# What was the last black and white studio film made for budgetary reasons? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 23, 2015, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582 "2015-08-23T04:40:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/1 "2015-08-23T04:40:49Z")
Followup on the thread, “[In cinema, The Jazz Singer revolutionized sound. But which film revolutionized color?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=765807)” Black and white films are [still made today](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black-and-white_films_produced_since_1970), but it’s generally (always?) for arty rather than budgetary reasons. Which studio film heralded the very end of the black and white era? **Candidates** Night of the Living Dead (1968). That’s an independent film, not a studio film. It was made for $114,000. I’m thinking of something with a Hollywood budget. Son of Flubber (1963) by Disney. Disney may have thought that black and white special effects were cheaper, but that certainly counts. During the 1930s, filming in color required much brighter lighting, long shoots, and higher production expenses. Absent Minded Professor (1961) Similarly. The Fortune Cookie (1966) - probably for artistic reasons. The Academy Awards for [cinematography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Cinematography) had separate entries for color vs. black and white from 1939 to 1966. That might provide some leads. So far I’m going with Son of Flubber. For general reference, here’s a [history of colour film](http://the-artifice.com/history-of-colour-film/). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/2 "2015-08-23T04:59:38Z")
_Clerks_ comes to mind. Kevin Smith maxed his credit cards. If _Night of the Living Dead_ is a candidate, _Clerks_ should be as well and it’s more recent, made in 1994. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/3 "2015-08-23T05:24:46Z")
According to wikipedia, Clerks (1994) was shot for $27,575. _Night of the Living Dead_ was disqualified because I didn’t want to consider that sort of low budget fare. As of now, it is also demoted because Clerks is way more recent. Nothing wrong with running a parallel tally though. There are a number of black and white indie films with low budgets. They include Spike Lee’s _She’s Gotta Have It_ (1986) and Jim Jarmusch’s _Stranger Than Paradise_ (1984). So far Clerks wins this particular prize. Category: most recent movie shot in black and white for budgetary reasons that has grossed over $1 million: domestic. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/4 "2015-08-23T06:33:25Z")
Color might not be more expensive. John Waters shot Pink Flamingos in color but could onlyvafford one camera and all scenes had to be done without editing. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/5 "2015-08-23T08:23:59Z")
The 1967 film _In Cold Blood_ was made by a studio and was in black and white. The 1968 film _Faces_ was in black and white and was apparently made by a studio. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/6 "2015-08-23T08:52:35Z")
_Manhattan_ (1979) was shot in black and white as was Raging Bull (1980), but both of those choices were purely artistic. I’m guessing that the same considerations motivated _In Cold Blood_. John Cassavetes’ _Faces_ (1968) is an interesting find: it had a budget of $275,000. Much of it was funded by the acting fees Cassavetes had received as an actor in _Rosemary’s Baby_. Walter Reade Organization was the production company. Cassavetes’ _Faces_ might beat _Son of Flubber_. (I’m so glad I wrote that sentence.) Pink Flamingos was created in 1972 at a cost of $10,000. I haven’t see the flick, but given its garish reputation, I’m not surprised it was shot in color. I’ll note that the cost of shooting color dropped a great deal during the 1950s. I see that even today black and white film can be [60-70%](http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Movie-Film/ci/341/N/4093113313) of the cost of color film stock. One post at stackexchange: [film techniques - Why are some movies still shot in black and white or sepia? - Movies & TV Stack Exchange](http://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/15583/why-are-some-movies-still-shot-in-black-and-white-or-sepia) [INDENT]For low-budget independent films pre-2005 or so, the reason was often primarily budgetary. Until shooting digitally became a viable option, shooting black-and-white cost roughly a quarter what shooting in color cost, for the film stock itself and the processing. But that doesn’t begin to cover all the additional savings you’d get by forgoing color film. Shooting on black-and-white you don’t need color correction, nor do your lights need to be as numerous or as powerful (black-and-white film has a wider exposure range than color film does) and of course the makeup doesn’t need to be anywhere near as good—just cake on the foundation and go. Even the sets don’t need to be as large—things can fall into shadow, which would look weird in real life or in color, but doesn’t seem odd in the already-unrealistic world of black-and-white. Across the board, everything can be done more cheaply (even slapdash-ly) and still look acceptable. Read some articles about all the cheats used in Hitchcock’s Psycho and other horror films of the era and you’ll get an idea of what kind of chicanery black-and-white made possible. … Nowadays with consumer-level cameras (even