Colourised Films

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Windthrop B & W films are lit differently to colour films and therefore it is never going to look quite right when the films are doctored. I amy have said this before, so at the risk of repeating myself, I think it would be better if money was used to clean up films and provide the best copies available be the original colour or B & W. Digitally enhancing poor existing copies of films, to make them look as they would have new, I am fully behind.

Exactly

A B&W shot (movie or stills) with added colour doesn't make it into a colour shot. It just makes it a B&W shot with added colour which distracts you from the image the photographer was trying to capture.

With B&W you look for different lighting, framing, textures, everything

Steve

[Everett Sloane]

Jacques Tati's Jour de Fete is an unusual example, because I seem to remember the director himself colourised parts of that, by hand. The effect was a bit off-putting, I found. I wonder if he did it for artistic or commercial reasons ...?

[MrT]

I would agree with the concensus here that in general it is a bad thing to add colour to films originally shot in black and white - the original attempts in the 1980s were particularly poor, they look very artificial with generally unrealistic colours and poor focus. In this category I would include the Laurel and Hardy films plus other very early talkies and silents because these were made before the advent of colour photography as we now know it, hence emphasising the fact that a "faked" image is being watched. But I would argue strongly against a blanket condemnation of the practice.

What about films from the late 1930s onwards? Technicolour was gradually introduced from 1935 onwards, and by 1939 good standards of colour photography were being achieved, particularly by Twentieth Century Fox in Hollywood and Alexander Korda in the UK. The majority of films were of course still shot in black and white, but this was mainly a cost issue - colour was reserved mainly for "epics" although a few others, such as "The divorce of Lady X" in the UK also appeared. Twentieth Century Fox has recently colorised the Shirley Temple films from the late 30s and I would say the results have been most impressive - great care has been taken to produce natural colours with a sharp image which to my eye makes them virtually indistinguishable from those originally filmed in technicolour such as "The bluebird" (1940) and "Susannah of the mountains" (1939).

What has been utterly wrong of course has been the choice of films to which colorisation has been applied - any "film noir" where black and white photography is essential in creating the mood and atmosphere of the film should be left well alone, as should the adaptions of classic novels such as "Scrooge" and "Tom Brown's Schooldays". Interestingly this therefore applies to a lot of films shot in black and white from the mid 40s onwards where filming in black and white was perhaps a definite choice that was not just governed by cost - colorisation of films such as "Odd man out" for example would be terrible. "Hue and Cry", "Passport to Pimlico" and "Lavendar Hill Mob" were in black and white, "The Ladykillers", and similar comedies such as "Genevieve" were filmed in colour. Would I be the only member of this forum who would welcome a sympathetic, high quality colorisation of the Ealing comodies? Would we think as highly of "The ladykillers" and "Genevieve" if we only knew them in black and white? In the case of the Ealing comedies I suspect that black and white was initially used mainly on cost grounds, and I would be surpised if the option of having colour would have been rejected by the director if Michael Balcon's budget had stretched to it in the early post war years.

The ultimate test must be - is the colorisation good enough to pass as genuine? I know that must be heresy to those who know and love every frame of the originals, but colorisation done to the very highest standards on the "right" films can look very impressive. To see what I mean, try and catch one of the colorised Shirley Temple films to see what can be achieved - these took colorisation to a new level of expertise.

Mike (MrT)

[batman]

I saw a colourised version of a Basil Rathbone Holmes film not so long back. The title was The Woman In Green. The trouble was they should have re-titled it Everyone In The Cast Has Green Skin. Appalling.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by MrT ... But I would argue strongly against a blanket condemnation of the practice. What about films from the late 1930s onwards? Technicolour was gradually introduced from 1935 onwards, and by 1939 good standards of colour photography were being achieved, particularly by Twentieth Century Fox in Hollywood and Alexander Korda in the UK. The majority of films were of course still shot in black and white, but this was mainly a cost issue - colour was reserved mainly for "epics" ...

Even where it was cost that led to the decision to make the film in B&W, that decision was still made and everyone involved on it knew they were making a B&W film. So the art director would design it to be seen as a B&W film, the cinematographer would film it to be seen as a B&W film and the director would direct it to be seen as a B&W film. If any of those people (or their sub-departments like costume, make-up etc.) thought they were making a colour film then they would do things differently.

A B&W image isn't just a colour image without any colour, it's an image that is made to be seen in B&W and is quite different to a colour image of the same subject in many ways

There might be a few cases where a film was designed to be in colour but had to be shot in B&W at the last minute. Or, more commonly, where some TV shows were made to be seen in colour but were only shown in B&W or where only a B&W recording remains. But those cases are very few and far between.

