Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2008 > September > 29 > Entry
The movie colorizers respond - and so do I
Last week I blogged about the upcoming DVD reissue of Holiday Inn, lamenting the fact that a colorized version is on the set, coming out Oct. 14.
The company that performed the colorization got word of my post and responded to it. A Barry B. Sandrew, Ph.D., the founder of Legend Films, wrote:
“Eric, I appreciate the review though rather bias. I suggest we let the consumers decide. They can view the color trailer on the Legend Films web site.
“Our designers purposely did not go for a Technicolor look. There are many people who think that the goal of colorization is to duplicate a specific film style. Actually colorization is a creative process intent on producing a separate color interpretation of the film while being sensitive to the original element.
“We assess the underlying black and white element and, after extensive research, create a color interpretation of the film that is appropriate for the available luminance. If we went for a highly saturated Technicolor look we’d find many people who would decry the effort as bad colorization with unrealistic colors. Of course those same people would never criticize an actual Technicolor film with the same glasses.
“Our intent was to create a color storyboard that makes the film look as if it was shot in color back then with what would be considered contemporary film stock. To recreate a brilliant saturated 3 strip look would truly be intrusive, making the color the primary focus of the film. Indeed the most successful colorization is when the viewer forgets the film was colorized. I believe we succeeded in both It’s A Wonderful Life and Holiday Inn.
“The actual DVDs are not at all muted but appropriate for the available gray scale. In fact most people who have watched Holiday Inn and It’s A Wonderful Life religiously every year for decades are amazed at the detail they see in the color release that they never noticed before. It’s a different experience than watching the orginal black and white version and should stand on its own without comparison.”
My response:
I understand and appreciate that Legend Films took care with the colorization process, rather than just slopping color on the movie willy-nilly like the colorizers of old did. One could argue that this is similar to engineers making stereo mixes out of mono recordings like the Beach Boys Pet Sounds. That experience was meant to be different if not necessarily better, and it was done with Brian Wilson’s consent and participation. It’s important to note that the mono version of Pet Sounds is still available, just like the black and white Holiday Inn is still available.
However …
I remain against colorization in principle, for reasons I have already explained. I consider it vandalism, particularly when it is done against the wishes of the original artists, as was the case with It’s a Wonderful Life. There is nothing anyone can say to convince me that colorization is a worthwhile enterprise, unless the original filmmakers perform the process themselves. And that’s not exactly likely.
The reason I brought up the Technicolor technique is because that’s what most color films of the period were made in. When I think of Fred Astaire in color, I think of the vibrant three-strip look in movies like The Band Wagon and Easter Parade. I do not think of the more modern palettes of Finian’s Rainbow or The Towering Inferno. For that reason, among others, the colorized Holiday Inn simply looks wrong to me, no matter how much care was taken with it.
Sandrew said it would not do to replicate the three-strip look and I actually agree. Therefore, no one should try - at all.
Sandrew says to let the consumer decide, so I will open the floor to you. You can watch a trailer for the color Holiday Inn on the Legend films Web site. Watch it and tell me what you think.
Permalink | Comments (16) | Post your comment | Categories: On Video/DVD
Comments
By SRCputt
October 1, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
Lee: if you thought Psycho was such an ideal candidate for color, you must have loved the remake. If you think that Hitchcock, the most controlling, exacting of the great directors would want that film in color, you are truly deluding yourself.By Carmela
September 30, 2008 11:10 PM | Link to this
My mom and I always dreamed of seeing “Holiday Inn” in color. Looking at the clip of color version here brought a tears to my eyes. It is stunning and I can’t wait to purchase the colorized version! I wish my grandmother was alive to see it. She would’ve loved it!By Ed Bucnis
September 30, 2008 9:09 PM | Link to this
Eric, I’m sorry, but when I watch ANY black and white, I wonder what the actual colors were. When I see a picture of my great-great grandmother, I wonder what color her hair and her eyes were. If someone where to color them in and ignoring any attempt to get it right, then that would be wrong. But, when that information is unavailable, I would still want someone (with artistic ability) to show me what she might have looked like in REAL life - and she sure wasn’t black and white. Also, most early movies were made in B&W before color processes were invented and then, after that discovery, so expensive. Pace e bene.By Barry B. Sandrew, Ph.D.
