Black + White


In the IMDB trivia (and on Wikipedia), it says the movie "wasn't allowed" to be shot in just black & white, so they had to do it in colour... why wouldn't they be allowed?

reply

Don't know why it "wasn't allowed" which is a real shame as it may have made the film feel that much more authentic in keeping with the 1924 setting.
I do know that director Peter Bogdanovich got around the above ruling by making practically all the costumes as monochrome as possible though!

reply

I think it was not allowed to be filmed in black and white because the audience might have been put off by it and it might not have been as commercially successful. This was filmed in 2001 before such movies like "Goodnight and Good Luck." I disagree that it would have been better in black and white. I just watched it over the weekend, and while I don't mind black and white for some films, I don't think it would have been right for this movie.

This movie in color allowed all the rich textiles, costumes and rooms of the boat to be seen. I thought it was much more interesting than had I see the same movie in black and white. For instance the bedrooms would not have been half as interesting with all their boudoir burgundies and gold. Joanna Lumley's rich Venetian capes would not have been captured in black and white. And as it's supposed to be a sunny, weekend cruise I don't really understand why black and white would be necessary. A film noir murder mystery in a castle or post-war setting, OK. But the film is supposed to be about a happy, summer weekend that went wrong. I think it is is very well done in color.

reply

I don’t think b&w would have helped, and in all honesty I think it would have made it that much worse. This film was originally a play, and that is rather obvious when you watch it.

The Great Gatsby is set in the same era; I cannot imagine watching it in b&w.

If a film needs to depend on shooting it in b&w to give it an artistic feel, or to make a statement, then it’s already lost. If it can’t stand on its own merits without being b&w then it won’t be fixed by taking all the color out of it.

reply

[deleted]

Is black and white more authentic? The world actually did have color in 1924. B&W can call attention to the very artificiality of an attempt to capture the past.

reply

Totally agree!

reply

Studios know that in this day and age, a black and white film wouldn't be as readily accepted. Schindler's List, listed her as an example, doesn't really count - it would've been as popular had it been released in B&W or full color. Something that's not quite as big a potential blockbuster (as Cat's Meow clearly was) wouldn't draw as big an audience if it were in B&W.

reply

Black and White cinematography is shamefully a very lost art in modern cinema and it cost a lot of money to do today, more then color. Today's audience is turned off by it for some apparent reasoning and prefer color pictures though, which have just as unrealisitic coloring as the technicolor musicals of the '40s-'60s. Watch any film-noir from the '40s and '50s [The Third Man], german expressionism film from the silent era or just flat-out stellar B&W cinematography like All Fall Down, Hud, The Grapes of Wrath, or Federico Fellini's 8 1/2 and tell me that a B&W picture is not appealing anymore?

The Elephant Man [1980] would not have been the same film had they filmed it in color and everything Tim Burton directs is a homage to german expressionism whether it be Edward Scissorhands or the B&W Ed Wood, it's all the same. However, The Cat's Meow is darkly atmospheric, with Herrmann quietly suggesting the sadness and obsession beneath Hearst's forced avuncular chortles. This film would've hugely benefited with the atmospheric use of black and white expressionist cinematography, especially with harsh lighting and distorted camera angles. It's ashame this creative decision was not pursued.

reply

I like old movies. I really do. I'd much rather watch a 1920s silent film rather than a modern day film. But doing a film based in the 1920s in black and white would ruin it. Just because the films were black and white back then doesn't mean that films based in that time need to be black and with. The 1920s was a colorful time and most people don't know that because of the black and white photos

reply

I agree. In this movie at least, B&W was not called for. I think it would've been kind of a cheap attempt for nostalgia if done in black and white, though I doubt it would've ruined the film.

Personally, I think I have too much bloom. Maybe that's the trouble with me.

reply

Wasn't "Paper Moon" in black and white, as well as Mel Brooks' "Silent Movie"?

reply

Paper Moon was (and quite well)...not sure about Silent Movie.

Personally, I think I have too much bloom. Maybe that's the trouble with me.

reply

Well stated. The film would have been better had it been in black and white.

The argument that the film wouldn't have been commercially successful had it been done so is moot anyway; the film bombed in color nonetheless.

After all... tomorrow is another day.

reply

I wondered why most of the costumes were in black & white - I guess it was to meet someone's obligation or prescribed theory.

~~
"You're the doctor; I'm the mother. I outrank you" Mother to House, MD

reply