Colorizing Old Movies

[FedoraFan112390]

I know for many this is a no-go, but I want some members' opinions on this--The colorization of black and white films. I personally support it in many cases, as I'm not really a fan of black and white (whether photography or films, b/w looks ''dead'' to me)..But in some films, colorization would ruin them, such as Casablanca or City Lights.

 

[anon`]

I love black & white films, probably moreso than colour, at least from a stylistic standpoint.

But I wholeheartedly support attempts to colourise old films. Not because I care to see the film in colour, but because if they get it right... well, that's just another window into what the world actually looked like back then.

But for enjoyment's sake, I'll keep my B&W copies of Casablanca and M, thankyouverymuch!

 

[Yeps]

I think that colorization is fine, as long as I can still get the real movie. I personally think that black and white can create a much better sense of drama, and I just like the look of it, with all the great contrast between the shadows and highlights. I like black and white photos better too, but that might be because I look better in black and white.

 

[Mahagonny Bill]

Colorization of films that were originally shot in black and white is criminal and should not be done. The artists who made these films specifically created the costumes. lighting, and sets to work with the B&W film they were using. To come in after the fact and paint over their work should be considered vandalism. Only in very rare exceptions, such as the recent Ray Harryhausen projects, is it acceptable and even then only as an addendum to the original film and not a replacement.

 

[23SkidooWithYou]

As a woman, I watch a BW film and wonder what color hair the character has, what color lipstick they're wearing, what color the evening dress might be, what color the arm chair or chaise. I sit and watch and wish for color. Then I see a colorized version of the film and find myself sadly disappointed.

 

[sixties.nut]

I know the colors today are different than the colors back then.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The one situation where I'd support it is in the restoration of color sequences that now survive only in black and white -- there were dozens of films in the late twenties and early thirties shot in part or in whole in the early two-color Technicolor and Multicolor systems that exist today only in black and white dupes. These could be properly colorized if -- and only if -- source material could be found to provide reasonable documentation of the original color design, and if -- and only if -- a process-appropriate two-color palette was used in the colorizing. That, I think, would be a worthwhile an appropriate use of colorizing.

Otherwise, I'd rather have long thin needles plunged into my eyeballs than watch a "colorized" movie.

 

[sixties.nut]

Are You Telling Me?

In a fancy sort of way, that Spy vs. Spy was colorized even way back then?

 

[JimWagner]

For me it really depends on the film in question. If the film was just a run of the mill b&w low budget film with no special camera, lighting or filtration work then colorization can only help. On the other hand, colorizing Citizen Kane would be a big artistic mistake as would doing it to most of the b&w John Ford films.

As long as both versions, b&w and colorized, remain available then everyone is free to watch, or not watch whichever one they prefer. Or watch both. How can that be a bad thing?

I don't think anyone is being strapped in, eyelids held open and forced to watch either one, with apologies to A Clockwork Orange

 

[Lincsong]

I'd rather just watch it in the original. I alway laugh at my little nephew when he says while watching black and white movies and cartoons; "why is it gray? or I wish it was color film and not this gray film".

 

[Bugsy]

I hear that Ted Turner wants to colorize the first 20 minutes of "The Wizard of Oz".

 

[Zombie_61]

The one situation where I'd support it is in the restoration of color sequences that now survive only in black and white -- there were dozens of films in the late twenties and early thirties shot in part or in whole in the early two-color Technicolor and Multicolor systems that exist today only in black and white dupes. These could be properly colorized if -- and only if -- source material could be found to provide reasonable documentation of the original color design, and if -- and only if -- a process-appropriate two-color palette was used in the colorizing. That, I think, would be a worthwhile an appropriate use of colorizing.

Otherwise, I'd rather have long thin needles plunged into my eyeballs than watch a "colorized" movie.

Well said! I couldn't agree more. There is no valid reason to colorize films that were originally filmed in black and white.

 

[Smithy]

Colorization of films that were originally shot in black and white is criminal and should not be done. The artists who made these films specifically created the costumes. lighting, and sets to work with the B&W film they were using. To come in after the fact and paint over their work should be considered vandalism. Only in very rare exceptions, such as the recent Ray Harryhausen projects, is it acceptable and even then only as an addendum to the original film and not a replacement.

Well said. I agree entirely.