September 30, 2008 7:41 PM | Link to this
I think the bottom line here is that in a free market economy there is no room for black listing nor censorship. We are giving hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people a choice of how they want to view the films they’ve purchased. Choice is a good thing. Who can argue against choice. Ray Harryhausen once told me that some films should be colorized and some should not. One simply needs the wisdom to know the difference. I whole heartedly agree with him.By Lee
September 30, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this
Sir Critic, how kind of you for being willing to concede the obvious, that b/w was cheaper to film in. BUT the main reason is also that, please open those ears this time, IT WAS THE STANDARD OF THE DAY. Just as color is the today’s standard. To deny this is to live in a fantasy world where you must actually believe: movie serials, Bowery Boys, most Warner Bros. movies, Our Gang, Jack Okie movies, etc. etc. were all shot in b/w because the director had a b/w artistic vision that he just had to commit to film. Sheer fantasy land. Let me try to wake you up to reality, they were shot in b/w because it was the standard of the day (and it was cheaper). Just as today it’s cheaper to shoot in color instead of b/w. You managed to name the very few exceptions to my rule. Notice I said 99.99% of movies were filmed in b/w just because it was the standard. You named a couple of the .1% of movies that were deliberately shot in b/w. But I must admit the movies you named I would just love to see in color. Just a week ago I watched “Some Like It Hot” and the entire time I watched I kept thinking, “this would be great in color”. I’d love to see that movie in color. I saw color stills from the movie set, they looked great. That is another movie that must be colorized, as should “Wrong Man” & “Psycho”, an ideal candidate for color. Bring out the baby blues in Norman Bates eyes for art’s sake, huh? And if it’s vintage stars you want to quote, need I remind you that Cary Grant loved seeing his old b/w flickers in beautiful living color. He said he hoped they’d colorize all his movies. So do I Cary. As for Frank Capra, he only saw the early primitive versions of colorization. You know, the same 1985 bad colorized movies that you and all avowed anti-color “purists” seem to use to base your current opinions on. I’m sure if Frank Capra had lived he’d love the brand spankin’ new color version of “It’s A Wonderful Life”. Jimmy Stewart would even have preferred it to the old drab b/w version. And yes, I am in contact with the other world. Ding Dong, the future’s at the door, it’s arrived. It’s 2008 and the new colorizing techniques are perfect and beautiful. Now, let me at that Orson Welles’ “Touch of Evil” that’s been just beggin’ for color.By Kim
September 30, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this
Wow - and you call the b/w fans narrow minded. It seems the color fans are the ones that are hostile. This was meant to be a pro/con discussion - reasons for what we like and don’t like. And name-calling takes the validity right out of an opinion for me - that is the juvenile equivalent of foot stomping. I personally prefer the b/w version, and I applauded them for leaving it in the set. If you like color - bully for you - have fun with it and enjoy, even while I will choose not to because it bugs me to watch it. So I am simply stating that I don’t care for it - not that someone else shouldn’t. It just doesn’t look right or natural to me. It definitely looks added after the fact and well - funky. It reminds me of those music videos that try to make some point by being filmed in b/w and added color only to certain elements. I would have LOVED to see Holiday Inn filmed in Technicolor - but it wasn’t and there is no way that it can be. This colorization doesn’t look anything like Technicolor - it is a whole new category really, because it doesn’t have a place at all- no movies originally looked like that - it was either b/w or technicolor. I guess that is why it looks so strange to me. I don’t need it to enjoy the film - but it appears that some do. To them - this is a valuable service I reckon. And just for the record - I don’t believe that a film isn’t artistic because it’s b/w - talk about narrow minded! That is as valid for film as for photos - MANY photographers still practice the artistry of b/w photos because it lends a different perspective. Color and b/w are BOTH valid forms of artistic expression.By Lee
September 30, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this
Sir Critic, I thank you for your being willing to admit the obvious, that b/w was cheaper to film in, but the main reason is also that, please open those ears this time, IT WAS THE STANDARD OF THE DAY. Just as color is the today’s standard. To deny this is to live in a fantasy world where you must actually believe movie serials, Bowery Boys, most Warner Bros. movies, Our Gang, Jack Okie movies, etc. etc. were all shot in b/w because the director had a b/w artistic vision that he just had to commit to film. Let me try to wake you up to reality, they were shot in b/w because it was the standard of the day and it was cheaper. Just as today it’s cheaper to shoot in color instead of b/w. You managed to name a very few exceptions to my b/w rule. Notice I said 99.99% of movies were filmed in b/w just because it was the standard. You named a couple of the .1% of movies that were deliberately shot in b/w. But I must admit the movies you named I would love to see in color, just a week ago I watched “Some Like It Hot” and the entire time I watched I kept thinking, this would be great in color. I’d love to see that movie in color. I saw color stills from the movie set, they looked great. That is another movie that must be colorized, as should “Wrong Man” & “Psycho”, an ideal candidate for color. Bring out the baby blues in Norman Bates eyes for art’s sake, huh? And if it’s vintage stars you want to bring up, need I remind you that Cary Grant loved seeing his stodgy old b/w flickers in beautiful living color. He said he hoped they’d colorize all his movies. So do I Cary. As for Frank Capra, he only saw the early primitive versions of colorization. You know, the same 1985 bad colorized movies that you seem to base your opinions on. Ding Dong, the future’s at the door, it’s arrived. It’s 2008 and the new colorizing techniques are perfect and beautiful. I’m sure if Frank Capra had lived he’d love the brand spankin’ new color version of “It’s A Wonderful Life”. Jimmy Stewart would even have preferred it to the old drab b/w version. And yes, I can contact the other world.By Sir Critic
