Loved the movie. One of my favourite but color version would have been better, ain't it.
shareThere is a reason it was made in black and white. It was a dark time for the Jews and notice when the Rabbi was allowed to prepare for the Sabbath at the end. Once the candles were lit, the film turned to color, meaning they were getting their lives back. The dullness in their lives turned to color.
shareYeah, I know that symbolic importance.
shareNo, actually it wouldn't. Opinions are one thing, but you're dead wrong on this one.
The rich and beautiful B&W cinematography is entirely appropriate for this sort of film.🐭
shareYou can get richness and beauty in color, too. Are you sure that's what they were going for?
I think it's as simple as they wanted to make it look historical. The movie becomes as real as World War II photographs.
It's certainly effective, but I wouldn't call it "appropriate" as if that was the ONLY way to do a Holocaust movie. That was Spielberg and Co.'s clever and effective technique.
The only person at MCA/Universal who agreed with Spielberg and director of cinematography Janusz Kaminski’s decision to shoot the movie in black and white was CEO Sheinberg. Everyone else lobbied against the idea, saying that it would stylize the Holocaust. Spielberg and Kaminski chose to shoot the film in a grimy, unstylish fashion and format inspired by German Expressionist and Italian Neorealist films. Also, according to Spielberg, “It’s entirely appropriate because I’ve only experienced the Holocaust through other people’s testimonies and through archival footage which is, of course, all in black and white.”share
Would have been better in color.
Now I think I am wrong. For some reasons I can't delete the post. The B&W style of the movie looked like shiny metal, which looks great. The Pianist scenes and Schindler's list scenes are incomparable. Although the great director's skills must have helped. However it would have been better if they had used a colored camera, then discolored the movie, that's expensive but we could have experienced both B W and color.
shareNow I think I am wrong. For some reasons I can't delete the post. The B&W style of the movie looked like shiny metal, which looks great.
Ultimate Dumbass would be a more fitting moniker for you.
shareOne of the best thing about Spielbergs look into WWII (S List, SPR, BOB and Pacific)was all the films looked like they where made in the 40's. It brought "feel" into the movies. They made you believe you where there. BW with a few shots of color where perfect for this film. one reason its a masterpiece.
Lawrence of Arbia, he was an English guy who came to fight the Turkish
Exactly. You look up images of the Holocaust, and it's all black and white photos and film reels that are ingrained in people's minds.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.
<<You look up images of the Holocaust, and it's all black and white photos and film reels that are ingrained in people's minds.>>
It doesn't actually sound like you're celebrating a particularly transgressive or even challenging artistic maneuver then, does it? You're describing common cultural _familiarity_ with an aesthetic device. People associate holocaust narratives with the black and white photography of the era. So Speilberg's color decision functions more like a dog whistle. They _know_ how they're supposed to respond to it.
I have always considered Curt White's criticism of Speilberg's Saving Private Ryan one of the finest pieces of critical writing that I have ever read. Certainly among the finest film criticism. White interrogates the establishing shot of the American flag, "waving translucently" against the sky in SPR, asking how it might serve to undercut the traditional weepy appeal of such a device and it's use in war films. Or, White speculates, "Is it a purely _generic_ concession? The flag is his establishing shot because... shucks... flags are always in WWII movies...?
That would be pretty stupid, were it the case...
... It is, therefore, very probably, the case."
I mean... I'm paraphrasing White above... I don't think he ever used the word "shucks." You get the idea though. If art really is operationally defined in terms of _estrangement_ then generic concessions like these are just oppositional to art. The audience is constantly being invited by the filmmaker to wink knowingly at one another about the cultural artifacts that they have in common.
It's kind of like... You know how in Game of Thrones that princess Daenerys has those two handmaidens from that backwards desert culture? And whenever someone says something completely outlandish... like "the sun is really the unfertilized ovum of their sheep-herding god or some *beep* then the two of them automatically chirp the words "It is known" in those sprightly little voices? Like a church congregation repeating the liturgy verbatim after the priest?
It's like that. Except the desert culture is... The jews? Wait. I think I messed up that joke.
Don't feel too bad if you can't understand the above, Seven. I put this one in code that only the internet smart people could read. Believe me, they can't stop laughing at that game of thrones comment. It's gold. Plus, they've probably already read White. Maybe even Shklovsky.
Aaaanyway...
What can you tell us about the production design of Schindler's List?
Yes, Spielberg is manipulative and sentimental, and he always seems to be persuading his audience to join in on this emotional roller coaster of doe-eyed hand-wringing that characterizes the thematic simplicity of his work. . But I don't find this criticism particularly novel or eye-opening, as people usually know what they are getting into when they watch one of his films. I mean, the word spiel is in his name after all. But I think despite the vividness of his style that people see as disingenuous, it is still effective because of the authenticity and unrelenting atmosphere of realism that permeates the docudrama aspect of his films, so you feel that the cameraman is there capturing the footage in real time, cinema verite style. I also think the black and white adds more than just bringing to life people's collectivie historical memories of those events, but it was also his way of emulating the melodrama of 40s filmmakers like Capra and William Wyler. So Spielburger succeeded in creating this blockbuster tear-jerker that was designed for people to vicariously grieve for a tragedy that occurred before many of us were even born. So challenging and transgressive? Hardly. A little bit exploitive yes, but impressive all the same.
Plus, they've probably already read White. Maybe even Shklovsky
The only way you can tell if it would be better in color would be to see the color version. It's just a matter of opinion. I think the black and white is a great decision.
share