Colorized Classics

I was going to post this in the "I Just Bought..." thread, but then I thought it just might deserve its own topic. A short time ago I purchased two classic films on dvd: 1940's "The Mark of Zorro" with Tyrone Power, and the 1936 version of "My Man Godfrey" starring William Powell and Carole Lombard. Each of these dvds contain the original black-and-white movie and a recently colorized version on the same disc. (I hear there are several other vintage films that were colorized by the same company, Legend Films, during the past few years, including "Miracle on 34th Street", "It's a Wonderful Life" and "Holiday Inn" - the picture that introduced the Irving Berlin song "White Christmas".)

I actually like colorized versions of the films I bought, but I know that some so-called "purists" can't stomach the idea of viewing an old, black-and-white favorite in color. On the one hand I can understand their thinking. The studio and the film directors probably made their films in black-and-white for a reason (an intended effect, etc.). The colors chosen by the coloring artists may impart a tone to the movie that the filmmakers never intended, etc., so to watch it in color is to watch a sullied, in essence, re-directed film. On the other hand, some recently colorized films are pleasing to the eye and give viewers (including those of us familiar with the original prints) more to look at. The colorized versions also have the potential to introduce the movies to viewers who would never choose to watch a black-and-white picture. As mentioned above, the dvds I bought have both versions of the films on each disc, so either is available for - purists and for people who prefer color alike.

I was just wondering what you think about this trend of companies to colorize classic (or not-so-classic), black-and-white films. Do you like the idea, or do you think it is wrong? Should the colorizers have left well enough alone? Do you own any colorized dvds?

---

[Post edited by Sylvia on Feb 14, 2009 - CST 3:12 PM]

Slyvia,

I wouldn't exactly call the recent colorizing of a few motion pictures a "trend." Ted Turner started colorizing B&W pictures many, many years ago, and I had hoped the idea had died by now. While some people may not appreciate black-and-white films, others of us do. The problem is not that colorizing per se (although I have yet to see a colorized movie that looked very good) is a bad thing, but that some younger viewers may only see them colorized, leading them to believe that that is the only way they were intended. Colorizing movies does not allow unknowledgeable viewers the opportunity to see how good black-and-white photography can be.

The fact is, color film was a long time coming, not realizing its potential until the late 1930s and then costing quite a bit more than B&W film. During the 1940s, the studios began filming more movies in color, and by the 1950s and early 60s, there was almost an even number of each. It wasn't until the mid 1960s and beyond that color became cheap enough for studios to use regularly and become the standard we know today.

I suspect that people who enjoy B&W the most are people like myself who grew up with them. Since I grew up in the late 1940s and 50s, half or more of all films I saw in theaters were in black-and-whte, and throughout most of the 50s my parents had only a B&W television, so even if saw a color movie on TV, it was black-and-white to me. To young people not used to B&W, the format may look simply old-fashioned and drab.

But what a glory good black-and-white photography can be. I believe it captures more nuances and communicates more feeling and atmosphere than color. Not as realistic, you say? Since when is any motion picture a duplication of real life? Motion pictures are little works of artistic license, and if black-and-white photography conveys a better emotion than color, so be it.

Of necessity, mainly, those old cinematographers created art from their B&W work. I hate to see that work corrupted in the name of "improvement." To me, it's like drawing a mustache on a great old painting to "improve" it or putting pants on some of Michelaneglo's subjects to make them more "respectable" or changing the ending of a Shakespeare tragedy to make it "happier." It's not necessary.

I'm also a little concerned that people will put as much money as they do into colorizations when, in fact, so many precious old films (B&W and color) are decaying for lack of money to restore them.

However, if you like it, you like it. I see colorization as an unnecessary distraction, but if you don't, then more power to you. Enjoying the movie is the main consideration.

John

Thanks for that interesting and informative post, John!

Just to clarify, when I wrote about the "recent trend" of colorization work, I was thinking of the flurry of pictures released by Legend Films in the past few years. (If I'm not mistaken, they either have or will soon put out out a color version of "Casablanca" as well as the other films mentioned in my first post.) I'll try to be more clear in the future. Also, about the following quote from your post:

Quote:
Not as realistic, you say? Since when is any motion picture a duplication of real life?

I assume that was rhetorical, as my post did not address realism in colorized films, but I want to say that agree with what you wrote and add that no motion picture - including documentary film - can ever duplicate real life. Without question there is a bias and arguably a distortion of reality to every aspect of filmmaking - from the subject chosen to the camera angles from the direction to the editing. We can't escape it.