cellphones) capable of shooting HD, it’s far cheaper to shoot even high-quality digital video than it is to shoot on any kind of film, color or black-and-white. So any black-and-white film made after the mid-2000s (and any studio/high-budget film after the 1940s or so) was shot that way for purely artistic reasons. [/INDENT] ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/7 "2015-08-23T09:45:36Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > The 1967 film _In Cold Blood_ was made by a studio and was in black and white. _In Cold Blood_ was shot with a budget of $3.5 million, so it seems unlikely it was shot in black-and-white for budgetary reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/8 "2015-08-23T09:52:07Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > The Academy Awards for [cinematography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Cinematography) had separate entries for color vs. black and white from 1939 to 1966. That might provide some leads. So far I’m going with Son of Flubber. A year after _Son of Flubber_ was _Fail Safe_. It may well have been an artistic decision to shoot that in black-and-white, rather that for budgetary reasons; I can’t find a good cite either way. ---
**Author:** ![Ellis\_Aponte\_Jr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@Ellis\_Aponte\_Jr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ellis_Aponte_Jr)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/9 "2015-08-23T15:48:08Z")
A few things about _Faces_ (1968): 1. It was not a studio film, it was financed entirely by director John Cassavetes. He even shot some of it in his own house; he also shot in a house of one of the actresses. Walter Reade Organization was the distributor, not the production company. 2. It was mostly shot in the first half of 1965. The editing process was drawn out and yes, Cassavetes was struggling to pay for it all. The money from _Rosemary’s Baby_, not to mention _The Dirty_ _Dozen_, certainly helped pay off the debts Cassavetes had already incurred making _Faces_. 3. The film was shot in 16mm, another money-saving measure. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/10 "2015-08-23T17:23:11Z")
_In Cold Blood_ and _Fail Safe_ were shot in B&W for artistic reasons–it’s gritty and cool and you get to play with shadows like you are Murnau or Eisenstein. I assume _Dr Strangelove_ was B&W in part because Fail Safe was. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/11 "2015-08-23T18:24:11Z")
_ **Zorba the Greek** _? _ **Night of the Iguana** _? Kubrick’s _ **Lolita** _? _ **The Longest Day** _? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/12 "2015-08-23T21:26:33Z")
I can think of one unusual example. Peter Bogdanovich directed _Nickelodeon_ in 1976. He wanted to shoot the movie in black and white because he felt it would fit the subject better. But Columbia overruled him and insisted he shoot the movie in color because they though it would do better in the box office that way. Bogdanovich finally got his wish in 2009 when the movie was released in black and white on DVD. ---
**Author:** ![Ellis\_Aponte\_Jr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@Ellis\_Aponte\_Jr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ellis_Aponte_Jr)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/13 "2015-08-23T22:57:27Z")
_Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?_ (1966) also had a battle over whether to shoot in color or black & white. Studio head Jack Warner and original cinematographer Harry Stradling wanted color, but first-time director Mike Nichols wanted black & white. Stradling ended up being replaced by Haskell Wexler and they went with black & white. The film (that is to say, Wexler) ended up winning the last Oscar awarded for Best Black & White Cinematography. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/14 "2015-08-23T23:27:32Z")
> [@terentii](#): > > _ **Zorba the Greek** _? _ **Night of the Iguana** _? Kubrick’s _ **Lolita** _? _ **The Longest Day** _? Of those, only _Zorba_ had a lowish budget of $783,000, which frankly wasn’t that low in 1964. According to IMBD, the film was in the black even before it opened due to interest in the novel. So I’m voting “Artistic reasons” for all of them. > [@Ellis\_Aponte\_Jr](#): > > A few things about _Faces_ (1968): > > 1. It was not a studio film, it was financed entirely by director John Cassavetes. … I think _Son of Flubber_ (1963) is winning the thread, with Clerks (1994) receiving a special achievement award (subject to other qualifying candidates coming forward). Don’t worry though! We still haven’t awarded the silver and bronze medals. And I see that the NYT’s original review of [Son of Flubber](http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9D05EED7173CEF3BBC4153DFB4668388679EDE) didn’t mention that it was in black and white. That’s not what you would expect from a film that bookended an era. ETA: More seriously, I’m probably working with the wrong criteria. 1966 is probably the magic year, as it was the last Academy Award year where black and white cinematography was separated out from color cinematography. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/15 "2015-08-24T00:15:25Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > ETA: More seriously, I’m probably working with the wrong criteria. 1966 is probably the magic year, as it was the last Academy Award year where black and white cinematography was separated out from color cinematography. I can see that being the last nail in B&W’s coffin - if you didn’t have an edge for an Oscar, there was no point in using it. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/16 "2015-08-24T00:53:55Z")
