The first season of “Gilligan’s Island” was in B&W, and had a different theme song. It just wasn’t the same in color.
Pulykamell, wouldn’t it be interesting if color photos existed of some of the old B&W sets?
I knew there’d be a movie I left off my list: The Bad Seed (1956).
Here is some rare behind-the-scenes color footage of “I Love Lucy.” You can see the sets for Ricky’s nightclub and the Ricardos’ apartment.
I was surprised to stumble across color trailers for the original (1959) House on Haunted Hill, a movie released in black and white:
Color photos do exist for many black and white films, taken either as publicity photos, or private photos taken on the set.
The 1-sheets for many B&W films had color photos-- A Streetcar Named Desire, for example. Very old films didn’t, but in the late 30s, 40s, and early 50s, color posters were pretty common to be more eye-catching. Once color film had become the rule, so that B&W films were becoming unusual, you started to see B&W photos on the 1-sheets again, because the studio didn’t want people to assume the film was in color. The original posters for Psycho had images of Janet Leigh in her bra and slip, in some kind of monochrome, usually shades of yellow or red. Probably more eye-catching than simple color photos.
Also, in regard to color photos of some B&W films existing-- there are lots of costume test photos in color for B&W films. I don’t know why, unless it was to help identify the costume in the shop-- you know, they had the same dress in different tones or shades, and a color shot attached to each B&W shot, so that after the decision over which B&W image looked better, someone could go find the right version of the costume using the color photo. I’m sure they numbered the costumes, but it was important enough to verify that they had the right one that snapping a color shot wasn’t too difficult a bit of extra work. But that’s just a WAG anyway. Maybe it was to aid in hand-tinting the B&W photos that were to be used for posters. Or maybe it was for the designer’s book of exemplars. But there must have been some reason, because they seem to have been very common.
Given that it’s a William Castle film, it wouldn’t surprise me if he intended to make it in color, but lost his funding, or something like that.
I don’t mind black and white-I didn’t get a colour tv until I was 24- but I think people go overboard praising its so called virtues. Let’s face it-a lot of films were done in b & w because it was cheaper. Not artistic BS. Or in the case of the 1966 version of “The Forsyte Saga” because colour cameras weren’t available when the cast was. Or with a lot CBS tv shows because RCA was the only USA colour tv manufacturer and CBS didn’t want to help NBC’s owner. CBS was also upset the FCC didn’t choose their standard for colour tv.
I saw one episode “Miniature” of “Twilight Zone” where the colorized dollhouse scenes adds to the show, And there is some WWI series narrated by Kenneth Branagh which they colorized to show how things looked 100 years ago. Since every other WWI archive film is b & w, I thought one colorized series was a good idea.
I just saw “Son of Fury” (1942) starring Tyrone Power. It was rated 7.2 on IMDB which is almost always a sign of a movie that is pretty good. It was B&W.
Not this time.
I couldn’t believe it. The story was just boring and stupid. It had no payoff. It was a complete waste of time.
Viewers beware.
(OT) This reminds me: back in the days of only three networks, transmitted over the air, the look of each was distinct. NBC was more muted and fuzzy. ABC looked overbright, and CBS had the richest clarity of the three. No matter what was on, no matter if it was shot on a set or outside, I could always tell which of the three was on.
Another funny thing about B&W and television was that Technicolor was that parent company of some of the local affiliates, and so when movies that were originally in color, but some other process than Technicolor (eg, DeLuxe), were shown, the film would be broadcast in B&W on a Technicolor-owned affiliate. One film in particular a lot of people are surprised to see in color, or think has been colorized, because they are sure they saw it in B&W back in the 70s on a color TV is The Fly (1958), which was a DeLuxe color film.
I don’t know if this was just spite, or an actual legal thing-- that is, Technicolor couldn’t legally use DeLuxe, which was what happened if The Fly was broadcast in color.
I’m also not sure how the film was broadcast, but I do know that the very first color TV broadcasts were 2-signal, and color TVs had two tuners (if you’ve ever seen a really old color TV, it had a switch to turn off the color tuner if a broadcast was B&W, so the picture would be clearer-- if you didn’t switch it to B&W, you might get a “ghost”); early color broadcasts were a color signal over the B&W signal, because there was a focus problem with early color. Anyway, for that reason at least, there were probably B&W prints of films for broadcast available.
Exactly! And that applies to silent films as well. Silent isn’t better either (in my opinion, you can’t even make a case for it being stylish, like B&W can be). Both were limitations of the medium. The silent era filmmakers would have gladly made their films in color and sound if it were possible.
If you’re going to start singing the beauty of silent films, let’s get some consistency - make a case for how electric motors have ruined movies, what with making the action all at the correct (and constant) speed, and that how you just enjoy the input to the creative process the camera operator brings with his variable hand cranking speed!
