Holiday Inn 1942 - coloured version

[Donald Binks]

I have just watched "Holiday Inn" (1942) from a Blue Ray disk at a friend's house on his big television set.

Normally I have found that the colouring of old monochrome pictures has left something lacking - the eyes don't seem to have any sparkle and the lips are wrong, the faces pallid - it just didn't seem at all natural. But, this film to me was a revelation. Whilst not vivid colour in the Technicolor sense - it certainly was not altogether washed out. I had to pinch myself to believe that this film was not originally photographed in colour.

Whilst I understand that there is a whole lot of hew-ha about colouring films - I am just impressed at how far the process has gone towards perfection. To think that once any thought of making a black and white film into colour was in the realm of the impossible - this to me is a wonder.

Musical films, to my mind, cried out for colour - and it is no wonder then that even though studios were still trying to work out the ins and outs of microphones - they were also messing about with two-colour Technicolor for their musical extravaganzas in the late 1920's early 1930's.

Even if you do not like all this colouring business - sneak a look at this film when no-one's looking - you'll be amazed.

(As an added query - why has there been no hullabaloo about re-making "The Wizard of Oz" into 3D? Surely the producers didn't intend that?)

[bobfells]

Donald,

I haven't seen the colorized HOLIDAY INN yet but I've seen quite a number of these jobs from the past and they were pretty lousy looking. I have not had a problem with colorizing certain films where the b/w photography was more utilitarian than artistic. The Laurel and Hardy films come to mind. But if you're going to spend the $$$ then it better look great. This hasn't been the case through most of the history of colorized films. What gets me are the teeth more than other things.

THE MALTESE FALCON needs b/w for its mood but when I saw the colorized version many years ago, I had two reactions. First, the color ruined the mood of the film. Second, technically the colorization was quite good. They just picked the wrong film to spend the money on. I've been hearing good things about more recent efforts at colorization but I haven't seen much of this new crop. So far, the only film that a.) made sense to colorize, and b.) was well colorized technically, is L&H's BABES IN TOYLAND (1934). Everything came together for that one.

It has been suggested that colorization be used for films made in color but survive only in b/w. Another idea is to colorize films that were designed for color but shot in b/w. MARIE ANTOINETTE (1938) comes to mind. The greatest obstacle in even discussing the subject is with people who insist a pose of high dudgeon as if you're suggesting spray-painting the Pieta. You've posted a good thread, Donald, and I hope others who want to comment can control themselves.

[Donald Binks]

Thanks Bob for your inciteful input and I agree with what you say. Whilst there is that element of purists who will create a hullabaloo about this subject no matter what argument one may put forward - and of course they are well entitled to their opinions, it is just my opinion to think that there are a lot of films that directors may have wanted to photograph in colour - but the costs were just too prohibitive. If then, the film is sympathetic to being rendered in colour, I see no reason for it not to be.

The early attempts at computer colouring were primitive - and I think that the first one I saw was a Laurel and Hardy short which looked to me as though someone had merely daubed a pastel brush of purple and some other faint colours to what was still obviously a black and white background.

If it is now possible to render the colouring to such an extent that it looks completely natural and adds to the film rather than detracts from it; the film warrants it and is therefore a suitable subject - I see no reason for it not being done. (Quelle, horreur!) The black and white original is not being interfered with and is still available for those that prefer it.

As far as presenting a purist argument to film in general, I would consider it a very hard task to get back to the basics on a large number of films - especially where there are different camera angle negatives used in some prints, different edits, different printing techniques, black and white versions where the colour is lost. Then, being even more pedantic - any number of musical accompaniments to silent pictures where it could be argued that some go away from a score recommended by the studios on release. Then again - what about the addition of stereophonic sound and 3D?

Where does one draw the line?

[bobfells]

Donald, perhaps Groucho Marx summed it up in THE BIG STORE (1941). He narrates a fashion show at one point and makes the comment: "This dress is bright red but Technicolor is so expensive!"

[Mike Gebert]

So far, the only film that a.) made sense to colorize, and b.) was well colorized technically, is L&H's BABES IN TOYLAND (1934). Everything came together for that one.

That's my one exception, too. The problem with something like Marie Antoinette is that it's a handsomely shot picture... a handsomely shot black and white picture. It may have been meant for color once but by the time they made it they were quite committed to black and white. A shot like this:



was designed to work and look lustrous in black and white, it won't easily convert to color. It would have been lit in an entirely different way for color. Here's one where someone tried it and the blacks are too strong to look even remotely like 30s color.