When I took a college B&W photography class which included all the developing, printing etc. I found out that B&W film was in fact \*\*more \*\*expensive than color (because demand is so low). That was 20+ years ago, and it was just 35mm consumer still photography, but was the same true for professional film stock as well thru the 70s, 80s & 90s? Or even today (for those who still use film)? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/17 "2015-08-24T01:00:12Z")
> [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > When I took a college B&W photography class which included all the developing, printing etc. I found out that B&W film was in fact \*\*more \*\*expensive than color (because demand is so low). > > That was 20+ years ago, and it was just 35mm consumer still photography, but was the same true for professional film stock as well thru the 70s, 80s & 90s? Or even today (for those who still use film)? Hm. I’m guessing that BW film is still cheaper, a BW darkroom is cheaper to set up (no temperature control necessary for example), but that professional BW developing of still photos might be more expensive due to low demand. Does that accord with your memory? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/18 "2015-08-24T03:08:53Z")
I recently discovered some B&W film that is developed using the C41 process, just like color film. The negatives use dyes like color film, so the negative won’t last forever. It’s by Ilford, so you know it’s very rich and velvety, and it’s not particularly expensive. [http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/153916-REG/Ilford\_1839575\_XP\_2\_Super\_135\_36\_B\_W.html](http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/153916-REG/Ilford_1839575_XP_2_Super_135_36_B_W.html) Converting digital color to B&W is unsatisfying compared with real B&W film. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/19 "2015-08-24T11:57:56Z")
How would you verify or know if it was shot in black and white “for budgetary reasons” or for artistic ones? They could claim either way. And, into the 1960s, shooting films in black and whate was often simply standard practice, not “we’re doing this because we can’t afford color”. As noted Disney was still releasing black and white movies into the 1960s, even though they were popularizing color TV on their newly-moved-to-NBC show. So _Absent-Minded Professor, Son of Flubber_, and _The Shaggy Dog_ were in black and white. One possibility for the OP’s question is _The Bedford Incident_, released in 1965. You could argue that Cold War Politics looks grittier in black and white than in color, but I suspect this was made in black and white because it was Standard Operating Procedure. > **[The Bedford Incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bedford_Incident)** > > The Bedford Incident is a 1965 British-American Cold War film directed by James B. Harris, starring Richard Widmark and Sidney Poitier, and produced by Harris and Widmark. The cast also features Eric Portman, James MacArthur, Martin Balsam, and Wally Cox, as well as early appearances by Donald Sutherland and Ed Bishop. James Poe adapted Mark Rascovich's 1963 novel of the same name, which borrowed from the plot of Herman Melville's Moby-Dick; at one point in the film, the captain is advised he ... ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582/20 "2015-08-24T12:17:16Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I see that the NYT’s original review of [Son of Flubber](http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9D05EED7173CEF3BBC4153DFB4668388679EDE) didn’t mention that it was in black and white. That’s not what you would expect from a film that bookended an era. I never saw _Son of Flubber_, but I remember it being advertised on TV when it was in the theaters. Some thoughts: 1. _Flubber_ was, needless to say, a rather lowbrow movie. The reviewer probably wasn’t devoting a whole lot of thought to it. 2. The era of films made in B&W due to budgetary reasons was ending not with a bang, but with a whimper. Such endings tend to draw less notice: nobody’s paying as much attention, and you can’t be sure at the time that this really is the end. 3. B&W films were not yet a rarity in 1963, as some of the mentions from this thread demonstrate. The fact that B&W films continued to get made would have somewhat camouflaged the end of B&W films made that way for strictly budgetary reasons. Also, I’d assume that during the waning days of B&W, there were undoubtedly films made in B&W due to a mix of considerations: films where there were creative arguments for making it either way, but that the budget would be tighter in color would have tipped the argument in favor of B&W, or films where the money probably wasn’t there for color, so the director decided to make the best of it and make the maximum use of B&W artistically, or who knows what. As quite possibly the last studio film by a to be made in B&W overwhelmingly due to budgetary reasons, and as one that didn’t get much critical attention, _Flubber_ would have been overlooked in that fog. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-last-black-and-white-studio-film-made-for-budgetary-reasons/728582.md?page=2)