Color/Look to the Movie - Thoroughly Modern Millie (1967) Discussion

[–] starline 14 years ago

reply

[–] goheathergo 14 years ago

I just watched the movie for the zillionth time the other night- and the color thing caught my eye. I've noticed it during the musical numbers before, but it goes further than that and is present through the whole movie. I don't think they did anything special to make the colors so vibrant- besides use muted backgrounds.

For example- if you watch the last few scenes, starting where Jimmy checks into the hotel- there are NO colors other than red and little bit of green. Everything else is black, white or gray. As they race the car down the street, the cars are red, the signs are red, the window displays in the background are red, even Mrs Meers sports red jewelry and red fingernails. There is a little bit of green here and there, and the occasional, rare yellow taxi that is flashed for only a second. It's like this all the way to the end of the movie- watch the opium den- all red with only a little green. Everything else is black and white tones- even the chicken in the car is black and white.

I found the colors very symbolic too. Like at Muzzy's party, it's again, the black and white tones with only Muzzy's gold and Millie's slight hints of green, I think symbolizing her inexperience and naivete. Or at the end when the only color is blue, which is a pure color, showing Millie's purity and being a "good old fashioned girl."

I'm not usually one to notice stuff like this, or to look for the artistic symbolism behind it- but once I noticed it, I couldn't stop looking for it. It's brilliant, awesome and I totally love the movie all the more for it now!

reply

[–] DougDumbrille 14 years ago

No, no, no...you're putting way too much into some supposed symbolism.

The movie's flat, black & white (and grey) tones are meant to reflect the period, and the way movies looked back in the silent age, plain and simple.

Of course you're entitled to your opinions, but we'll have to agree to disagree. How ANYONE could watch this movie more than once (or dare I say it, twice) is beyond me, let alone consider it "brilliant". Unless they were 6 years old when they first watched it and remember it as a fond childhood memory.

It's a mess...doesn't know if it's a comedy, a musical, a satire, a spoof or tribute to silent films, etc..

Andrews AND Moore are both at least 10 years too old for their parts, there is no chemistry between Andrews and Fox, Gavin is as wooden as ever (hard to tell the difference when he's paralized at the end) and Carol Channing...well, it's clear now why she wasn't cast in "Hello Dolly" even though she created the role on Broadway. And Bea Lillie playing a slave trader -- that whole plotline is SO bizarre and out of place it's completely dumbfounding.

The comedy for the most part doesn't work at all, nor does the spoof of silent films (the sequence where James Fox climbs the outside of the building is laugh and suspense-free, an insult to Harold Lloyd's silent triumph). The huge set pieces (like "Muzzy's" party) are a complete waste of money on sets, costumes, when the writing and acting is worse than an episode of I Dream of Jeanie.

I could go on and on (like the movie, which is at least 45 minutes too long), but I'll shut up, as I'm sure I'm wasting my time.

reply

[–] vpilutis 14 years ago

Andrews AND Moore are both at least 10 years too old for their parts, there is no chemistry between Andrews and Fox, Gavin is as wooden as ever (hard to tell the difference when he's paralized at the end) and Carol Channing...well, it's clear now why she wasn't cast in "Hello Dolly" even though she created the role on Broadway.
The part calls for an older woman in the first place check out some of the other
women who have done the role:

During the course of its original Broadway run nine actresses
played Dolly Gallagher Levi.
Carol Channing, Bibi Osterwald, Ginger Rogers, Ethel Merman, Pearl
Bailey, Martha Raye, Betty Grable, Thelma Carpenter and Phyllis
Diller.

The only reason Barbra got the role was because she WAS BARBRA

http://worldofvbphoto.blogspot.com/
http://vbphoto.biz/models.htm

reply

[–] Owen-13 11 years ago

Originating a role can only be done once, after that it becomes new interpretations, or imitations. It doesn't matter how many people carry on with the role, it was originated by Carol Channing, and has nothing to do with the fact that Carol Channing did NOT follow through on the movie version, though that also has little to do with anything, and many times the decision to not use the stage stars in the movie version has little to do with talent, and much to do with supposed box office draw (and the decision to use a paritcular person in the original stage version had to do with box office draw on Broadway).

reply

[–] dmnemaine 13 years ago

"It's a mess...doesn't know if it's a comedy, a musical, a satire, a spoof or tribute to silent films, etc.. "

Actually this film knows exactly what it is. It is a comedy/musical/satire/spoof/tribute all rolled into one. It's supposed to be ludicrous. It's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. It's supposed to be zany. It's supposed to be nostalgic. It's supposed to be big and brassy. It's supposed to be tuneful. It does all of those things and does them well. The performances are brilliant and spot-on for what this type of film is supposed to be -- a wild, wacky, nostalgic, satirical, spoof and tribute to the 1920s. The film is as colorful and vibrant as the era. Why do you think for a film to be good it has to be narrow and limited in its scope?