Finally, as someone who also grew up with black-and-white cinema and tv, I too have an appreciation for black-and-white films, but at the same time, I can see the appeal of colorized pictures. That said, I don't think I could ever watch the above-mentioned colorized version of "Casablanca". For me, "Casablanca" is one film that will always be black-and-white! More power to those who want to see it, but I'll pass.

Wasn't it Orson Wells who said "Black and white is an actor's best friend."? Can you imagine films like The Third Man or Sunset Blvd. in colour? Yuck.

Still I realize that there are some people out there who won't even touch black and white movies, and I think colourization is an effort by the studios to open up the market to people who would turn their nose up at the film otherwise.

I do really, really like the fact that at least they are including both the black and white and colourized versions on one disc. Does it make it clear anywhere on the packaging or menus that the black and white version is the 'original' or 'intended' version?

Quote:
I suspect that people who enjoy B&W the most are people like myself who grew up with them.

I think many people who grew up with it are more willing to give it a chance, but I think once you start watching black and white films it's universal and something much more than nostalgia. I grew up in a much later era (late 80s, early 90s) when colour was certainly the norm, but I love black and white movies. And I'm certainly not the only one. I know many people my age who do too.

When I got into photography at an early age I fell in love with black and white. It allows you to remove the distraction of colour and focus the eye on the shapes and subtle tones of the image. This is where Wells' quote comes from. Black and white has a way of focusing your eye in on the subtlety of an actors expression and allow their performance to come through stronger. Like anything though, black and white is a tool, and there are times to shoot black and white and times to shoot colour.

---

[Post edited by the_dvd_chef on Feb 14, 2009 - CST 5:33 PM]

I too appreciate and love the look of B&W films - so many great titles, like The Hustler (Paul Newman) for example - I'll always remember the first time I watched this film on a Widescreen LaserDisc.

DVDTOWN editor James Plath has a great review of Ray Harryhausen's 20 Million Miles to Earth, on both DVD and Blu-ray (which I own), with the original black-and-white presentation and a NEW colorized version (with better colorization techniques developed within the last decade or so). Click on the link above to read the BD review...

EXCERPT:
The big selling point here is that the film has been digitally re-mastered AND colorized, so, as with the recent DVD version, it's possible to watch Ymir in the original black-and-white or in GREEN, the way that he was envisioned. There's a bonus feature on the colorization process that shows Harryhausen giving his approval, saying, basically, "We always wanted to shoot in color, but didn't have the money." He's opposed to colorizing movies like "Citizen Kane" or ones that were never intended to be shot in color, but why not finally add a splash to films like his when it was what they wanted in the first place? An angle button allows you to toggle back and forth between the versions.

In my LaserDisc collection, I have a prized colorized edition of the original King Kong Collection: King Kong [Special Edition,,The Son Of Kong, Mighty Joe Young,3-Pack] [DVD] », and I like it's "look" equally with the B&W version. To my knowledge, it has never been released on DVD colorized - I do, however, highly recommend the great KK Box Set that Warner released a few years ago - loaded with extras in a nice casing.



-JOE- (Love Hendrix!)

Colorized versions open the possibility for new generations who don't appreciate or can't come to the fact about black and white movies. I, grew up watching lots of the golden era of Mexican cinema, so I don't have a problem with it. It's kinda weird, because you watch all these 'new' movies in color, 3D and widescreen, and then you watch a fullscreen black and white film...in the end, it's what's delivered, not how...

I have actually stripped the color from a few movies just to see what it would have looked like back in the ol' days.(ex. Star Wars) Kinda cool actually.

I don't post here much but I do visit often and read the topics quite a bit. This topic is a passion of mine and a couple of friends of mine. I believe that colorizing a B/W movie is destroying the originalilty of the movie. How are we supposed to know what color clothes, decorations, shoes, etc.. are supposed to be and how the director would like the color to stand out in each scene. Colorizing a movie is not a concept that is a big demand from the regular movie goer, but to the people who grew up, watched and loved certain black and white movies, colorizing is not now nor ever an option.
If the Wizard of Oz was shot in total B/W and someone came up now and colorized the whole movie, it would SUCK!!! The director wanted certain scenes to be in B/W and certain to be colorized and the scenes that were in color were obviously chosen colors to make the movie pop.
A rant I know but....as a movie lover, I don't like when a movie is remade or redone to make it "look better" unless the original director retouches it to met his original vision that was not possible earlier on (Star Wars).

I agree silverado. Imagine if someone came and decided to "colorize" the black and white photography of Alfred Stieglitz? Frankly I think the idea of colorization is ridiculous and insulting.