and a ton of movies at that. The older Gone With the Wind was in color while Casablanca is not. Why do they chose to film certain films in black and white and some in color? Is it because of the cost? Would the audience much prefer films to be colored?
shareSometimes it was/is for budgetary reasons, sometimes for artistic reasons. Technicolor film process was more expensive- not just the film itself but to expose it correctly a lot more lighting on the set needed to be used for example.
In the case of Roman Holiday it had a somewhat limited budget and at that time period using Technicolor overseas meant daily shot film would have to be flown to England from Rome to be processed and returned I believe, which was too unwieldy. Apparently director Wyler wanted to film in color but he knew it would put the movie over budget- which it ended up being anyway in black and white.
Technicolor wasn't cheap. At first only the biggest movies were in color, but it slowly diffused untill virtually everything was in color by the mid-late sixties. This was originally planned to be in color, and to star Cary Grant and Liz Taylor, but Wyler wanted to shoot on location in Rome, which was very uncommon for the time and expensive, so he had to shoot in black and white and get the slightly less expensive Peck for the leading man, and the (then) unknown Audrey Hepburn for his leading lady.
shareThank you, it's all clear to me now but i have to disagree that only the 'biggest' movie was in technicolor. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1959)production was not that grand but was shot in color.
share[deleted]
Cat was shot in Metrocolor, not the far superior (and much more expensive) Technicolor, and Roman Holiday was a Paramount, not MGM, project. And bear in mind that there was a time during which there weren't all that many Technicolor cameras available.
shareIn the end, it's terrific in black and white. Movies are "motion pictures", and even today black and white is a great photographic medium. To me, black and white movies look sharper than their color counterparts. I was watching "Seven Days in May" last night and loved the crisp quality of the picture.
Same feelings about "Casablanca." And Woody Allen's "Manhattan", made in the early 80s.
Ansel Adams is still considered a wonderful photographer, and I believe some of his pictures would be less forceful if they were in color.
[deleted]
The director clearly stated that the sheer color and action of the Roman streets would have overwhelmed the actors. Another thing, the raucous crowd scenes lacked the control necessary for bulky expensive technicolor filming
shareColor didn't become widespread in movies until the late 1960s, so it comes as no surprise that a movie made in 1953 would be in in black and white.
shareAccording to this documentary about the film,
https://youtu.be/kDjIv4jE9NU?t=4m32s
William Wyler wanted the film to be shot in b/w to keep the focus on the story and the characters. He did not want the story to have to compete with the Roman scenery for viewer's attention.
Considering that nowadays, people complain about CGI effects in movies, I find this point interesting. There's a neverending cycle where people complain about new technologies, and it seems to me like color in movies was something that people probably complained about back then.
Yes, Wyler said that and I think he was being diplomatic. Wyler shot the film on location in Rome and the city's landmarks all help enhance the magical story, but as other posters have indicated his budget was limited. Given the chance and extra funding, I'm sure he would have jumped at the opportunity to film in colour.🐭
shareA lot of people thought it took power away from the director. People might be distracted by some pretty color and not look where the director wanted them to look.
share