MovieChat Forums > Roman Holiday (1953) Discussion > Black and White vs. Color?

Black and White vs. Color?

posted 13 years ago by letess
5 replies | jump to latest

Does anybody know why it was filmed in black and white? I read that William Wyler shot in black and white "so that the characters wouldn't be upstaged by the romantic setting of Rome." But, this doesn't really seem right. Rome is one of the main characters. Many noir films are in black and white to create a mood and they are fantastic - like The Third Man. But this movies seems like color would have added something.

I read about the blacklisting of Dalton Trumbo (who didn't get credit for writing until recently) and how the two previous directors in consideration (one of them being Frank Capra) did not want to be associated with the film because of Trumbo. It was mentioned that maybe Wyler's decision to film on location in Rome was to distance himself from Hollywood politics. Being on location, I am guessing, changed the budget, so perhaps the choice to film in black and white was one of cost and not a creative one.

I would have loved to see the apartment, the streets of Rome, the cafe, and her royal quarters in color. But the movie was perfect. I am just wondering if it would have added something if it was in color and what is the real reason why they chose not to do. Your thoughts?

[–] turtletommy 13 years ago

TCM's website has a lengthy set of articles about the film:
http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/4096/Roman-Holiday/articles.html#06

Scan down and you'll come to a section which says:
"After Roman Holiday was well under way, Wyler supposedly regretted his decision to shoot the film in black and white and considered switching to color stock at the last minute. "I tried to switch," Wyler was later quoted, "but in those days, making pictures in color was unusual. I would have needed new filmstock, had to fly exposed film every day to London, and reorganize the production. It was just too late." Other sources contend, however, that Wyler always wanted to shoot the film in color, but budget restrictions imposed by Paramount prevented him the indulgence."

The author of that article doesn't give any sources for info above. The production was supposedly way over budget ($700,000 over the original budget of 1 million) which gives some credence to the idea that Wyler had to abandon any thoughts of re-shooting in color which would have put the production even further in the red.

This was never meant to be a "big" picture so it's not that surprising it wasn't filmed in color. To me it works fine as it is, the black & white almost gives it a documentary feel. Besides the story I love the glimpse at a moment in time when Rome and Italy is beginning to emerge from the travails of WW2. Don't get me wrong though- in technicolor it would have been great!

[–] letess 13 years ago

Fantastic. Thank you. Lots of information. And, yes it does have a documentary feel and that moment in time you suggested. The two leads were a perfect pair and they looked great in black and white. Great movie!

[–] turtletommy 13 years ago

Thanks you're welcome, and yes a great movie!

[–] just1Hitch 12 years ago

Just saw a screening at The George Eastman House in Rochester, N.Y. The staff member who introduced the film mentioned that Paramount did not even want to spend the money to film on location in Rome. But Wyler "dug in his heels" and it obviously was a great factor in the film's success. Insisting on color would have probably killed the project.

Excuse me for talking while you're interrupting.

[–] turtletommy 12 years ago

Thanks for that info.