Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#1
I recently watched a Blu-Ray of that classic Jimmy Stewart Black and White film, A Wondeful Day, except it was not in Black and White. The Blu-ray had the original cinematic version but also included a colourised version as well.
Not so long ago I also watched a broadcast colourised version of The Longest Day but have not found the colourised version on DVD or Blu-Ray. if I do I will buy it.
Some people however, purists, think that colourising classic films is tantamount to a crime.
For some films I would agree, Schindler's List, for instance - then the black and white start and finish of The Wizard of Oz were filmed that way for a reason.
For most black and white films though they were filmed that way because it was before colour or early in the development of colour when it was expensive. These, if colourised and re-digitised, may well get a fresh breath of life, as did The Longest Day (not sure why that was B&W...) and A Wonderful Life.
Why stop at colourisation in this digital age.....
One of my favourite films is The Battle of Britain. Now this film is, of course, colour but there are some aspects of the movie that I find jarring. First of all the Spitfire is over-represented. Over two thirds of the aircraft in the BoB were Hurricanes but if you watch the film you will think that the 'Hurris' were only flown in France before the battle and by the Poles during a battle dominated by Spitfires. Clearly the reason for this was the very low number of Hurricanes available for filming. It is surely possible in this digital age to very carefully make changes to the film to increase the presence of this great aircraft and better show its real role in the battle. Then some of the Spitfires themselves jar, being later marks that did not fly in the battle. It would be easy enough to digitally change the exhausts and profile to make them appear like Mk1's. The biggest and most obvious flaw in the film, however, is the use of Hispano engined ME109's, loaned to the film company by the Spanish Air Force. These look very different to the 'Emils' that flew in the battle and digitisation may well be able to alter the appearance of these to the right configeration.
These changes would bring this film up to date and make them look so much better, would justify a cinematic re-release and a whole new DVD and Blu-ray market would open. It would not be the first time a film has had two versions released in the cinema (Close Encounters for instance).
So what do you think. Should they leave old films alone or take advantage of the new digital age, improve them, bring them up-to-date, make the 'feel' and appearance more authentic?
The original versions could still be included in DVD and Blu-ray releases, as per A Wonderful Day.
Guest 700- Registered: 11 Jun 2010
- Posts: 2,868
#2
I think old films should be left as originally made. If you want something more up to date then make a new one.
A work of art should not be tampered with.
Air-brushing is in the news too at the moment!
---------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Born and Bred
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
But cannot you get the best of both worlds this way.... Look at 'A Wonderful Life' as an example, you can see both and for me I much prefer the colour version.
Then why go to all the trouble and expense of a remake? Often they are inferior. You cannot replicate Olivier, Caine and others in the BoB film but you can keep their roles and performances while takiong advantage of technology to improve the historical accuracy and to do so without losing the original.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#4
I prefer A Wonderful Life in good old black and white, it seems so much more atmospheric to me. There are some great B&W films.
So long as the original version of a B&W film is available why not have the coloured version as well for those that want one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 656- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,262
#5
Ah! yes, I love the old black and white movies, for me, they just wouldn't be the same in colour but sure for those that want it then fine, each to their own
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#6
More fun to spot errors and continuity mistakes!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#7
But what about a more detailed re-working of films like the BoB as I suggest?
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#8
Not sure really... the film in itself is a history of some of the aircraft that were around at the the time, and that is quite interesting.
You could go the whole hog and change historical inaccuracies or even say that the Swingate Masts weren't at Farthingloe and change it to the right place !!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#9
Just had another interesting thought, going on from you Paul.
So many Hollywood films credit the Americans for the achievements of the British.
There was that film where Errol Flynn won the Burma campaign and then there was Enigma, where it was the Americans who were credited with capturing the Enigma machine....
How about redigitising to reflect the truth, the Brits capturing Enigma and winning the Burma campaign.... that would give the yanks one in the eye.... sweet revenge.... oh damn, copyright
#10
BarryW, how could you!? The Enigma machine wasn't captured by the British. It was the Polish Resistance who captured it. Credit where it's due please.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#11
some films benefit by the monochrome system, makes them more atmospheric.
an example would be"the third man".
i shudder to think what "psycho" would be like in colour, i can only watch it from behind the sofa as it is.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#12
A couple of years ago my sister bought me a colourised version of a Christmas Carol "Scrooge" starring Alastair Sim. I watched it Christmas Day and was appalled that the Americans had also added a slushy sound track which completely spoilt the whole atomsphere of the film. I sold it on at a boot fair.
Recently I bought a box set of every known Laurel & Hardy film. However along with newsreel footage and home movie clips of the pair I also have the choice of watching the film in colour or B&W. Great technology.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
#13
Marek I too have a set of those Laurel and Hardy DVD's and I must admit for those colour or b&w makes very little difference. However I once saw a scene from Casablanca that had been colourised and it was appalling, the process had stripped all the atmosphere from Rick's Bar. The technicians that worked on those films designed the sets and lighting for b&w and so many of their subtalties are lost to the colourising process.
