Cost of colour filming.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin Just googled a Blog by a chatty guy who postulated that B&W movies were actually killed off by Television. By 1967/68 colour TV had penetrated America to the extent that networks were under pressure to broadcast colour shows because the audience was angry at spending loads of cash to watch what they could have watched on their old sets....... Hollywood saw the future and switched their output 'overnight' to colour features only. And where Hollywood leads........... Don't know if the stats back him up but it's a neat idea.

Part of that same possibly apocryphal story is that American programmes from that time were so garish because Joe Public used to say that they'd paid for a "color" TV and they demanded lots of colours, even if it did make everything look unnatural.

Steve

[orpheum]

I know that Natalie Kalmus is worth a few brickbats but lets be honest some of the most beautiful colour cinematography ever was undertaken under her supervision.Look at Robin Hood(1938)or Elizabeth and Essex for example.I have recently received a copy of Service with a Smile(1934) which is a 3 strip warner Vitaphone short and i think the first film made in 3 strip.The colours are so dazzling it is quite amazing.Also i would add that it was not till the invention of the monopack process that any realistic challengers to Technicolour arose.

[christoph404]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin Just googled a Blog by a chatty guy who postulated that B&W movies were actually killed off by Television. By 1967/68 colour TV had penetrated America to the extent that networks were under pressure to broadcast colour shows because the audience was angry at spending loads of cash to watch what they could have watched on their old sets....... Hollywood saw the future and switched their output 'overnight' to colour features only. And where Hollywood leads........... Don't know if the stats back him up but it's a neat idea.

that sounds logical, I think more or less the same happened in the UK, as I mentioned in my earlier reply the BBC regularly recieved letters of complaint in the seventies from viewers objecting to the screening of too many"old black and white films" when in fact they were having to pay more for a colour TV licence.....I don't think it is an unreasonable expectation to expect colour images if you have forked out lots of money for a colour TV and a colour TV licence, short sighted perhaps,but now that colour TV is the only option of TV to have I think viewers often welcome the contrast and novelty of watching a monochrome movie, I certainly do, but it has taken a long time for TV audiences to get to that stage. It would make sense to say that colour TV helped kill off black and white film making, I mean why go and watch a black and white film at the cinema when you can watch a colour movie at home on your TV set? In the late 60s and onwards colour certainly prevailed and black and white films went through a tough time of being rejected, and certainly if you were making films in the late sixties and wanted to be able to easily sell it on to TV networks in the US then it had to be colour.I would say that only in recent years have balck and white movies been generally recognised for their own artistic and visual merit, members of this site, including me ,and other filmophiles have of course always regarded b&w movies as works of art in their own right but I wouldn't have thought the general film going or TV watching public think that way.

[christoph404]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook Part of that same possibly apocryphal story is that American programmes from that time were so garish because Joe Public used to say that they'd paid for a "color" TV and they demanded lots of colours, even if it did make everything look unnatural. Steve

Perhaps they wanted the same saturated vivid colour they were used to seeing at the cinema!! as in 3 strip technicolor!..

[ChristineCB]

I've seen several TV-docu's that claim BONANZA was the series that 'made' the American viewers want to spend top dollars on a cheapening color-TV set. But watching that show now, it's about 99% sets, all garishly colored, all obviously set-pieces - so obviously fake.

No wonder so many stayed with B&W sets for longer times.

Does anyone remember choosing to see color films instead of a b&w for that reason alone?

Story or Content makes me re-watch films, not their tints or colors. If the '60s ended B&W filming (which it did), it didn't take too long before B&W's artistic appeal - like Christoph said - was obvious.

Mel Brooks made a bit of good change off of his logo-burning color BLAZING SADDLES. And THE PRODUCERS before that. And TWELVE CHAIRS before that. But two years after BLAZING, he delivers a b&w YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. I'm sure he faced financial constraints, but I doubt those were any part of his decision to go with b&w.

The '70s had quite a few notable b&w films, all of which have their filmmakers saying those chose it for its artistic capabilities. If Color was The Big Deal, it didn't take too long before some filmmakers recognized B&W's capabilities.

[christoph404]

Re Bonanza;

In the UK we had endless repeats of "The High Chaparall" !!

[ChristineCB]

HIGH CHAP received a weekend marathon a few years ago. That was enough. BONANZA's offensive sets are so terrible that, if there was good acting or good stories, I'd never know. I love the garish Hammer sets, but those films do so much more within the framing - Bonanza scenes just lay there, like week-old dead fish that even seagulls avoid. Ugh.

But ask me how I really feel about the show... it does has one very funny episode ("Walter the Wonder Dog" or something, featuring Hoss holed up in a cabin with an old prospector and his dog). One out of 15 seasons? Some 300 odd?

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by orpheum I know that Natalie Kalmus is worth a few brickbats but lets be honest some of the most beautiful colour cinematography ever was undertaken under her supervision.

Or despite her supervision?
Jack Cardiff certainly has some very uncomplimentary things to say about her

Steve

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by christoph404 Perhaps they wanted the same saturated vivid colour they were used to seeing at the cinema!! as in 3 strip technicolor!..

That's another discussion, why were the films made in America with 3 strip Technicolor so often garish whereas the ones made in Britain with the same equipment were often much more naturalistic?

