Should The Beatles' A Hard Day's Night Be Colorized for a New Generation To Enjoy?

New t-shirt I just bought.

 

The fact is that once the decision to film in black and white was made — regardless of the reason behind it — all *subsequent* decisions regarding the production of the film were made on "artistic" grounds. Many posters have noted that decisions on lighting and overall scene composition were made in the context of this being a black and white film — as they were for every black and white film ever made. Colorizing a film, no matter how skillfully done, throws all of that out the window.

There is a further "artistic" dimension to all of this. For the vast majority of those who were present in the first flush of Beatlemania in 1963-1965, The Beatles existed in a black and white world. Color TV sets in the US were in the minority in the US during those years, and were nonexistent in the UK until 1968. I'm not an expert on this, but I can think of only one color film of The Beatles performing in 1963-64. So unless you were lucky enough to catch them in concert or at an airport, that is how you saw The Beatles.

This is the world The Beatles of that era existed in at that time, and it is in this world they should remain. As a huge Laurel and Hardy fan, I have always made the same point about colorizing their films. Advances in colorizing technology are immaterial. It doesn't matter "how well" the process is done...it's just plain wrong. Leave the subjects where they originated. That's where they belong.

Finally, as you and I both know — and the OP has acknowledged in his reply to my post — in the real world were a decision to colorize A Hard Day's Night be made, it would be made 100 percent on commercial grounds by those who held the rights to it. No heed would be given to the wishes of those who made the film, nor to any other artistic considerations. The only voice heard would be that of the almighty dollar.

 

If you grew up in the United States, you wouldn't be asking the above question.

 

So I guess we should colorize Sun Valley Serenade so a new generation can enjoy Glenn Miller. We should colorize Jailhouse Rock so a new generation can enjoy Elvis. We should colorize Don't Look Back so a new generation can enjoy Dylan.

No. It's all there, like AHDN, if the new generation wants it. If they don't want it, so be it. It's their loss.

Honestly ... donning Kevlar, and saying up front that there's no bigger Beatle fan on the planet than me, I saw AHDN first run on the big screen at age 6 in 1964 ... it sounds like there's some worry that "OMG, the kids might not be exposed to The Beatles or AHDN, they might be forgotten and lost to history like Glenn Miller and we've got to be proactive and do something about that."

No. If it happens, it happens. It's there if they want it. If they don't want it and it's lost to history, so be it.

 

No, let it be! It's a classic as a b&w!

 

Absolutely not! It's glorious in black and white. Should we colorize Ansel Adams' classic landscapes?

Why would anyone feel the need for colorizing something that originally wasn't in color?

Does anyone feel the need to change the color of a film? How about Schindler's List - should the little girl's red dress be changed to green because you like the color better?

The cinematographer worked in the intended aspect ratio and intended color palette. Who is deciding what to later impose on the film?

 

Obviously it needs to be colourized, and then released as part of deluxe Blu-ray box set, along with the black and white and a state of the art 3D version, complete with replica 3D glasses...

 

Whatever the reason, AHDN in B&W gives the film a nice British vibe. Many of the British films of that time were shot like that, including those
great "Kitchen Sink" dramas.
"It's not nice to mock the afflicted"....Paul's grandad about Ringo's nose

 

He's very clean.

 

Really. I want to see movies as originally created. I don't want them altered 54 years later.

Respect the art as made, not as you wish it had been made...

 

If b&w bores the kiddies, let 'em watch Help or Yellow Submarine.
They may not be 'engaged' enough to appreciate AHDN.

 

One could argue "Spice World" was essentially a remake of "AHDN". It's not identical to the Beatles' film, of course, but both are similar in a lot of ways...

 

Still doesn't compute! I honestly don't understand how any Beatles fan could dislike "AHDN" the movie!

 

In the last "Avengers", he calls 1986's "Aliens" a really old movie. It's an ongoing gag, but there's truth there - to a 16-year-old, something from 32 years ago is ancient.

I was 16 in 1983, so an equivalent for me would be something like "An American in Paris". Did that movie look ancient to me when I was a teen? You're damned right it did!

Crud, even more like "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Psycho" seemed super-old to me. "LOA" to me in 1983 is the equivalent of "Independence Day" to a 16-year-old today, and I feel like "ID" came out yesterday!

Basically anything that happened before you were born is ancient history to you. You have no historical perspective if you weren't alive when it happened.

 

Again, I agree it was more accepted - just saying that even in the 70s, there were barriers to viewing of B&W material...

 

No, never ever! I hate colorized b/w movies!
They are as they are, and as they were shot in b/w, the filmmaker knew that and cared for it.
It is no problem, it is a child of its time! What a crap to even think about it!
You'd destroy the initial impact! I can't think of one film where it doesn't bother me to death when b/w was colored...
On top, it also never looks convincing, but fake and overdone.
So: no, no, no no!!!!
I wouldn't also want to have perfect mono mixes made into some stereo!
Why shouldn't future generations not be able to accept the fact that b/w movies are not in color?
Everybody doing so just proves his/her incapability of imagining things were/could be different. Poor future!

 

I think not only should they colorize it, but they should use CGI to make the fabs look like their 1969 counterparts (like they touched up Let it Be John to look like Abbey Road John in the Rock Band commercials), then slip in Get Back performances instead of the HDN performances, closing with the rooftop sequence. Two birds (and films) killed with one stone.

 

It's a joke-not thread crap. I have no problem with colorizing HDN if done right and no problem with a "better" version of Let it Be. It doesn't eliminate the originals. But as for Let it Be-I prefer a performance only reboot. Just show full songs-rehearsals, studio, roof-top.

 

There is not a one of them .... colorized movies that is ... that doesn't look unnatural and pastel-like.

 

Nothing in life is 100% (well, except death and taxes). I think it's a matter of degrees. And when it's so relatively inconsequential, IMO it isn't worth mentioning.

 

Exactly. Thank you, Royce!

 

What a perfect monochrome shot, from dark shadows to the bright, white collar

 

But if it had been shot in color it would have been lit differently so it did have an impact on how he shot it.

 

The B&W cinematography links the film to it's 2 cinematic and stylistic precedences : the French New Wave , and the English Kitchen Sink movement

 

Colorized? I thought that ill conceived fad went out in the 90s. No.