I mean, did Shakespeare make his actors dress in grey clothes and wear grey makeup, because B&W was so artistic? Did 18th century stage actors pantomime the entire play while people ran out on stage with giant cards with the dialog? No, they all got along fine with color and sound.
One thing about black and white TV – they really did use their palette of gray shades with care and creativity. If you look at logos or title cards from the black and white era, you can see that they didn’t simply use gray haphazardly – they tried to evoke maximum effect by using different grays, along with black and white, to create an interesting and artistic effect. They chose typefaces for maximum impact. Like any artists, the graphic designers of black and white television tried to use their medium in the best way possible.
Of course, not everyone was careful and artistic. You had plenty of clods who just threw things together haphazardly. Especially true of small local stations and makers of quick cheap commercials. But the folks at the big three networks and at Disney really took some care with their product.
Of course they would have. Yet people still make B&W films and silent films.
But that’s not the point. The point is that even operating under budgetary and medium limitations, people made some damned fine films. There was a lot of junk, too; but good cinematographers brought out beauty in their medium that wouldn’t have ‘worked’ in colour (if it were filmed the same way, just not B&W). And there are a lot of people who won’t watch B&W films just because they’re B&W. They’re missing out on some outstanding imagery, acting, and stories.
As for ‘silent’ films (remember they were not shown silent), I can think of very stylish examples. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligary comes immediately to mind.
People still take still photographs, too. Some people even draw pictures.
I have never claimed otherwise. I grew up with B&W TV until the 80s(!) so I know from B&W. EVERYTHING I saw on TV, including network broadcasts of recent movies, was B&W for me. (The reveal of Oz being in color was completely lost on me. I never knew the first season of “Gilligan’s Island” was B&W, because for me all the seasons were in B&W.) I can judge a film by its merits rather than its color pallet.
But just because B&W era cinematographers were very good at lighting and color selections IRL that made their B&W films the best they could be, doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have rather had color film.
Ignoring the whole colorization issue, would say Casablanca been worse if had been originally shot in color? I don’t think so. But it wouldn’t be profoundly * better* either. It would just the same, but, like real life, in color. The story would still come through, the feeling would still be there. And the letters of transit wouldn’t have made any more sense if they were in color! 
Maybe film noir might not have been as big a genre if you didn’t have the moodiness of B&W, but noir-ish stories still work in color.
[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
And there are a lot of people who won’t watch B&W films just because they’re B&W. They’re missing out on some outstanding imagery, acting, and stories.
[/quote]
I agree, they are.
[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
As for ‘silent’ films (remember they were not shown silent), …
[/QUOTE]
That’s needless semantics. There was music, but there was no audio dialog or sound effects, just intertitles. When people talk about silent films, they mean lack of spoken dialog, not lack of any sound at all.
Watching a silent-era film is maybe like watching a highlight-reel of a sports game. You get the major points, but the subtleties are not there. Since there wasn’t a way to easily convey tone of voice, inflection, sarcasm, etc, in intertitles, they probably wrote scripts that didn’t rely on that.
Méliès’ *A Trip to the Moon *is a ground-breaking film, and also a fun film, but note that it is not regarded as an accurate portrayal of lunar travel to rival Apollo 13. Since Méliès couldn’t do that, he wrote a whimsical story in such a way that he could tell it with the tools he had available.
Yes.
It’s not just semantics – some champions of silent films have made the point that these films (most of them, anyway) were meant to be viewed with musical accompaniment, and several of these films have dedicated scores written for them. Furthermore, the orchestra could contribute “sound effects”. Some “silent” films had the dialogue spoken by actors synching to the film. In any event, the film was intended to be an experience to which the film itself might have only been a part.
Certainly in many venues, which couldn’t afford an orchestra there were organ or piano players, and sometimes not even that. Performers certainly intended for their work not to depend upon accompaniment. (Lon Chaney was furious when Universal released a partial sound version of Phantom of the Opera (which didn’t use Chaney’s voice)
Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit! I randomly picked the one century it was actually true, if only for a short while.
Still, that doesn’t apply anywhere else. Was Lincoln watching a silent pantomime in 1865? Did the ancient Greeks do silent theater? My basic point is still valid.
No doubt they would have liked to have had the option. As now, that wouldn’t have made it the best choice for all projects.
A film is much more than its story. And the feeling would certainly have been different. Would Casablanca be “just the same, but, like real life” if it were in color and also 3D?
This might superficially sound true but any passing familiarity with silent films will demonstrate how reductive it is. I’ve seen intertitles convey a variety of tones (including sarcasm) through italics, fonts, word emphasis, or most importantly: context. And while plot mechanics may not get too complicated because of the reading required, that doesn’t mean there aren’t deep and powerful characterizations, based on the acting, directing, and lighting of these films. Hardly just a dumbed-down “highlight reel”, the greatest silent films can rival anything created in the sound era through fluency of film language, regardless of how much dialogue there is or isn’t.