Steve

[christoph404]

There seemed to be a transitionary period, possibly late 50s early 60s where the advent of colour TV made a profound influence on the way filmakers approached colour versus black and white. I think up until that point any thoughts on creative choice as to whether to shoot in black and white or colour was now dictated by the need to compete with the novelty of colour TV and in some ways black and white films suddenly became something that was "old fashioned" or "cheap" etc. Unfortunateley that stigma has remained for quite a long time which I think is why the idea of colourisng black and white films is still considered as an option. Like most people with even the faintest appreciation of visual aesthetics I would say the notion of adding "pastel" colours to a black and white film is just naff and totally devalues the original vision of the director, cinematographer and set designer etc. In the world of stills photography most of the iconic images of the 20th Century have been black and white images, whether that is a news picture or movie star portrait, to add colour to them would be completely stupid and add nothing to their imapact . I think the same applies for feature films.A movie is after all a visual work of art in many instances as well as an entertaining drama so why change that original vision? I think its interesting to look at the work of Alfred Hitchcock who made colourful "vistavision" thrillers in the 50s such as "To Catch a Thief", "Vertigo", "North by Northwest" Yet possibly his most powerful film was made in 1960 and for that he went back to black and white with stunning effect, I am of course talking about "Psycho". The colour remake of that film was just awful with none of the mood and dark vision that the original black and white film evoked.

[Azanti]

Though I do profess a certain fondness for black and white pictures, one film I did equally enjoy in colour (I am not saying it was better for it, but it seemed to work well) was The Longest Day.

[Tom Bancroft]

The beauty of this site is that it's contributors cover all areas of the movie industry. Some have worked (or work) in the industry, some have studied the medium professionally and others (like me) have just enjoyed a lifetime (almost) of being a filmgoer or TV film viewer. So when the colourisation issue crops up I understand the issues when some purists cite wrong lighting for colour, wrong framing, wrong texture, etc. etc. making black and white films wrong for colour. However, the chance to see a favourite b/w film of yesteryear given the colour treatment does not hold the same horrors for those of us who are less analytical. Sometimes is is interesting to see what sort of job they make of it. I agree with a previous comment about Psycho being perfect for black and white and cannot imagine it in colour, but this does not apply to all b/w movies surely. After all, it is not as if they are consigning the b/w versions to the scrap heap, they will remain with us and probably retain their hold longer than the colour upstarts!
Lets just live and let live - colourisation for those who fancy them and black and white for the purists!

[Joenoir]

Originally Posted by Tom Bancroft The beauty of this site is that it's contributors cover all areas of the movie industry. Some have worked (or work) in the industry, some have studied the medium professionally and others (like me) have just enjoyed a lifetime (almost) of being a filmgoer or TV film viewer. So when the colourisation issue crops up I understand the issues when some purists cite wrong lighting for colour, wrong framing, wrong texture, etc. etc. making black and white films wrong for colour. However, the chance to see a favourite b/w film of yesteryear given the colour treatment does not hold the same horrors for those of us who are less analytical. Sometimes is is interesting to see what sort of job they make of it. I agree with a previous comment about Psycho being perfect for black and white and cannot imagine it in colour, but this does not apply to all b/w movies surely. After all, it is not as if they are consigning the b/w versions to the scrap heap, they will remain with us and probably retain their hold longer than the colour upstarts! Lets just live and let live - colourisation for those who fancy them and black and white for the purists!

Now that is a well balanced view - you must have strayed onto the wrong forum!

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Tom Bancroft The beauty of this site is that it's contributors cover all areas of the movie industry. Some have worked (or work) in the industry, some have studied the medium professionally and others (like me) have just enjoyed a lifetime (almost) of being a filmgoer or TV film viewer. So when the colourisation issue crops up I understand the issues when some purists cite wrong lighting for colour, wrong framing, wrong texture, etc. etc. making black and white films wrong for colour. However, the chance to see a favourite b/w film of yesteryear given the colour treatment does not hold the same horrors for those of us who are less analytical. Sometimes is is interesting to see what sort of job they make of it. I agree with a previous comment about Psycho being perfect for black and white and cannot imagine it in colour, but this does not apply to all b/w movies surely. After all, it is not as if they are consigning the b/w versions to the scrap heap, they will remain with us and probably retain their hold longer than the colour upstarts! Lets just live and let live - colourisation for those who fancy them and black and white for the purists!