September 30, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
Dennis: If you were to go back and read my original post on this subject (I linked to it in the post above) you would see that I applauded Universal for keeping the black and white version and providing the soundtrack CD. Universal overall did a very nice job with the package. I am very grateful for that. What I lament is the continued misguided belief that if a film is in black and white, it’s “broken” and it must be “fixed.” The only thing that’s broken, in my opinion, is that sort of thinking.By Sir Critic
September 30, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this
Lee: I will allow that is true that many films that were shot in B&W because of economic considerations. Technicolor was very expensive. And I do believe the documentary on the “Holiday Inn” DVD does state war rationing played into making the movie. However, if color is the “only way to go,” as you suggest, then why did Billy Wilder shoot “Some Like It Hot” in black and white when he had already made several color films by 1959? What about Alfred Hitchcock choosing to shoot “Psycho” in B&W a year later? Or the fact that he shot “The Wrong Man” in black and white even though he had already made many color movies? And if filmmakers were only settling for black and white, why did both Jimmy Stewart and Frank Capra publicly decry the colorization of “It’s a Wonderful Life?” How come out of all the films Orson Welles directed, only one was in color? Speaking of Welles, his comment on colorizing “Citizen Kane,” which Ted Turner owned, was something to the effect of “Keep Ted Turner and his g—-amn Crayolas away from my movie!”By Dennis Van Deventer
September 30, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this
Sandrew’s explanation re: the goals & objectives pursued in adding color to “Holiday Inn” is both valid and appreciated by those of us who value cinema treasures. I am more disconcerted by the possible motives of those who claim to be “purists” expressing outrage when yet another edition of “Holiday Inn” is made available for the viewing libraries of those who would enjoy it. When the cry is: “This shouldn’t be permitted!” etc. One wonders about the need for control and power underlying the comment.For the record, Legend has included the original Black & White version of “Holiday Inn” in their new release. Those who do not wish to see it in its enhanced format need never do so. “Oh My! How Terrible!” Those bad Legend people are raising awareness of this wonderful Bing Crosby & Fred Astaire classic, and what’s worse—they’re giving the American public two versions of it AND an additional disc of great music from the movie as well! Let’s DO something about this!” I will—I’m going to buy it as soon as it is released! To those who are still standing on their chairs with their skirts lifted above the ankles, I say Give it a REST! We all know that nothing is being imposed on anyone, and no priceless art is being destroyed. If you really want to do something worthwhile, try standing in front of a mirror noticing how absurd you are.By Lee
September 30, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this
I am really sick of the oh-so politically correct “elite” who look down their closed-pinned noses at those of us who recognize that color is far more superior to b/w and that there can be no rest until every drab lifeless dated b/w movie and TV show is wonderfully and beautifully turned into glorious living color!! Citizen Kane, you need color in your cheeks. Bogie, you come to life in color, esp. the color version of Casablanca, beautiful, heavenly. “Dark Passage” is fantastic in color, horribly dated looking in b/w. Bing & Fred, you 2 should have been colorized years ago. Holiday Inn is a movie that has been begging for color ever since it’s wartime release. It would have been filmed in color if it hadn’t been for 2 things. One, the war demanded budgetary restrictions and rationing of materials needed for an expensive color production. And second, {and I am ever so sorry to shout the following, but seems you b/w dim bulb fanatics never get this point}, b/w WAS THE STANDARD OF THE DAY!! 99.99% of movies in the ‘30’s, ‘40’s & ‘50’s were shot in b/w because it was cheaper & the standard of the day for most all movies. They weren’t in b/w because of some wonderful visionary artistic statement that the genius of a director wanted to express. And people didn’t object since there was nothing better to look at. Movies only went to color when they had to think of something to compete against TV which people bought in the 1950’s. “The Saint In San Franciscio” and “Abbott & Costello Go To Rio” weren’t filmed in b/w because of some hoity toity b/w vision the director had in mind for his work of exquisite b/w art. They were shot in b/w BECAUSE IT WAS THE STANDARD OF THE DAY & IT WAS CHEAPER TO SHOOT IN B/W THAN COLOR. Can you ever so knowlegable “critics” give the baloney a rest? Color is the only way to go, if you don’t like it, don’t watch. Now I’m going to get back to my color versions of “Rio Grande” & Laurel & Hardy. You b/w closed minds can stay in your dull drab dated little world, just don’t insist the rest of us colorful types reside in the b/w muck with you.By Allie D.
