I haven't watched much films from this era... I watched Rosemary's Baby recently... I've seen 2001 a space odyssey.
I do understand that this is a low budget film... but still... it seems far worse in film quality than it needed to be... was this a stylistic choice, or a result of lower budget? I mean... looking at it, I'd think it was from the 30s or 40s...
Were there other films of this era with this look?
Compared to other movies around the same time, I see your point, but I think the black and white is throwing you off. Shooting in black and white was deliberate since shooting in color was too expensive. This was a very very low budget film. Therefore, they probably didn't use expensive film stock. I can't recall any other movies that looked from the same time looking like this...
shareSometimes it has to do with the copy you have.
Many copies are from bad film stock to begin with. The reason for this is because the films itself is in the Public Domain and has been copied and recopied for redistribution by whatever company wanted to release the film.
The 40th anniversary DVD has the best print available thus far. It looks film noir, yes, but the clothes and vernacular are every bit 1967/68.
Just my opinion, anyway.
JOE TYRIA
https://www.facebook.com/JoeTyriaOfficialFanPage
It's a combination of it being shot with no money and it being a bad print of the film. The Dimension and Millennium editions are both approved by Romero and good quality.
Date. Mate. Re-Animate.
I totally see why the OP posed this question. I first saw this movie as a 7-8 year old kid around 1986 or so. As a kid, I never really watched anything black & white, so I assumed that this movie had to have been something from the the 1940's. It just had that old, gritty feel to it. When I got older, I was surprised to see that the film was really only about 18 years old when I first saw it. Today, that's like seeing a movie that came out in 1996 for the first time, which to me, seems like yesterday. It is interesting too how one's perception of time changes as you get older. In the end, so glad that this movie was done in black & white. That old, grittier feel that I mentioned earlier just makes the film feel that much scarier.
shareHonestly, I think part of why Night of the Living Dead feels older than it actually was is all due to the generic stock music they used, moreso than the fact it was filmed in black & white.
The murky prints of the pre-Criterion releases combined with the stock music make it feel like some forgotten lost Universal Horror film from the 1940's or early 1950's as opposed to a movie made in the late 60's.
I've always thought of it as a stylistic choice forced by necessity. I like that it looks older than it is. It makes it seem even more ahead of its time.
"You're paying too much for your worms, boss. Who's your worm guy?"
[deleted]
I'd say it's a combination of everything everyone has said in this thread.
Not only is it shot in black-and-white (almost none were after '66) but it's also uber-low budget, which adds to the effect. As well as a stylistic choice.
Also, the 1960s was the best period for horror in terms of atmosphere. It was probably the Cold War thing (in the first half of the decade) and the cultural breakdown thing (in the second half of the decade) creating a pre-apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic feel, respectively: The End and then After The End.
But virtually all you had to do was turn a camera on.
--
Non-sequiturs are delicious.
I actually like the low quality public domain prints of this more than the clean, polished ones. In fact, when I go to watch this movie I prefer the grainy, cheap looking versions more than the fancier looking ones. I don't really like crystal clear, high definition like most people and had no clue what aspect ratio, anamorphic, or 1080p meant until quite recently. I think a lot of people watch older movies and want them to look like they were made in 2014, but I like to know that movies I watch are old so I can feel like I'm temporarily transported to that place and time.
Death lives in the Vault of Horror!
I think a lot of people watch older movies and want them to look like they were made in 2014, but I like to know that movies I watch are old so I can feel like I'm temporarily transported to that place and time.
I feel like it loses something when you watch it all colorized and digitally remastered. It kind of loses that dreary gritty quality that makes it so creepy.
shareYes, that's why I think Blu-ray and high definition are overrated. The clarity and precision hurts some films rather than help them. Not every movie needs it.
Death lives in the Vault of Horror!
I just watched the remake the other day - it wasn't bad but it didn't have the same feel as the original.
The only redeeming quality for the remake was the character change in Barbara... I loved how they made her a strong character rather than the cowering child she became in the original.
Another dummy who doesn't get Blu-Ray
First of all there usually isn't any grain on cheap public domain versions, most of those are sourced from video so the grain is replaced by video artifacts (Elite Entertainment DVD)
and secondly NOTLD was shot on 35mm film, which has much much better quality than 1080p. Most movies on Blu-Ray have a lot more film grain than DVDs do, mainly because you couldn't notice grain as much in Standard Definition. Do you know what grain looks like?
And like a previously poster said, Blu-Ray is much more faithful to what the film looked like in theaters, I think your nostalgia goggles are on too tight and your used to watching things on VHS and DVD, just because your used to the way they look does not mean it was the way it was intended to look.
Blu-Ray isn't meant to make old movies look like a new movie, it's meant to make it look like it did back then. When they do try to make it look like a new movie (*cough* Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition) it'll look terrible and they use DNR to take the grain away, luckily that never kicked off, because they got too much of an uproar from people.
I'm from Paris... TEXAS
No need to be so rude just because someone has a different preference than you. I really don't care what format my favorite films are in as long as I am able to watch them. I just like the low quality effect some prints of this movie have. I can't explain why. Just something about it seems more "right" to me.
shareThere are certainly aspects of low budget quality to the movie, but you're comparing massive Hollywood movies to a little indie picture.
Try watching a lot more movies from the sixties, many are in black and white, it's not something that dates a movie to the 30s/40s, you simply haven't seen enough variety of movies.
Yes, there were multiple 60s films that look and feel similar. "the Last Man On Earth" (1964), "Carnival Of Souls" (1962), "Night Tide" (1960), "Dementia 13" just to name four.
"America isn't ready for a gay, mexican chicken sandwich" - Poultrygeist