Let's Hear It For Black And White Films

[theuofc]

(mysteriesofedgarwallace @ Mar 21 2006, 04:41 PM) The film 'GIDEON OF SCOTLAND YARD' was filmed in colour and just doesn't quite feel right somehow.

Or worse yet, when fine old black and white films are colourised. A travesty All that wonderful lighting and scenes deliberately set up to creat certain effects...down the drain because the studio thought current audiences only liked colour.

Best,

Barbara

[theuofc]

(Marky B @ Mar 20 2006, 07:55 PM) The Elephant Man and Schindler's List would have not worked in colour. Ta Ta Marky B

Exactly, Marky B Black and white is perfect for those subjects. It also lends a kind of newsreel effect in parts of Schindler's List.

Best,

Barbara

[theuofc]

(arty-dave @ Mar 20 2006, 01:29 PM) Well, Barbara - I've always championed Night of the Hunter as being not only a superbly photographed film, but one in which colour would not have worked at all.

Hi, Arty-Dave,

Night of the Hunter was _perfect_ in black and white which was a perfect setting for the dark message. Great example


Barbara

[theuofc]

(Wolfgang @ Mar 20 2006, 02:25 PM) Black and White can often be used to eerie effect in ways that colour cannot. Both Cat People films are masterclasses in b&w filming, particularly Curse of the Cat People. Some of its images stick in your mind for days and there really are no comparisons in colour to rival their beauty.

Hello, Wolfgang,

A good point that black and white images can linger in one's mind for days, particularly those from films with sinister or dark messages. I'll remember colour images but usually for different reasons.

Best,

Barbara

[Third Man]

Siodmak's The Killers is perfect in black and white, in particular the opening scene outside the diner, with the two heavies casting there shadow around the diner and the brilliant white light highlighting there every move. Also Night of the Demon another great Tourneur film, great black and white photography again.

[Wolfgang]

I think black and white lends itself more to beauty and creepiness whereas colour lends itself more to striking, powerful images. One great use of colour is at start of Don't Look Now when Donald Sutherland pulls his daughter in her red coat from their garden pond - it is very memorable but I have never really considered it 'beautiful'. Of course there is some crossover, like Terence Malick films for instance - but then something like Days of Heaven (which is as beautiful as any black and white film I have watched) was filmed at very specific times so his light was just right. In that sense because so much emphasis was put on lighting his techniques maybe had more in common with black and white filming. Most of his set colours were dull or browns so there was really no visual effect created through colour.

I think there is probably not so much emphasis in lighting sets now because colour and art direction can be used to create visually satisfying images, but I think something has been lost that only such attention to lighting could bring. I do not think it would be extreme to consider them separate mediums.

[theuofc]

(Wolfgang @ Mar 23 2006, 11:43 PM) I think there is probably not so much emphasis in lighting sets now because colour and art direction can be used to create visually satisfying images, but I think something has been lost that only such attention to lighting could bring.

Yes. I also suspect the Digital Age allows filmmakers to think those effects can be done quicker and cheaper than by setting up the lighting as in past days.

Best,

Barbara

[nellybly]

(Jeff @ Mar 20 2006, 11:20 AM) Certain films with a strange or otherworldly atmosphere such as "Portrait of Jenny" "The Song of Bernadette" "The Enchanted Cottage" and "Rebecca" somehow wouldn't have it in such degree were they made in glorious Technicolor. There are also those films that contrast black and with with colour to good effect, the best known being "The Wizard of Oz". Other examples which occur to me are "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and the ice-cream factory sequence from "Kid Millions". I understand that "The Moon and Sixpence" also has colour sequences, though the print I saw was entirely in black and white.

"Portrait of Jenny" has color sequences: during the storm in which she and Eben Adams are at Land's End Light the screen is screen (not a bright green) and at the end when the finished portrait is shown, it's in Technicolor.

Besides being (mostly) in black and white, it has many scenes that are textured, looking kind of woven or like canvas.

[nellybly]

Most of the movies I own are black and white including my most recent acquisitions: "Car of Dreams" 1935, with a John Mills most people have never seen and which is a great deal of fun, "San Francisco" 1936, a Canadian [Import] which is very contrasty, autostarts, and I have to hit the subtitle key on the remote to turn _off_ the Chinese subtitles, and "Forbidden Street" 1949, also known as "Brittania Mews" which is the name of the novel it's from, rather dark and quiet and I just did notice (didn't the first few times watching) the Fox Movie Channel logo in the corner.

[Billy Liar]

One of my favourite b/w films is Resnais's Last Year At Marienbad.

[theuofc]

(Billy Liar @ Mar 26 2006, 05:11 PM) One of my favourite b/w films is Resnais's Last Year At Marienbad.

Absolutely agree, BillyL.Black and white is a perfect medium for Resnais' use of narrative and creative camera work to explore his theme in LYAM. Well, actually for a lot of his films, the earlier "Hiroshima Mon Amour" (1959) and much later in one of my favorite Bogarde films "Providence" (1977). I can't imagine any of them in colour.

