Just watched this movie tonight on the History Channel, uninterrupted with no commercials (yeah). One of the best movies ever made IMHO. I’ve seen it a half dozen times before so tonight tried to watch it form an artistic value - camera shot angles, etc. What strikes me most is the B/W photography. The movie would not have been as effective in colour (color).
Of course Neeson and Kingsley were brilliant, not to mention the rest of the cast. There are other great movies that would have been as good if not produced in B/W when color was an option. “Hud”, “Longest Day” come immediately to mind. Couldn’t imagine “Casablanca” not in B/W, but that was the only option then.
since you have artistic value listed in the title i was hoping to ask a question to go along with your thread, why do we like b/w vs color(colour, for you odd balls) i’m 47 and love b/w movies, i don’t know why, and most of my friends enjoy b/w movies and pics also. why do we find it so appealing when we live in a world of color? and do you younger folk like b/w as much also?
I think a reason (just out of thin air) is that the scene is yours . . . i.e. the hue and temperature of each color is what you see in your mind and not what is communicated through your eyes (if that makes sense).
No comment on B&W cinematography, but…
I was blown away by Schindler’s Ark.*
I was lucky enough to meet Keneally & talk about the book at the time of its release. It was an astonishing series of coincidences that led to the book being written at all.
A very close family friend (now deceased) was a Polish jew who was released from a Russian (not German) concentration camp to fight for the Russian army, then managed to enlist in the US army while Berlin was being carved up (good trick, that). He had clear memories of Schindler being escorted around by senior jewish holocaust survivors who were trying to help him. However, he said, Schindler’s story was not exceptional compared to that of hundreds, if not thousands, of others trying to pick up life’s pieces after the war. Schindler sank into immediate obscurity, only to be thrown into the spotlight decades later. It’s fascinating to think how many stories as remarkable as Schindler’s are simply lost to history for never being recorded.
The film was named Schindler’s List for fear that the type of people who spell colour as “color” are easily confused. True story. The book was later re-released under that name. I had low expectations for the film, especially the “arty” B&W filming, but I thought (except for the final overwraught scene) it was well done.
not truly black and white, but the first Sin City also used color for dramatic punch. Visually amazing.
B/w has different sorts of effects depending on the situation. With Schindler’s List, the public memory of the Holocaust was created through b/w images, so this mode might seem more ‘authentic’ and respectful of the past. Also, b/w would be less overwhelming – encouraging more moviegoers to go.
With Schindler’s List, the public memory of the Holocaust was created through b/w images, so this mode might seem more ‘authentic’ and respectful of the past.
I don’t know about respectful, but I agree that the film was probably shot in b/w for the ‘authentic’ feel rather than for artistic value. Historic pictures and film documents up to the WW2 era were mostly b/w, so seeing events from that era portrayed in color doesn’t feel authentic to many people.
That’s different for anything later than that, e.g. the Korea or Vietnam wars. MASH or Apocalypse Now shot in b/w would probably feel weird.
I think that with a black and white photography, or movie, you have less information to process than with color. When you want to look at the fine details, color ends up, I think, being very distractive. B/W allows you to focus on the contrasts, the subtlety of shades, the shapes etc. with one less piece of
information to process. Given the amount of overload information lately, it’s not really surprising to be attracted to b/w and having a world that is suddenly far ‘quieter’ in terms of amount of information.
I was raised in an age where color had just come out. Everything modern was in color and everything historic was in b/w. That dichotomy really enhanced the distance of history for me. It’s hard for me to believe that when I was a kid the footage of WWII I saw was only 25 years old. With that b/w the Nazis, Gen. Patton, the Japanese soldiers all seemed like an eternity in the past. I realize now that 25 years is nothing – it had just happened. So, my personal history with b/w increases its impact on me.
I think of one of the first movies I remember effectively using b/w vs color effectively was “The Wizard of Oz” in which Kansas was in b/w and the land of Oz was in color. But for the most part I think more dramatic effects can often be done in b/w due to the tones and shadows. This probably explains why even today there are so many b/w photography enthusiasts.
Actually, color came out a long long time ago but still wasn’t used widely. Gone with the wind came out in 1940 and was filmed in technicolor already.
Same with Robin Hood with Errol Flynn.
Note that my father used to be a production manager in movies so we talked movies a LOT at home. He was on one of the numerous crews on The Longest Day in 1962 (not a PM yet, he was an assistant something then) and one of the reasons it was shot in black and white was indeed to give some historical perspective.
Actually, color came out a long long time ago but still wasn’t used widely. Gone with the wind came out in 1940 and was filmed in technicolor already.
Same with Robin Hood with Errol Flynn.
I seem to remember hearing that the Errol Flynn movies were actually shot in b/w and hand-colored afterwards, but I may have that mixed up. You sure it was filmed in technicolor?
She was clearly too young at 11 to watch the movie. It didn’t actually “ruin her life”. Here’s the end of that story:
"Ms Dabrowska says that although she now feels honoured to have played the role, it took her years to come to terms with it.
She now regrets having watched it at such an early age, and although she swore never to watch it again, she gave it another go at the age of 18 – just as she had promised the Oscar winning director.
‘I realised I had been part of something I could be proud of. Spielberg was right: I had to grow up to watch the film.’"