Was it differences in the processing (something in the water)?
Was it because Natalie Kalmus had less influence over British film-makers?
Was it because the natural light here is much more muted than the bright California skies?
Was it differences between the amount of influence, and the artistic skill of the art directors and cinematographers?
Or was it that the respective audiences really did prefer it like that?

Steve

[penfold]

Originally Posted by orpheum I know that Natalie Kalmus is worth a few brickbats but lets be honest some of the most beautiful colour cinematography ever was undertaken under her supervision.Look at Robin Hood(1938)or Elizabeth and Essex for example.I have recently received a copy of Service with a Smile(1934) which is a 3 strip warner Vitaphone short and i think the first film made in 3 strip.The colours are so dazzling it is quite amazing.Also i would add that it was not till the invention of the monopack process that any realistic challengers to Technicolour arose.

Have you seen the restored La Cucaracha(1934)??? La Cucaracha (1934) The colours are so bold and bright it's almost painful - but fascinating to see what could be achieved in the early '30's.

[kelp]

Originally Posted by ChristineCB HIGH CHAP received a weekend marathon a few years ago. That was enough. BONANZA's offensive sets are so terrible that, if there was good acting or good stories, I'd never know. I love the garish Hammer sets, but those films do so much more within the framing - Bonanza scenes just lay there, like week-old dead fish that even seagulls avoid. Ugh. But ask me how I really feel about the show... it does has one very funny episode ("Walter the Wonder Dog" or something, featuring Hoss holed up in a cabin with an old prospector and his dog). One out of 15 seasons? Some 300 odd?

American Radio Comedians "Bob n Ray" did a spectacular spoof of this episode of BONANZA, where every time a noise was heard outside the two occupants would dash to see if it was rescue coming, but it was always something else: "Who is it Hoss? Oh, only that old retriever from the farm on the hill fetching some bailing twine and a couple of rolls of barbed wire!" Or some such nonsense.
Bob n Ray sadly missed old b/w comics.

[Moor Larkin]

VARIOUS & APLENTY - Bonanza colour was horrid

Speaking as a huge childhood fan of Bonanza, Lorne Greene, Hoss, Little Joe, Nick (was it?).... have I missed anyone? (Odd how my Lorne Greene was not Pa, but Lorne Greene).......

I can only see Bonanza in black and white. Reading some of you post-moderns who have now seen it in it's original colour makes my mind drift back to the early part of this Thread about technicians being used to varying shades of grey and not fully understanding the consequences of vivid colours on the human eyeball..........

[orpheum]

Originally Posted by penfold Have you seen the restored La Cucaracha(1934)??? La Cucaracha (1934) The colours are so bold and bright it's almost painful - but fascinating to see what could be achieved in the early '30's.

Yes i do have this and also many of the MGM colour shorts that were shown on TCM UK some years ago.I MGM made many 3 strip colour shortsbut did not put colour into any of their features till that 1 fashion reel in The Women(1939). suppose you could call the colours garish but i find them eyecatching,which presumably was the main point.Remember that whenever the public interest in films has seemed to wane the studios would come up with a new gimmick.Bear in mind that there was a slump in cinema going at the time of the depression so colour was an attempt by the studios to give the sort of boost to the box office given by sound in the late twenties.

[christoph404]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook That's another discussion, why were the films made in America with 3 strip Technicolor so often garish whereas the ones made in Britain with the same equipment were often much more naturalistic? Was it differences in the processing (something in the water)? Was it because Natalie Kalmus had less influence over British film-makers? Was it because the natural light here is much more muted than the bright California skies? Was it differences between the amount of influence, and the artistic skill of the art directors and cinematographers? Or was it that the respective audiences really did prefer it like that? Steve

Probably a combination of all of those things, though Im not sure whether audience preference would be taken into account. In theory you would imagine the colour values to be basically the same in the US and Britain, but the lighting styles of the cinematographer would possibly have the biggest influence especially when you consider the vision and techniques of an artist such as Jack Cardiff who broke the "rules" and who insisted on pushing the boundaries of the process to its full creative potential , while other cinematographers were perhaps less subtle and more practical in their approach. And there is also the factor of grey skies versus blue skies as you suggest though Jack Cardiff filmed Black Narcissus almost entirely indoors so overcame that problem! I suppose it was such an involved process using dye transfer and so on that mixing up solutions with European water must have had some kind of effect but I guess a chemist or photo processor could confirm that though the dye transfer technique is fairly unique, I think it was still in use in Europe to some extent for making prints, up until the 80's and Im sure some directors have requested the dye transfer process to achieve that period vibrant look of "old hollywood"

[christoph404]

Originally Posted by ChristineCB HIGH CHAP received a weekend marathon a few years ago. That was enough. BONANZA's offensive sets are so terrible that, if there was good acting or good stories, I'd never know. I love the garish Hammer sets, but those films do so much more within the framing - Bonanza scenes just lay there, like week-old dead fish that even seagulls avoid. Ugh. But ask me how I really feel about the show... it does has one very funny episode ("Walter the Wonder Dog" or something, featuring Hoss holed up in a cabin with an old prospector and his dog). One out of 15 seasons? Some 300 odd?

Where I come from the flaming map of Bonanza is used as a euphamism for....well lets see, how shall I put this, a night out on the tiles with copius amounts of beer followed by a dodgy curry resulting the next morning in " my backside feels like the map on bonanza" ahem....yes very colourful description indeed..