reply

[–] dmnemaine 13 years ago

"It's a mess...doesn't know if it's a comedy, a musical, a satire, a spoof or tribute to silent films, etc.. "

Actually this film knows exactly what it is. It is a comedy/musical/satire/spoof/tribute all rolled into one. It's supposed to be ludicrous. It's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. It's supposed to be zany. It's supposed to be nostalgic. It's supposed to be big and brassy. It's supposed to be tuneful. It does all of those things and does them well. The performances are brilliant and spot-on for what this type of film is supposed to be -- a wild, wacky, nostalgic, satirical, spoof and tribute to the 1920s. The film is as colorful and vibrant as the era. Why do you think for a film to be good it has to be narrow and limited in its scope?

reply

[–] Eightythreeyearoldguy 13 years ago

It's a happy, joyful film and one that I'll be showing to my movie group composed mainly of ladies (one other guy besides myself) in their advanced years.

Life, every now and then, behaves as though it had seen too many bad movies

reply

[–] dndcine-1 14 years ago

The color process used in Thoroughly Modern Mille is called IB Technicolor. It's a very expensive process used from early film days until 1973. The last TB Tech feature (with the exception of several titles struck in the 90's for special screenings) was Cabaret. The process is also called Dye Transfer/3 stripe.
http://www.powell-pressburger.org/Reviews/Technicolor.html

reply

[–] MyMovieTVRomance 13 years ago

The color process used in Thoroughly Modern Mille is called IB Technicolor. It's a very expensive process used from early film days until 1973. The last TB Tech feature (with the exception of several titles struck in the 90's for special screenings) was Cabaret. The process is also called Dye Transfer/3 stripe.

Holy gosh! Thank you so much for your explanation! It is really educational, and I've always wondered about this! Though I know I could've looked it up, I guess I never wanted to destroy the mystery. But I liked reading your post just the same. So thank you.

Now, my only question is -- if the Technicolor was used for movies to the early days all the way to 1973, when it comes to the different sorts of color you see in movies? I mean, the Technicolor of the 40s and 50s have a different look from the Technicolor of the 60s. By the same token, the Technicolor of the 60s have a different look from the Technicolor of the early 70s. Ever noticed that? I've always wondered why that is, especially since the ending credits clearly state that the films are Technicolor. So what accounts for the differences? Equipment?

Anyway, I've become going to read that link you posted now! but I just thought I would point out that it's interesting that that same technique was used in movies for about 30 years, while at the same time, the look of Technicolor changed roughly every 10 years.

"Moment by Moment" (1978), may be the most underrated movie ever! May be my fav! <3

reply

[–] nycruise-1 11 years ago

There's also a lot of color styling in both the sets and the costumes that gives the effect you cite.

Miss Dorothy is mostly seen in pastels, while Millie usually sports clothes that have strong geometric lines and forms (even her supposedly low-class "shop girl" plaid dress).

Muzzy is usually shown in shades/textures of minerals: diamonds, gold lame and silver glitter (her outfit at the end with the bolo ball belt).

The sets themselves, as someone else noted, are dark and muted, which genuinely reflects the actual interior design of the period (a lot of gray walls in the hotel).

"Cabaret" has also been mentioned - which apparently used the same dye process but with much different results due to Bob Fosse's direction. In particular, the dance numbers in the Kit Kat Klub are lit with red and blue gelled lights, which gives the dancers spectacularly vivid outlines amid the smokey dark interiors.

"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"

reply

[–] theoctobercountry 10 years ago

nycruise-1 noted "The sets themselves, as someone else noted, are dark and muted, which genuinely reflects the actual interior design of the period (a lot of gray walls in the hotel)."

Actually, that is not entirely accurate. The real-life interiors of the time period used plenty of colour in their decoration. However, the sets in the film are deliberately designed to be artificially monochromatic, all done in black and white and various shades of grey, to emulate (to a certain degree) the black-and-white world of 1920's films.

Set against this neutral backdrop are splashes of colour that are present in the clothing of the characters and specific pieces of set decoration. What is so interesting about the colour design of this film, is that individual scenes only use a SINGLE colour as an accent. For instance, look at the hotel dance scene near the beginning of the film. A yellow/gold is used for an accent colour, and this is the only accent you'll see. All the women's dresses, the streamers on the wall, the colour of the punch---all are variations on the same shade of yellow.

The same thing is true throughout the film, though different scenes use different colours as an accent. It's kind of fun to carefully go through the film and see which colour is used as an accent in any given scene---and then to take note of all the places that particular shade shows up on-screen in the scene.

reply

[–] jsdefishberg 9 years ago

Silent film scenes were often tinted to convey a mood. I don't remember what the colour-code was but that was possibly the inspiration for that item of art direction.

reply

[–] nycruise-1 9 years ago

Here's a link to the Turner Classic Movie website, which actually addresses the issue of "color" in the movie:

http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article.html?isPreview=&id=1074069|276935&name=Thoroughly-Modern-Millie

It also explains that there was a disconnect between the director's vision and the producer's vision.

"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"

reply