[Donald Binks]

So far, the only film that a.) made sense to colorize, and b.) was well colorized technically, is L&H's BABES IN TOYLAND (1934). Everything came together for that one.

That's my one exception, too. The problem with something like Marie Antoinette is that it's a handsomely shot picture... a handsomely shot black and white picture. It may have been meant for color once but by the time they made it they were quite committed to black and white. A shot like this:


was designed to work and look lustrous in black and white, it won't easily convert to color. It would have been lit in an entirely different way for color. Here's one where someone tried it and the blacks are too strong to look even remotely like 30s color.

I agree. One would have to be very selective in one's choice of film in order to add colour to it - to make sure that the addition of colour would suit. Having said that ideally musicals would look a lot better in colour - some of course - and I can think of some of the Rogers/Astaire classics here - are really styled completely for monochrome. One musical that I could never understand why it was never put to colour was "Yankee Doodle Dandy" with James Cagney. Maybe this would be a candidate for the process?

[bobfells]

I mentioned MARIE ANTOINETTE only because the producers designed the sets and costumes for color. I agree that it is handsomely shot in b/w and this film is not really on my list for colorization. Again, I've seen so many vintage films where there was nothing "artistic" in the b/w photography but by the same token, these won't be A quality films in many cases. The 1990s era Ted Turner colorization craze selected titles that were well-known and little attention was given in the selection process to the aesthetic considerations. As a result, a lot of films were colorized that shouldn't have been.

[ClayKing]

If memory serves it was Ted Turner's company that pushed the colorization of B&W in the 'eighties. The reason wasn't esthetics, it was simply to increase the marketability of films to audiences that otherwise wouldn't watch a B&W film. Aside from Turner and Roach, many of the colorized films appear have been PD titles, colorized to increase DVD sales and possible broadcast licensing. I thought some of the colorized films looked nice, such as Topper, while many others exhibited an overall palette of dreary "sameness." Perhaps that was the result of trying to do things faster and cheaper.

[wich2]

>I haven't seen the colorized HOLIDAY INN yet but I've seen quite a number of these jobs from the past and they were pretty lousy looking<

Bob & gang-

They were indeed. But TRUST me (and/or, trust Donald):

The current Legend colorizing work compares to the Turner colorizing work from 30 years ago, as sound from 1957 compares to sound from 1927.

I'm NOT a colorization advocate; but I'm not blind hater of it, either. And HOLIDAY INN is the best example I've seen. As Donald says, a first-time viewer would truly believe that they were seeing a film shot in color.

-Craig

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

I agree. One would have to be very selective in one's choice of film in order to add colour to it - to make sure that the addition of colour would suit. Having said that ideally musicals would look a lot better in colour - some of course - and I can think of some of the Rogers/Astaire classics here - are really styled completely for monochrome. One musical that I could never understand why it was never put to colour was "Yankee Doodle Dandy" with James Cagney. Maybe this would be a candidate for the process?

YANKEE DOODLE DANDY was colorized, and I think this was one of the earliest major movies to be treated this way, and second-hand copies are still to be found on Amazon. I don't know if the colorized version has been put out on a DVD, or if it has been given the modern colour treatment. I guess the questions are whether the film benefits or loses, as well as the continued availability of the original. Although I would agree the subject matter of YANKEE DOODLE DANDY is suited for Technicolor, I would be reluctant to see it colorized owing to the splendid b/w camerawork of James Wong Howe.

On similar track, every copy I have come across of Curtiz's Technicolor THIS IS THE ARMY (1943) seem to have come from a pretty grotty print. I did notice a new issue of the film, so hope this is a good one as was reluctant to watch a print which did such disservice to the film, even though I have been interested in it for a long time.

[Spiny Norman]

I have just watched "Holiday Inn" (1942) from a Blue Ray disk at a friend's house on his big television set.

Normally I have found that the colouring of old monochrome pictures has left something lacking - the eyes don't seem to have any sparkle and the lips are wrong, the faces pallid - it just didn't seem at all natural. But, this film to me was a revelation. Whilst not vivid colour in the Technicolor sense - it certainly was not altogether washed out. I had to pinch myself to believe that this film was not originally photographed in colour.