September 30, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
I still echo Eric’s sentiments on this matter entirely. In my mind, it does not matter how well the colorization has been done. In fact, the trailer did look fantastic on its own merits, and I have to admire the care and the technology that went into colorizing Holiday Inn as it is far superior to anything Ted Turner did. However, as a semi-purist and as a lover of classic and black and white films, it does sadden me that there is even a thriving market for such a thing. Not to say there SHOULDN’T be. This is America and even in today’s tumultuous economic times, it’s safe to say we’re still capitalists. So do what you have to do to make an extra buck. But to colorize a film, in my opinion, is still to say that black and white is sub-par. That is my original stance on this issue and I’m sticking to it. Even if the artist agrees to have his or her work colorized, to me that’s almost like the artist admitting that he or she has to sell out a little because they are fighting a losing battle with a public who simply will not give black and white a chance. I will tell you as a student who has taken three film classes, I have witnessed dozens of converts on this topic. Of people who swore up and down they “hated” black and white movies, and then saw one that made them swoon and became fans of the medium. Strangers on a Train, for instance, is a film that DEPENDED on the black and white medium to tell its story effectively. Citizen Kane is another that, I feel, it would be a mortal sin to colorize. And while I won’t blame the artist for allowing this, I still think it’s sad that he or she has to. Re-mastering a film’s sound digitally so that it plays better through one’s modern sound equipment is one thing I will allow. It enhances the film and makes it a better experience when one can enjoy a film’s original soundtrack in a more meaningful way that the technology (or the budget) of the earlier era could not allow. That and it’s a change that is more “in the background” for me. It does its work without my even really having to think about. But for me personally (and I admit that I am a more visually-oriented person), colorizing a film completely changes its overall tone. Black and white evokes a certain aura and mystique. It stimulates the imagination in a way that I suppose “not seeing” the shark in Jaws made it all the more exciting. It gives viewer the exciting opportunity to paint the picture with the colors of his or hers imagination. Maybe that’s my own sappy interpretation, but it’s one of the many reasons I love black and white and feel that it exists as an art form in and of itself. Color too can be (and is) beautiful, but often films are engineered ahead of time to be friendly to their respective original mediums. I don’t like revising history and I don’t like to go back and slap color on a movie that was made to be black and white, no matter how skillfully the colorizer wields his or her brush. But fine, colorize the classics for your market of people who will always view black and white as a handicap rather than as an art form. I guess it’s easier to always cater to the whims of the stubborn masses than it is to broaden their horizons. It’s a realization I face on a near-daily basis, and maybe I’m fighting an uphill battle here. I won’t be able to paint the world with my own brush the way you paint the fictional world of film with yours. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it.By Greg Van Beek
September 29, 2008 7:44 PM | Link to this
I agree with Barry Sandrew, in that the consumer should ultimately decide whether or not they want to purchase and view a colorized Holiday Inn, and not have their mind made up by one individual who thinks of himself as some sort of an authority. There will always be those who are for colorization, and those against it. With this new DVD set, you CAN please everyone, because the viewer has the option of watching either the colorized version, or the original in b/w. What’s to complain about? Personally, I thought the trailer on the Legend Films website looked great, light years ahead of the primitive colorization of the 1980s. Bravo Barry & co.By Sir Critic
September 29, 2008 6:32 PM | Link to this
I would actually be curious to see what Harryhausen directed. Again, if the original artist is involved, then I am willing to relax my usual position against such revisions. As for Ms. Crosby, if she and other people like the color “Holiday Inn,” they are certainly entitled. Respectfully, I still prefer what was originally made - and wish people didn’t feel that colorization was necessary.By Barry B. Sandrew, Ph.D.
September 29, 2008 5:58 PM | Link to this
Eric, I’m sure it might interest your readers to learn what Mary Crosby, Bing Crosby’s daughter thinks of the Oct 14th color release of “Holiday Inn”. She is also expressing the feelings of her Mom, Kathryn Crosby. http://community.mcckc.edu/crosby/board/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1096&SearchTerms=mary,crosby,Holiday,InnBy Barry B. Sandrew, Ph.D.
September 29, 2008 5:45 PM | Link to this
“There is nothing anyone can say to convince me that colorization is a worthwhile enterprise, unless the original filmmakers perform the process themselves. And that�s not exactly likely.” Eric Robinette Eric it’s not only likely but it actually happened. You might want to check out “20 Million Miles To Earth” and “Earth vs The Flying Saucers” which special effects icon, Ray Harryhausen personally color directed. He always wanted to see his classic films in color because the studios rarely gave the SciFi producers a sufficient budget to shoot in color. When he saw the sophistication of the new color technology he recognized it was the creative tool he could use to finally produce his films in the way he always envisioned them� in color.