It seems to be assumed that the decision to shoot in black and white was an aesthetic decision, but wouldn't it have really been a logistical decision?
Isn't it much easier to match shots in black and white than in color, and this being a live production, doesn't that mandate that it be done in black and white?
On the other hand, I know soaps used to be broadcast live; were they still broadcast live after the switch to color?
Any of you video professionals care to comment?
I'm no video professional, but I've worked on some live broadcasts in a studio.
The reason for black and white must have been because they prefered the look. Before starting to shoot on video with more cameras at the same time, all the cameras are pointed at a grey card. Someone behind the monitors then adjusts the color balance and exposure, so it's even for all the cameras. The camera operators don't have to deal with that. When they start shooting this is left alone.
For the people working on it, it doesn't really matter if they broadcast it in b/w or color. It's not harder to match, because it never really is. Only when there is little light. The image is just more focused on the actors, composition and lightning. There are no b/w videocameras or tapes. Every b/w video shot is a color one turned b/w.
Hope this was helpful.
El Presidente is pretty much on the money there. The grey card he's referring to is a standard piece of equipment in video production and used to match all of the cameras with each other. Cheaper video cameras typically just use a white balance (point it at a white source, usually a card or a white shirt and then press the button so that it can figure out what the RGB levels need to be to make white), but studio cameras are a little more complicated in that they typically use a complex series of patterns and such to coordinate sharpness, brightness, grey levels, etc... I believe we also used a white balance, but some places would use a color card as well to manually balance the color... it just depends on how anal retentive the director was. This is coordinated with the lighting scheme to match everything together.
I haven't done this in a long time (I was usually on the camera and it's coordinated from the director's seat), but I remember it being a frustrating and tedious process... but I worked in a public TV station and our gear wasn't the best in the world. I also believe that the monitor was switched over to show only black and white for the sharpness, etc., but I could be wrong on that.
In the end, though, I'm pretty sure it's an aesthetic decision. SNL and the awards shows have no problems matching color, so it's not much of a problem to do it. Digital technology makes it all a little easier, too. They may not even need to do any of this stuff manually anymore.
I am not versed in the techincal aspects...but I DO know that the show CHOSE B&W for the chilly...cold war TV feel..especially as it was live..and the last drama shot live was in B&W....and it echos the film...
[deleted]
The one character about black and white is that I find it forces one to focus on the action and the characters. It's starker, perhaps not as "nice" as color. As noted, too, the original was done in B&W, and I suspect for the same reason. I think back on some of my favorite B&W flicks, such as Fail/Safe, Seven Days in May, the 1965 edition of Mirage with Gregory Peck and others and I think they all qualify as benefiting from a black and white presentation.
Was really refreshing to see that, too ... and to realize that George sees the power in gray-scale!
Loren
I think it was a wise choice to film it in B&W it gave the impression of the time very well, I don't think colour would have come across as well.
http://www.maverick-media.co.uk
Wise choice. I agree. I remember watching this when it was aired in 2000 and feeling like it captured that live "look" of the early 1960s pretty well. I've seen many live productions on videotape from that time period and there's sometimes this fuzz and burn out on the camera that I think they threw into Fail Safe.
I wish Clooney and Co. would do more live TV.
My old Drama prof once stated that when a director deliberately uses B&W film (when color is just as readily available) sometimes it is a psychological tactic to force you to focus harder on the film's subject-matter.
shareIs this a remake of the Best Man? (Awesome Larry Hagman and Henry Ford movie from the 60s).
shareThe original movie was made in B&W. Color movies were common in 1959, but the director or producers wanted the scenes to be a stark and cold as possible to convey the enormous tension of the situation, especially in the closed spaces; most notably the bomber's cockpit, SAC headquarters, the White House bunker, and the New York think tank. One other thing, if you've seen the original movie, you'll notice that the aircraft sequences were cast using the film negative to make the outside scenes colder and more forbidding due to the ultra-low temperatures of flying north and through the stratosphere to their target. At least this is what I sensed when I saw the original movie. Anyway, this is my two-cents. Thanks
shareOn the region 2 disc the introduction by Walter Cronkite informs us that this would be the first live drama CBS had shown for over 30 years. black and white was used not only to refernce the original Lumet Fail safe but also as a homage to the pioneering days of television drama. As for some of the footage of the bombers being in negative in the original, Sidney Lumet said this was done because the military would not supply them with the stock footage they needed. He could only find a few clips of the 'Hustler' aircraft (called 'Vindicators' in the movie), so they used effects such as negative & zooming to make the limited amount of footage he had look different each time.
shareLarry Hagman was not in "The Best Man" which was a political drama. It's kind of topical right now as we watch the clown show of republican nomination process.
share