 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 12, 2014 - 12:56 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Doug Raynes
(Member)
|
Lots of films. I remember that in the sixties a film in b/w wasn't a big deal, you didn't say, oh no it's in b/w.
That wasn't my experience. In the '50s there were so many b&w films that one simply accepted them but by the early/mid '60s b&w films were very much in the minority and in those days I always felt disappointed if a film wasn't in colour. In particular, I thought that The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Zorba the Greek, Sink the Bismark, The Bedford Incident and The Train should have been in colour. On the other hand, b&w seemed to suit modern (at the time) horror films such as What Ever Happened to Baby Jane and Psycho in avoiding them from looking too luminous.
Going back to the '30s, I'm often puzzled as to why, considering the major extra cost, certain films were made in colour such as the Rozsa scored The Divorce of Lady X. I can't see how colour made much artistic difference to this interior-set comedy - but all credt to Korda for being willing to spend the money!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm looking for earlier examples than 1966, but I did come across this quote yesterday from Roman Polanski on CUL-DE-SAC: "Even if I had had the choice, I would have made Cul-de-Sac in black-and-white."
It certainly is difficult to imagine how Gil Taylor's work would have looked better in color.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