It is a well balanced view. But I disagree with it

Would you watch a gentle, romantic film with a heavy metal rock track playing? Or watch a drama or suspense film with canned laughter playing in the cinema?
Of course you wouldn't. You want to hear the sounds on the film as the film makers intended it to be heard.

So why do people think it's OK to mess about with the visual part of a film, which is often an even more important part of the film than the soundtrack?

It's not just about being a purist, it's about respecting the original work as it was made. When they colorize a film they are making decisions about the colours used. Is she wearing a red dress or a blue one? They can look the same in B&W but will be filmed in a way where it doesn't matter because they were expecting you to be watching it in B&W. If a film is colorized then the colour of certain items can distract you from what the film-makers wanted you to be looking at.

Colorization is imposing someone else's artistic decisions over those made by the original film-makers. Would you paint a beard and false glasses on the Mona Lisa? It doesn't matter how well the beard and glasses are painted, they are obscuring the original work. They add nothing to it while they take away quite a lot from it. It's vandalism.

But if you're happy to do that, you carry on and do it. Just don't expect me to join you.

Steve

[PaulPlowman]

Before the advent of DVDs, I went to great lengths to find widescreen versions of films on video, because I appreciate the visual composition of the image which the DP has spent so much effort to create. Even non-art films like, say, "Independence Day", I had to get the widescreen version.

Many people don't care about widescreen, they just want to see the action unfold. They complain about letterbox bars on the screen because it means they see "less of the picture".

This second type of person is who colourised films are made for. No argument from me could possibly change their preference. I could show them the difference between a beautifully composed widescreen shot and the pan-and-scan equivalent with someone half disappearing off the side of the shot, and they'd say "so?". They don't care about the artistry.

So, although it's clear to me that colourised films are 'wrong', no amount of argument will ever stop them being made.

:)

PS. Anyone want to buy a load of widescreen videos? :)

[CaptainWaggett]

Originally Posted by PaulPlowman Before the advent of DVDs, I went to great lengths to find widescreen versions of films on video, because I appreciate the visual composition of the image which the DP has spent so much effort to create. Even non-art films like, say, "Independence Day", I had to get the widescreen version. Many people don't care about widescreen, they just want to see the action unfold. They complain about letterbox bars on the screen because it means they see "less of the picture". This second type of person is who colourised films are made for. No argument from me could possibly change their preference. I could show them the difference between a beautifully composed widescreen shot and the pan-and-scan equivalent with someone half disappearing off the side of the shot, and they'd say "so?". They don't care about the artistry. So, although it's clear to me that colourised films are 'wrong', no amount of argument will ever stop them being made. :) PS. Anyone want to buy a load of widescreen videos? :)

I don't care about widescreen and I hate colourisation. So clearly I only care about artistry 50% of the time

One problem with colourisation is that once a film has been done, the b/w version often disappears. For example, the only Region 2 dvd available of the 1951 Tom Brown's Schooldays is the colour one.

[Buffalo_Chuck]

I've never seen a colourised film that was made to look good. The errors were always apparent, and because it's a paint-by-number program - equating some shade with some color - those errors persist in the film. I've only wondered "why bother?" Spend the time doing restoration on other films. The widescreen issue is another "why bother hiring new editors, new film crews, wasting that time..."

[cinema lane]

I have never found colourised films to make satisfactory viewing . On the other hand I have found that some of the early colour experiments i.e Pathecolour to be quite appealing . Could it be that the early colourisation processes demanded human input at all stages and the latter day attempts were more mechanical in the decision making. I agree with Hitchcock scholar that the colourised "Suspicion" is particularly awful.

[Keechelus]

I'm a bit late joining this thread, but I have some strong feelings.

Colourisation was foolish, wrong-headed and a waste of investors' money. The expected appeal to younger audiences did not happen. Fans of 1940's films, of whatever age, were and are attracted by acting and story telling.

The brief effort did have a good effect. Starting 25 years ago, gazillionnaire Ted Turner resurrected long-forgotten negatives from the Warner vaults and spent far too much money having them restored and transferred to permanent media - a necessary first step before colouring with his digital crayons.

As another member noted, the colour fad blew away quickly, but the restored B&W prints were eagerly bought by movie fans. That was the foundation of Warner Home Video's superb catalogue of classic B&W movies, followed by MGM and even Murdoch's Fox.

Colourisation is irrelevant today, but that's how the practice of restoring older films with some hope of commercial success was kick-started.

It is a treat to see KEY LARGO, for example, on the Warner DVD. Crisp black and white - so clean that a zoom-in on our modest TV reveals the thread count on Eddie Robinson's shirt. Probably a better image than moviegoers saw sixty years ago.