Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Myrtonos, Sep 10, 2023.
This explains everything.
Panic in Year Zero. Having all that greenery in color would have been an interesting contrast to the tension of teh plot
I think that the humor and the farce comes the fact that they are a couple of dudes, and nobody dopes out that simple fact. Even at the end when jack lemon "reveals" that he is a man to his suitor oswell, his response is simply "well, nobody's perfect."
I saw him in a clip from dick cavett on youtube. he had a different reason for shooting in black and white. he said that when they were scouting locations, they shot footage in color. it didn't work. like the book, the movie was set in depressed Texas burg that time passed by, but the footage still made the dreary small town look like a pretty travelogue when shot in color.
I can only think of three films that may have looked better if they were originally shot in color.
yankee doodle dandy
To be clear, I mean a movie filmed in B&W, or often, more accurately, sepia.
One tv show I wish had been shot in color was the 1967 miniseries “The Forsyte Saga” . They wanted to but color cameras wouldn’t be available for several months and by then the cast would not be, so they chose the cast.
I am not enough of a Twilight Zone fan to know if Rod Serling wanted it to be shot in color. I don’t have a problem with it being in black and white. But during the colorization craze of the mid 1980s they did do the hour long episode “Miniature” with the scenes where Robert Duvall sees living people inside the dollhouse, That would have made sense
movies maybe a couple mentioned like Yankee Doodle Dandy, Sea Hawk or Captain Blood. there is one from the late 1940s Prince of Foxes with Tyrone Power and Orson Welles that would have benefited greatly if it was in color
I grew up with a b/w tv in the house and didn’t get color until my early 20s so it really isn’t a problem for me
They Shoot Horses Don't They was plenty depressing. And in color. Because people actually live their lives in color. Even if it was the Depression. They actually experienced life in color.
Just tell stories and have actors act. Don't rely on gimmicks and crutches. At this point B&W is a gimmick and a crutch. I just want to get into the story. Women look better in color too. I don't think to my self in real life, or watching a football game, man I wish I was seeing the great plays or the pretty girls in B&W.
Yes things can look good in B&W. But we have color. Even Stalag 17 versus Hogan's Heroes. Stalag 17 was a great, great movie. I don't have any problems watching it. But Hogan's Heroes still looks better. You wanna remake Stalag 17 do it in color. I'm reasonably sure the play was in color. As the play version of Twelve Angry Men. People enjoyed those somehow.
You make it sound like monochrome and color are warring factions, though.
They are not.
Subjectivity is rightfully justified, yet I see no reason to eschew one for the other, when both have proved their equal merits, time and again.
I am fine with B&W in its day. Its day has passed, around 1965. Post 1965 I find no instances where it needs to be used. Please tell me what story cannot be told in the normal color spectrum. It just screams artiface to me at this point. I want to see the actual people, not some phony filter the director put in front of them.
I wouldn't go to a play in B&W, see a music performance in B&W. Why should I want it in a film?
Deep. As is so often the case with Calvin and Hobbes.
Don't look back was filmed in black and white in 1965. This is one film I wish were done in color as I said before.
Black and white is not a gimmick. It’s an artistic choice.
Maybe because plays and musical performances don't come in B&W but films do?
Personally, I'd love to see a play in monochrome, with everyone dressed in various shades of gray, black and white, their faces painted a gray/silver, with perhaps the distant sound of a movie camera being hand-cranked in the background for effect.
I've got a different idea, though.
In that case, was this show shot on videotape?
And that's his point, isn't it?
Wikipedia says the masters are 625-line videotape. The DVD release that came out several years ago (BBC/Warner Home Video E1716) looks quite good.
I'm actually glad they didn't shoot it in color; the black and white works very well. It would have risked turning into a costume drama in color.
Will society reach a point in which it has people who say they “can’t watch a movie “ if it’s:
1. Flat (not 3d)
3. Not IMAX
5. 8k or less
6. Not direct-inject neural interface
And will story, as a result, no longer matter to most viewers?
Right, real life isn't a flat image on a screen, and sound doesn't just come out of a few speakers in specific places (never mind the absurdity of the same sound coming from more than one place), so obviously every movie ever made isn't realistic.
For that matter, real people aren't flat, still images made out of paint, nor are they made of stone, so the entire history of art is just one big mistake. Every artist in history has been doing it wrong all the way back to the days of cave paintings.
Or so you might think... if you had absolutely no clue about art.
And is monaural the black and white of sound?
@Onkster515 - It does not seem that way.
The first film that comes to mind would be Wings - especially the dog fight scenes. I think the big blue sky and white clouds would have made the film even more visually stunning.
I agree with you. I always prefer watching the actual original version of a movie or TV show.
Oh, the one with Clara Bow?