 

[ScionPI2005]

Colorization of films that were originally shot in black and white is criminal and should not be done. The artists who made these films specifically created the costumes. lighting, and sets to work with the B&W film they were using. To come in after the fact and paint over their work should be considered vandalism. Only in very rare exceptions, such as the recent Ray Harryhausen projects, is it acceptable and even then only as an addendum to the original film and not a replacement.

I agree with you too Mahogonny Bill. I don't understand how anyone who values a good black and white film can approve of it being colorized. Perhaps it is only those who truly hate black and white films that think they should be colorized. But then I would have to ask what they have against black and white.

 

[Miss Golightly]

Colorization of films that were originally shot in black and white is criminal and should not be done. The artists who made these films specifically created the costumes. lighting, and sets to work with the B&W film they were using. To come in after the fact and paint over their work should be considered vandalism. Only in very rare exceptions, such as the recent Ray Harryhausen projects, is it acceptable and even then only as an addendum to the original film and not a replacement.

I completely agree - I remember seeing some scenes from the colourised version of It's a Wonderful Life and it was horrid - reminded me of some b&w family photos my Grandmother had colourised back in the 40's - completely unnatural looking.

 

[Mr E Train]

Are they still colorizing movies? It was a fad back in the 80's and 90's when Ted Turner started doing it, but I haven't heard anything about it in ages, so I figured it fell out of favor. It's not like colorizing old black & white movies is going to give them that much larger an audience, because if someone can't stand B&W movies, odds are that they're not going to like old movies either, whether they're in color or not.

 

[bunnyb.gal]

The one situation where I'd support it is in the restoration of color sequences that now survive only in black and white -- there were dozens of films in the late twenties and early thirties shot in part or in whole in the early two-color Technicolor and Multicolor systems that exist today only in black and white dupes. These could be properly colorized if -- and only if -- source material could be found to provide reasonable documentation of the original color design, and if -- and only if -- a process-appropriate two-color palette was used in the colorizing. That, I think, would be a worthwhile an appropriate use of colorizing.

Otherwise, I'd rather have long thin needles plunged into my eyeballs than watch a "colorized" movie.

I could not agree more. After all, a body wouldn't go around changing the colour palette of a painting in a museum, so why colourise a b&w film except under those circumstances that LizzieMaine mentions above? I think there's an assumption that b&w is a technical limitation or a poor relation to colour.

I personally prefer b&w to colour (especially in contrast to the garishness of some 50's films, especially), and often find great beauty and depth in it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think there's an assumption that b&w is a technical limitation or a poor relation to colour.

Well said. I'd liken colorization-for-the-sake-of-it to dubbing voice tracks onto silent pictures.

 

[Mike in Seattle]

Welles on Turner

I hear that Ted Turner wants to colorize the first 20 minutes of "The Wizard of Oz".

I think Orson Welles put it best -

Keep Ted Turner and his ********* Crayolas away from my movie.

Afterall, who's to say if the colors used are the RIGHT colors? Colors used are generally those the colorist decides to use. Sure, there are some color publicity shots taken on the set, but I seriously doubt many do much research into what actual colors of paint in a room, the clothing the people wear or even hair colors. So it really is like a coloring book. "I think I'll make that hat brown!" and someone else says "I think I'll make it red!" Sometimes clashing colors may have been used because they reproduced best in BW or achieve affects desired under colored lights used in filming. Frederick March's makeup in Dr. Jeckyl & Mr. Hyde in the transformations used different colors that would make things appear and disappear shifting to from white to red to green lights.

Anyway - myself, I vote no for colorizing because you're tampering with the original artists' (directors, cinematographers, etc.) vision. Would we allow someone to put a red dress on the Mona Lisa because the somewhat monochromatic color scheme is blah to some?

But colorizing isn't a destructive process. It doesn't destroy the original. As long as they leave the originals alone and people can decide if they want colorized or the original, fine.

 

[Jedburgh OSS]

When this fad first kicked into gear over two decades ago there was a Frank Sinatra movie in which he was Ol' Brown Eyes instead of Ol' Blue Eyes, but I don't recall the title. I assume this process has gotten cheaper and a little faster to do. It used to cost $3000 a minute and take two weeks to do just nine minutes of footage. Most old movies cost more to colorize than it originally did to make them. I've seen two colorizations of the 1968 Night of the Living Dead. The first was washed out and fuzzy, and the second was sharper and clearer. This is one latter day B&W flick that looks better in its original form. The lack of color adds to the atmosphere of the film. Besides, Bosco chocolate syrup was used as blood; do we colorize it red or brown?