Maureen O'Hara and Julie Andrews autograph 2008! -
EvilSpaceApple — 16 years ago(December 15, 2009 03:33 PM)
Someone mentioned It's a Wonderful Life. I think that if that HAD been made in color, the Potterville sequences would still have had to be in black and white. That would have been a pretty good idea at that, heightening even more the contrast between it and Bedford Falls.
But on the whole the Capra film is not among that small number of films whose colorization I sanction on general principle. Miracle is among them.
WE SLEEP. THEY LIVE.
-
angelgwen16 — 16 years ago(December 15, 2009 10:28 PM)
I like things colorized. If I get to choose then I always choose color. I don't care about how the color looks, I like it anyway.
However, if the only way to watch it is in black and white then I will still watch it. Such as I Love Lucy. I love that show and I deal with the fact that it's in black and white (at least the older episodes) and I still enjoy it nonetheless.
That's just the way I like it.