I quite agree that 'colorization' is vandalism. Yet, whenever I watch this movie, I can't help wondering why this movie wasn't shot in colour in the first place. Can anyone fill me in? Thanks.
-30-
Because color was way more expensive. Period. It's not better because it's black and white.
shareFrankly, I prefer black and white. Almost all of my personal photography is done in black and white. It seems that this movie with all its theatrical sets would have begged for colour. Was Warner's that cheap?
-30-
I think, at the time, the only option was Technicolor, a labor-intensive and expensive process. James Cagney had done mostly cheap gangster films prior to this and I doubt that Warner was confident the film would make money. And, being that not very many movies were in color at that time they probably decided the additional cost was not worth the risk.
shareMoney but artistic decitions too, people were more used to make Movies b/w, reminded me I Think the English directors Emerich and Pressburger shot al their films in colour int he 40-50s, propably mostly an artistic decition, their films are so beutiful. But maybe it was different in Hollywood than in other places that you couldn't always choose colour even if you wanted to if the producers didn't Believe your film would be a hit.
shareI could understand being offended by colorization IF it had been done to all existing copies of the film.
However it's simply idiotic to object to a version that is merely an ALTERNATE version. The original B&W is still there, for those who believe they are more pure in heart by watching the original & sneering at the colorized version.
I watch both versions, and do appreciate the colorized version for several reasons:
-- I can much better appreciate the tremendous efforts of the costumers and scenic designers in costume dramas/period pieces.
-- The younger audiences generally have little interest in any B&W film. I consider this a real failing, as well as a sign of little intellect, no doubt due to a poor upbringing. However, it's the truth. With a colorized version readily available, there is at least SOME possibility that they will watch a few great classics like YDD and begin to appreciate films that do not depend on nudiry, simulated sex, gunfights or car chases. Or computerized SFX. Without colorization this would never happen, and for this reason I strongly support it. It takes nothing away from the original, and only ADDS an option. If this helps expose the next few generations to important film work -- it's well worth it.
First, to the OP's question, the film wasn't shot in color because in 1942 most films weren't, and Warner Bros. -- which was notoriously cheap -- did indeed not want to spring for color. Still, this is one movie that would seem to have deserved being filmed in color.
Oddly, that very same year WB did put Cagney in his first color film -- Captains of the Clouds, a salute to the RCAF, some of which was filmed in the great outdoors of the Canadian wilderness. I guess they thought the scenery merited color, but it's a bit odd they chose that film for color (especially considering he expense of hauling the then bulky Technicolor cameras to such remote locations) but didn't accord that treatment to the studio-bound YDD.
Second, respectfully to smokehill retrievers, his defense of colorization is, to me, trying to impart value and justice to something that is indefensible. smokehill says he can "appreciate the colorized version for several reasons:"
-- I can much better appreciate the tremendous efforts of the costumers and scenic designers in costume dramas/period pieces.
Without colorization this would never happen, and for this reason I strongly support it. It takes nothing away from the original, and only ADDS an option. If this helps expose the next few generations to important film work -- it's well worth it.
hobnob53: I agree with everything you say against Colorization. I, too, detest it, and I will not watch a colorized version of any black-and-white film. That's because the results looked dreadful in those I have seen - resembling hand-colored B&W photographs. I don't disapprove in principle of the desire to reconstitute the original colors or to have some kind of attractive color version as an alternative to a dry colorless original. It just isn't done well. I love color, but I would rather watch good B&W than bad color.
However, I have to disagree with some of the points you make.
• In the past when color was rare in the cinema none of the films shot in B&W were designed in B&W. They were in fact designed in color. Since the Silent Era that was what the actors demanded, because it made them feel better to work in color costumes on color sets. And, of course, whenever outdoor locations were used those would inevitably be in color anyway.
• Color stills of many B&W films have survived from c1930 onwards, and they show that those films would have looked splendid in color. (They include some - very colorful - examples from "Yankee Doodle Dandy". Check Google Images.)
• Occasionally, a film intended for color production had to be shot in B&W, usually because of financial constraints. An example from the time of YDD is Warner Bros own Errol Flynn swashbuckler "The Sea Hawk"(1940), planned as a Technicolor film from the outset.
• Studios used color to publicise B&W films. Film posters were almost always in color, and so were lobby-cards (derived from hand-colored B&W stills). These conventions originated in Silent days.
• During the Silent Era color-toning and/or tinting of entire film sequences, in a variety of color hues, was a common practice - to such an extent that some film historians (like Kevin Brownlow) have claimed that no U.S. audience of this period ever saw a feature film that was completely in B&W. These devices fell out of fashion with the introduction of integral soundtracks, probably because a black silver soundtrack gave superior sound quality.
Hello momurr43,
Thank you for your thoughts on this topic. I'd forgotten about my post above and didn't realize how long I could go on about this subject!
To your points:
• Before color became ubiquitous in the cinema none of the films shot in B&W were designed in B&W. They were in fact designed in color. Since the Silent Era that was what the actors demanded, because it made them feel better to work in color costumes on color sets. And, of course, whenever outdoor locations were used they would inevitably be in color anyway.
I don't think this is true. Many elements -- costumes, scenery -- had to be designed to photograph best in b&w, which might mean they would not look as good in color. There was no rule about this, of course, but the fact is that b&w films were designed with b&w in mind; color films would be designed with color in mind. Obviously many things were beyond designers' control (outdoor scenery, etc.), and actors might complain, but the point is that films were designed and photographed differently for b&w vs. color. Of course, it wasn't a case of having the scenery all painted in b&w!
• Color stills of many B&W films have survived from around 1930 onwards, and they show that those films would have looked splendid in color. (They include some - very colorful - examples from "Yankee Doodle Dandy". Check Google Images.)
I never said that many b&w films wouldn't have looked good in color. Many might have been better done in color, as I said about this film, among others. But the fact is they weren't -- and that makes all the difference.
• Occasionally, a film intended for color production had to be shot in B&W, usually because of financial constraints. An example from the time of YDD is Warner Bros own Errol Flynn swashbuckler "The Sea Hawk"(1940), planned as a Technicolor film from the outset.
Quite true, though this is something I never discussed in my previous post. But, so what? Again, whatever the original intention, they were filmed in b&w.
• Studios used color to advertise B&W films. Film posters were almost always in color, and so were lobby-cards (derived from hand-colored B&W stills) - practices that originated in Silent days.
Also true, also something I didn't go into before, and also irrelevant to the topic of colorization. Movie posters were designed to be exciting in order to lure people to the theaters, and color posters always served this purpose far better than a b&w one would. They also usually contained lurid images that weren't in the film. This really has nothing to do with the topic.
• During the Silent Era the color-toning and/or tinting of entire film sequences, in a variety of color hues, was a common practice - to such an extent that some film historians (like Kevin Brownlow) have claimed that no U.S. audience of this period ever saw a feature film that was completely in B&W. This practice fell out of fashion with the introduction of integral soundtracks, probably because a black silver soundtrack gave superior sound quality.
Again, all true, but also irrelevant. First, tinting isn't colorization -- it isn't altering the film by imparting fake colors to objects. It's intended to set a mood, indicate a time of day, add some dramatic effect, etc. Second, it's original to the film -- not something added on by some nameless technician decades later. Removing the tinting from a film would be altering it. It's a technique that was integral to the film being tinted. Colorization is completely antithetical to that end. (And many sound films did have tinted sequences, which for years were not reproduced for television prints due to the expense involved, just as brief color sequences weren't reproduced for such prints. That changed the nature of those films too.)
Thanks for an informed and interesting post!