Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2007 > November > 13 > Entry
Color never looked so ugly
One thing I neglected to mention in my DVD roundup this week is that there’s yet another new edition of It’s a Wonderful Life out today - one I wouldn’t touch with a 10-foot candy cane.
There seems to be a new edition of this every few years. I picked up the 60th anniversary edition last year, which looks like this.
Now there’s a new double-disc set, which looks like this:
And is the second disc LOADED with bonus features? Oh, no! Why, it contains the COLORIZED version of it! And just LOOK at the improvement, courtesy of DVD Beaver screen caps:
Doesn’t that just SPARKLE???? Oh, that’s SO much better than this BORING old black and white image:
See the site for more example of brilliant color wonderment!
(Turns off intense sarcasm mode)
Uuuuggghhh. I’m sorry I just ate because I’m about to lose my lunch!
Now, to Paramount’s great credit, they didn’t issue only the colorized version. It’s similar to what Fox did with Miracle on 34th Street, putting the colorized version on one disc and the black and white on the other. But a color version should not exist at ALL.
If I didn’t already have Wonderful Life on DVD, I’d pick this new set up and use the other disc as an air hockey puck, a coaster, or a Christmas tree ornament. Or maybe a firing range target if I’m feeling particularly vindictive. It belongs in any of those places more than it does in any DVD player. Anyone who buys this and plays the colorized version ought to permanently haunted by the Ghost of Christmas Future and then publicly flogged.
Thus endeth the vent for today.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Categories: On Video/DVD
Comments
By Ken
November 14, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this
I’m no art or movie critic by education or training, so I can’t speak to the director’s intent. I’m not sure anyone other than the director truly can. You’re arguments have merit, but I have to believe that in at least some cases, B/W movies were shot for budgetary or other reasons. What’s the point in colorization? I suppose since real life is in color. I’m obviously in the minority on this page. Only time and sales will tell if I am in the marketplace. Colorization is probably only the beginning. I would venture that years from now, we’ll be able to view old movies in some sort of “virtual reality” as if we were part of the action.By Zack
November 14, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
I would never watch a colorized version, but I have to give the big instigator, Ted Turner, a little retroactive credit: In order to GET those colorized versions, new, restored black and white prints had to be struck first. The colorized version is why we have such a good looking black and white version!By Sir Critic
November 14, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this
Ken - You’re right that in most cases we’re given an option for B&W or color, and I thank the studios for at least providing that option. But if you’re noticing new details in a colorized version, then you’re noticing details that were never meant to be there. And to my eyes, the process has not improved if these screencaps are any indication. Again, these movies were specifically designed for B&W, from the lighting to the sets to the costumes, which are chosen because of how they photograph in black and white. As to the idea of making a black and white version of Oz, I ask the same question that applies to the colorized Wonderful Life: What’s the point?By Bob
November 14, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this
As a library employee, I can tell you that the library listens to what people want and orders materials accordingly. Back in the 90’s, we were inundated with requests to purchase fullscreen editions of films. Now we’re asked to purchase nothing but widescreen and we’re already getting requests to purchase HD films as well. I’m not a fan or the colorization but someone, somewhere must be and will buy it.By Ken
November 14, 2007 7:29 AM | Link to this
I’m not sure why there is such extreme bias against colorization, especially since the technique has improved. These are always released giving you the option of the B/W or color. I enjoy both. It’s interesting to see details I hadn’t noticed before. It wouldn’t bother me if they released, say, The Wizard of Oz as a B/W version. I just wouldn’t purchase or watch it. Feel free to do the same in this case.By SRCputt
November 13, 2007 9:01 PM | Link to this
I still remember getting in an argument with an official at the Springfield library because it carried colorized films. I can’t imagine why any library would carry any item which trashes the original artist’s vision.By Sir Critic
November 13, 2007 5:38 PM | Link to this
Good question ME. I abhor these colorized versions because this is not the way older movies are meant to look. Contrary to popular belief, filmmakers didn’t typically black and white just because they couldn’t shoot in color. Black and white was often a conscious choice, and the movies were specifically lit and designed to be shown in black and white because of its unique look. Besides all that, most colorization jobs look physically UGLY because they often leave parts of the frame untouched, resulting in a ghastly “paint by numbers” look. Colorized movies are a reflection of the idea that old movies are “broken” in some way - and that’s bunk.By ME
November 13, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this
I totally agree that if it’s filmed in black and white that’s the way it should stay! Classics are just that classics and they shouldn’t mess with them in such a way. I have to ask you why don’t you like it? I know why I don’t. All I have to do is think about The Third Man or some of Hitchcocks movies like I Confess - they are so beautiful, dark and shadowy.