MovieChat Forums > Il castello dei morti vivi (1964) Discussion > Shot in color?

Shot in color?

posted 10 years ago by hobnob53
6 replies | jump to latest

I just caught some of this (pretty lousy) film -- a cool horror idea very badly done -- but although it was in black & white the print looked to me as if it might originally have been shot in color.

If you've ever seen a color film in b&w, everything (skin tones, the look of inanimate objects, etc.) has a certain "depth" to it -- a stronger delineation between the composite elements in each frame (people or objects). If an actor is white his skin looks as though he has a tan, but you can also notice a difference in all skin tones vs. how people look if filmed in b&w. Similarly, objects have this sense of greater "depth" or intensity, the separations between them are more enhanced. Yet at the same time a color film seen in b&w lacks the clarity you get in a standard b&w picture.

It's hard to explain in words, but if you've seen a color film in b&w you may understand what I mean. In any case, I was immediately struck by this in Castle of the Living Dead -- it simply didn't look like a true b&w movie. Every source I've checked says it's in b&w, and obviously it is. Still, I wonder whether it was in fact filmed in color, but because the processing costs for color were too high for this bottom-budget movie, it was simply released in black & white prints. This is not unheard of, but if so the question would be whether a color print still exists. I love b&w but a movie this poor might be enhanced if it really had been shot in color.

Just an observation about something odd-looking about this film.

[–] namaGemo 10 years ago

I remember seeing this when I was a kid, some 40+ years ago. Most films fall apart for me after this many years, but I still found this entertaining. I'm responding because I thought I remembered seeing this as a color film.

Apparently I'm wrong, but I'm wondering if your deduction of whether it was filmed in color could be correct.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

We may never know, but from what you say it looks as though it's a definite possibility. I may do some more poking around and see if I can dig anything up. Which would be appropriate for this film!

Thanks for posting. Incidentally, your message posted twice, so if you want you can delete the second one.

[–] namaGemo 10 years ago

Just caught the double post, thanks. It is interesting that a film in 1964 would be black & white, but I think this goes as well with many Italian films, like Vincent Price in The Last Man On Earth.

Would be cool to get a nice dvd our bluray with an option for color if it was filmed that way.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Oh, b&w was still very common in 1964, here and overseas. Its reign ended rather abruptly around 1967. Too bad.

Since my last reply I checked on Wikipedia to see if they had anything on this film. The only reference with any (scant) details I found was under the category "Horror films released in 1964", which gave only its titles (US and Italian), stars, I think director, and nationality. No technical specs. There is no separate entry for it. It's also listed under Donald Sutherland's credits without further information.

I tried to follow a reference link but the page was 404'd.

Frankly this looks like the sort of film they'd transfer from safety to flammable stock but I'll have to see if it's around anyplace in any format. Having been subjected to the ending, I suppose I should see the whole thing.

Update: I just checked it on Amazon. They had two DVDs and one VHS listed. I didn't check the VHS but did look at the two DVDs. One was a discontinued Region 2 DVD from Britain; the info listed it as being in b&w as well as in widescreen.

The other DVD is still available but Amazon said nothing about color or b&w. However, that DVD comes from Sinister Cinema, from whom I've often ordered, so I went to their site for info. It's there, all right, but nothing about color or b&w either. However, knowing Sinister, I'd take that as an indication it's in b&w, since when a movie is in color they usually post a remark about the quality of the color. This DVD is also apparently not in widescreen; SC's discs normally aren't, and when they are they say so, which they didn't here.

Amazon lists the Sinister DVD at $8.98. SC has it for their standard $16.95, but currently they're having one of their sales during which you could buy it for about the same as through Amazon. But I can't speak to its quality.

Okay, further update: I went back and looked up the VHS on Amazon. It was listed as being -- in color! But knowing Amazon's frequent errors on such information I doubt that very much (unless it was colorized).

However...I then decided to click over to Amazon UK to check on that supposedly discontinued widescreen DVD. Well, it's there -- not discontinued at all. (I guess one Amazon doesn't know what the other one's doing.) The reviews for it were favorable and several mentioned that it was in its proper aspect ratio (from other customer reviews on the US site, I confirmed that the Sinister disc is indeed pan & scan), and that the print was very good. And it is in black & white.

The price direct from amazon.uk is I believe £10.47, around $16, plus shipping. Marketplace sellers offer it from a little less than that to a few pounds more. In looking over the many Marketplace sellers I saw Moviemars, an outfit based in North Carolina, from whom I've often ordered as well and which is always reliable. They only quoted the price in pounds but they will of course also ship domestically, and since they're the only seller I saw based in the US, they would probably also be quicker. Their price is higher, though -- £12-something, closer to $18 or so. And of course, since the DVD is Region 2 you'll need a Region-0 player to play it in. (I have one, and it's very useful; plus I've ordered a lot of DVDs from Amazon UK or its Marketplace sellers with no problems.)

I hope all this helps! Let me know what you do.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] a year ago