Best,

Barbara

[theuofc]

(nellybly @ Mar 24 2006, 04:38 AM) [post=29804] Most of the movies I own are black and white including my most recent acquisitions: .... and "Forbidden Street" 1949.... I just did notice (didn't the first few times watching) the Fox Movie Channel logo in the corner. [/b]

Hi, Nellybly,

Interesting note about the Fox Movie logo. So they've shown it...I wonder when.

Thanks,

Barbara

[Ambrosia]

An artist uses the medium he is most comfortable with and skilled at, this can also be said with film producers. The use of monographic imagary in cinema is rooted in historical limitations and as such is a product of its era, however its recent use to dramatic effect is artistic in its excecution and is not just used because of technical or financial limitations. A fine example of this is the juxtaposition of colour and b/w in the film 'A Matter of Life and Death' where Life is rendered in Technicolour and Death in Monochrome. I agree with theuofc that B/W has a certain nostalgic charm in which the memory allows itself an ephemeral quality in its viewing and viewed in a historical context could be considered quaint, if not altogether romantic in its delivery of the dramatic impact of its imagry.

[AndrewLA]

(theuofc @ Mar 20 2006, 04:43 AM) Black and white films have mesmerized me from the first time I saw the wonderful luminescent quality of b/w silents. To my eye, "A Canterbury Tale" derives part of its mystical quality from being shot in black and white. Film Noir gets its dark tone not from colour but from black and white and shades in between. Citizen Kane, The Grapes of Wrath, The Third Man, Raging Bull, Look Back in Anger, This Sporting Life... all memorable in black and white. ... It’s 1953 and under intense pressure to toe the Republican line, Murrow and his CBS news team do the unthinkable. They call Senator Joseph McCarthy’s bluff, and challenge his authority on the House Un-American Activities Committee. Shot in velvety black and white, the film eavesdrops on Murrow’s crucial briefings before his weekly broadcast to the nation. The compelling drama is how precious little firepower he actually has on his side.

I agree with all the comments about those brilliantly-shot movies. With great trepidation, however, I'd like to voice a small dissent on these two subjects -- B&W and GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.

Yes, THE THIRD MAN was perfection in B&W, and so were many others. But think how many dull-looking B&Ws there are, including quite famous films. There's nothing inherantly good or bad about B&W or colour, only how they're used. THE LEAGUE OF GENTLEMEN, for example. I'm a big Dearden advocate, but the script and the actors make this film, not the direction or camerawork. The "look" of GENTLEMEN is flat and mediocre. Same for, say, PRIVATE'S PROGRESS and YANGTSE INCIDENT and THE ANGRY SILENCE and so on. The 50s, in particular, wasn't always a good time for British B&W cinematography. As much as I admire some of the films, I also walk away from them with a slightly depressed feel -- that very real psychological depression associated with grey unimaginative cinematography. Partly due to budget constraints and short shooting schedules and poor art design, of course (especially some of the Ranks). Still, this is one reason many critics looked down on some otherwise very good British films -- they're just not cinematic in their mise en scene, which includes the use of B&W or colour. So, for me, when B&W isn't used imaginatively, it can be a pretty negative factor.

GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK -- very fine film. But like many based-on-fact movies, it tends to smooth out the facts. Murrow was far from alone in standing up to McCarthy. Several events and people converged around the same time. Prior to Murrow's broadcast, President Eisenhower blocked McCarthy's attempt to investigate the CIA; he was convinced that the Senator would quickly shoot himself in the foot. This McCarthy did when he investigated the U.S. Army and lawyer Joseph Welch (less than a month after Murrow's show) skillfully humiliated him in public hearings that were broadcast on TV. If you have to identify any single figure (always dangerous with history), it would likely be Welch, not Murrow, who defeated McCarthy ("Have you no sense of decency left?"), whose allies in the media and the House of Representatives and the Senate all deserted him. The Senate then voted overwhelmingly to censure him and strip him of power. So all praise to Murrow for helping break McCarthy, but, contrary to the GOOD NIGHT, other people were simultaneously and actively working to bring the Senator down, and they did.

The movie is also somewhat disingenuous about how "alone" Murrow was within CBS. By 1954, decisions about network news content were already being made mostly by the staffs of the shows, not management, the board of directors or owners of the networks. Murrow was a star. Friendly was a star producer. They were already opinion-makers in a sense, and had already established a tradition of presenting independent public affairs shows. Their audience wanted them to take a stand and challenge authority. And this trend continued into the 60s and 70s, right up to today when show-makers and presenters tend to make the decisions, not management. Murrow was already part of that tradition when he faced off against McCarthy. He wasn't quite as "alone" or at risk as the movie suggests.

None of which is meant to imply thaat Murrow wasn't a great man and a great broadcaster. His like will never be seen again.

Now I'm going to get my head down to avoid all the pies thrown my way...

[arty-dave]

(AndrewLA @ Apr 3 2006, 09:14 PM) Now I'm going to get my head down to avoid all the pies thrown my way...

Pass any gooseberry ones on to me, will you?