Incidentally Barry, the Longest Day was filmed in b&w to allow the use of newsreel footage, this was before they knew that so much of it was filmed in colour but developed in b&w (I forget the reasons for the moment).
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
#14
Nostrodamus in b&w - the only way. Metropolis in its original cut is simply the best way to see it. Buster Keaton benefits not one whit from colour! And I love Buster Keaton!
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
#15
I am sure you mean Nosfuratu Bern but I do agree on that one, not so sure how to determine which cut of Metropolis would be the original but definitely b&w and without the trendy soundtrack.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
#16
I did mean Nosferatu Chris, but after 3 glasses of wine poured by a family member I am slightly blurred!! Thanks for the correction!
#17
I love Buster Bloodvessel, but he is defo better in colour!
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
#18
No problem Bern. There was also a film called Nostrodamus but it was in colour to begin with.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
#19
Okay, let's explore the reasons why tampering with movies is a bad thing. Firstly, colourising old B&W movies is usually a commercial decision done to try and squeeze a few extra bucks out of an old IP. I've seen a fair few, including the Laurel and Hardy films (which I find utterly disgraceful to watch - so I don't any more), George A Romero's Night of the Living Dead (which is dreadful in fake colour) and my beloved 1933 King Kong. The coloured version of King Kong is a crime and the people who did it should HANG - slowly!
The problem is probably psychological. Old B&W movies, just like modern movies, are representative of their time, they reflect the culture, economical, political, and social climate of the era in which they were made. Even the mad sci-fi futuristic films from past decades say more about their contemporary era than the fictional eras they attempt to roll out into a narrative. In the very early decades of cinema, French film makers developed the earliest forms of narrative film but the camera was stood on a tripod and the point of view to the audience was similar to watching a stage play. Techniques improved, of course, as film makers explored close ups, dissolves, and the art of cinematography flourished. These techniques allowed better exploration of character and exposition, things we take so much for granted these days. But those earliest films are important and deserve to be respected. If we enhanced those early films to make them look more modern, then you may as well touch-up the Mona Lisa so that she wears a Burberry cap to appeal to modern chavs. Sure, that would be unacceptable. Why is it okay to do it to film?
Dragging an old classic into the modern world by enhancing it with digital effects, colour, or whatever, studios fuse a slice of real history with an artificial sheen of modernity. The net effects are highly incompatible. These "enhancements" actually do nothing (and I challenge anyone to coherently dispute this) - NOTHING - to improve the experience of watching the film. They add nothing to the narrative, they do not make characters any more engaging, they do not force the film's conclusion to be better, they simply do nothing. It's just pure modern eyecandy and is more often than not a distraction than an enhancement. The very fact that we talk about the colourising process before we discuss the content of the movie is proof of this.
Even directors messing with their own films is dodgy. Just look at George Lucas and his digital enhancements of the original Star Wars trilogy. These versions of the films are held in such low regard by film lovers, with demand being so universally high for the DVD release of the original theatrical versions, that Lucasfilm had no choice but to release them. Look at Steven Spielberg's E.T., a wonderful childhood fable that was utterly destroyed with a modern digital makeover, sinking the film into a CGI swamp that is intolerable to watch. And let's not forget James Cameron. Every film that bloke releases into the cinema ends up being nothing more than a long trailer for the forthcoming "director's cut" which gets released on DVD after sales of the theatrical release fall. The industry calls it a "double dip", and is pure and simple a money making trend. Movie "enhancements" do zero for the quality or validity of a film, they are pure commercial fodder designed to rake in the dollars.
You might call me a "purist" but cinema is a "pure" art form. The whole process is designed to suspend disbelief and tell a story. This can be achieved without the need for "enhancements". I'm not a huge fan of the modern era of film making as it is so heavily reliant on CGI (and I REALLY hate it when old films get CGI makeovers). Digital enhancements of old films undermine the historical values of an old film, they distract from the core values of the film, and they are often just crap. Seriously, don't you sometimes get a warm nostalgic glow watching an old grainy black and white melodrama or would you prefer to watch it through crisp digital filters, washed with unnatural colour, making the experience feel artificial and cold?
Remakes are perhaps a more acceptable way to engage a new generation with an old film. Although most tend to be rubbish, a few good ones have emerged over the years. If it's a great story, then it doesn't hurt to retell it every few generations or so. But if it's a great FILM, then enhancing it years later to appeal to a jaded audience of spaced-out CGI-heads is insulting.
Nuff said!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#20
brilliant post rick, can anyone imagine seeing "sunset boulevard" or "casablanca" in colour and getting the same buzz?
Been nice knowing you :)