What was it that made movies released mid-50’s to mid-60’s look so beautiful? And why did they change to a more watered down look? The older color films were brightly lit, crisp sharp pictures with super saturated colors. They used gigantic panorama shots with big expansive blue skies and real mountains and meadows. It’s like camera/film/lighting techniques changed and we lost something I’ve always thought was so special.
Some examples off the top of my head…
Ben Hur
The King and I
My Fair Lady
Oaklahoma
The Sound of Music
The 10 Commandments
West Side Story
Breakfast at Tiffany’s
Seems like even the B&W’s were sharper than the subsequent color films. Or is it me?
A lot of those films look artificial to modern eyes. Yes, they were very brightly lit and used strong colors everywhere, and every spot of the frame was in sharp focus as well. It was dazzling in its day and still has a certain power and charm, but I don’t think there’s any question why a softer, less saturated and more narrowly focused look took over.
The Technicolor process was a whole “package” of production techniques, lighting, set design, etc. and a brilliant color palette. That’s probably what you’re thinking of as that '50s and '60s look.
Yes, it was sharp, vibrant and perhaps ultra-saturated, but it was also expensive and difficult to produce, so its popularity did fade in the 60s. Ironically, the negatives don’t fade very much, so it’s possible to re-print Technicolor movies today. It also lends itself well to digital conversions.
It’s my understanding that the Technicolor process ended up giving you an effective ASA film speed of 4 or so. That required a lot of light. And then not every color showed up the same, so someone from the Technicolor company was on set to oversee costume selection and things like that. So I think a lot of the look came from using an unnaturally restricted color palette and having bright lights shining everywhere.
I definitely love the rich colors of movies of that era. Also, I’m a fan of the super wide-angle (2.55:1) Cinemascope format, or some of the slightly less extreme ones. I guess that’s not the sort of thing that’s popular these days.
An interesting movie in this respect is the recent Howard Hughes biopic The Aviator. The makers shot and processed it so that every era is represented by the film look of that time. Particularly notable is an early 1950s segment using a faux Technicolor look, where the colors are distinct and even a bit garish, and the peas are a strange aquamarine color.
My first thought was also of Technicolor, and that may be the answer in a roundabout way. The super-vibrant Technicolor of Wizard of Oz fame was a three-strip process, hugely expensive to film and to process. The studios stopped using three-strip Technicolor in 1955, before almost all the movies in the OP. Because of the expense, almost all movies moved over to EastmanColor. It’s true that Technicolor introduced a one-strip process that stayed on for 20 more years and that the first EastmanColor design lasted from the mid-50’s through the mid-70s, so the film stock itself was probably geared for gaudier colors than the more natural stocks - capable of shooting with far less light - that are standard today.
Most directors liked the low-light natural look. In 1975 Stanley Kubrick used a Zeiss NASA satellite lens to shoot scenes in Barry Lyndon lit only by candlelight, unthinkable earlier. The whole aesthetic changed.
Some people certainly liked the older, realer-than-real look, but I think most people see it as old-fashioned and artificial.
I think it can be seen the same way as other film innovations: new, and therefore overemphasized. You want color? By gawd, you’ll get COLOR! More realistic hues might have underwhelmed audiences expecting that facet to be extraordinary.
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
In 1975 Stanley Kubrick used a Zeiss NASA satellite lens to shoot scenes in Barry Lyndon lit only by candlelight, unthinkable earlier.
[/QUOTE]
I’d never heard of an f/0.7 lens. :eek: I’d think that would be annoying to shoot motion with - depth of field wide open must be around an eighth of an inch.
But, speaking as a hobbyist photographer, all I can say is “WANT!”
Damn! Me too!
I can’t imagine shooting an entire movie like that. But from sitting through his movies I’ve always felt that Kubrick must have had superhuman patience.
I haven’t seen that in years and either didn’t notice it, or have forgotten. I’ll have to take it in again soon.
Thanks for all the insight. I find this so fascinating!
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
In 1975 Stanley Kubrick used a Zeiss NASA satellite lens to shoot scenes in Barry Lyndon lit only by candlelight…
[/QUOTE]
Holy sprockets, Batman, those lenses are available for rent! No idea what the insurance and damage deposit requirements are, but I’m sure they and the rental charges are breathtaking.