Whilst I understand that there is a whole lot of hew-ha about colouring films - I am just impressed at how far the process has gone towards perfection. To think that once any thought of making a black and white film into colour was in the realm of the impossible - this to me is a wonder.

Musical films, to my mind, cried out for colour - and it is no wonder then that even though studios were still trying to work out the ins and outs of microphones - they were also messing about with two-colour Technicolor for their musical extravaganzas in the late 1920's early 1930's.

Even if you do not like all this colouring business - sneak a look at this film when no-one's looking - you'll be amazed.

(As an added query - why has there been no hullabaloo about re-making "The Wizard of Oz" into 3D? Surely the producers didn't intend that?)

That's the experience I had with Wonderful Life and She. Personally I find the objections untenable because new versions of films are being created all the time, for example in 3D or whenever any film is dubbed in a different language. Or whenever something is georgelucassed.


But apart from that, a while I go I suddenly realised the colour versions mostly reflect the time when they were colourized. I was watching The Three Musketeers from 1948 (Vincent Price as Richelieu) which really is a colour film but it looks exactly like it was shot in b/w and colourized in the '80s. What to call it, heavy, saturated?
Wonderful Life would actually have looked worse if it had been shot in colour than the colourized version does.
It was done, what, 10 years ago? If they'd colourize it today it would be a lot more orangy with possibly a lens flare here and there.

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

Also depends on how familiar with the b/w originals. Back in the 1990s I saw some of John Wayne's Lone Star westerns colorized, and this did not seem to do much harm. When I saw the b/w originals a decade earlier, some of them seemed very soporific. I've only seen the original HOLIDAY INN and am not sure I'd want to see it colorized. And I did watch the Alastair Sim SCROOGE in that format by mistake as it wasn't advertised as such. It was interesting and technically quite decently done but messed up the films atmosphere completely.

And again in the 1990s a friend mentioned watching THE MASK OF DIMITRIOS (1944) in a colour version and commented on how dreadful he thought it and recall seeing THREE COMRADES (1938) treated likewise.

A related point would also be whether DVDs of silent films contained / followed the original tinting and of course films which were originally tinted being preserved on b/w. Not to mention b/w issues of colour films: a friend gave me a copy of THE BLACK PIRATE (1926) some years back, and it was a b/w print. Many of the copies I've seen uploaded are either b/w or hopelessly washed out. I also found a copy of 1936's THE DANCING PIRATE in poor colour, and again all uploads I've found have been b/w. I can see this thread unraveling quite a few miles!

[Spiny Norman]

That makes sense. The first version of a popular song that you hear is usually the benchmark and the others sounds like imitations to that one, even if they are the originals and your first encounter is the cover.

I wonder if there were objections to re-sounded (soundized?) films around 1930? Was that ever done really convincingly anyway?

[David Alp]

I hate colourization. And until they perfect it, I will continue to hate it. It suffocates me!! It really does!! When I watch those dreadful Shirley Temple films (which I bought thinking they were in B&W but to my horror they were all dreadfully colourized, and I couldn't be bothered to send them back because of all the hassle), it literally makes me feel suffocated?? I don't know why this is? It makes me want to SEE the film as originally intended; but nowadays with televisions that you need a degree in High Technology in, you can't simply turn down the colour!!! It takes about half an hour to find the correct function on your TV remote to turn off the colour, so inevitably I end up keeping the colour intact on screen as I'm scared of messing up the controls, and then not being able to restore the colour again LOL! Much to my chagrin and annoyance, (in the old days you could just quickly turn down the colour knob in a jiffy and have the colour OFF -- but not these days)....

Anyway; I bought into the whole "Colourization" fad a few years ago when there was a big Hoo-haa on line about "SHE!" (1935) being "perfectly" colourized, for the first time ever... Everyone was saying; "Oh they have finally got it right -- and Ray Harryhausen had spent 20 years colouring it, and 100 million dollars, (slight exaggeration for effect LOL), So I actually bought the DVD on that premise! And oh dear; when I saw it, I thought "Oh my God -- what utter crap!" -- They hadn't perfected the colourization at all; it was still like that picture you have just shown of Norma Shearer in "Marie Antoinette", (which by the way was dreadful!!), and it made me feel suffocated all over again! So I end up inevitably watching the B&W version only.

Yes you are all right... It's mainly the teeth, the mouth, and the eyes that look weird!! The teeth always look grey for some reason??? Why can't they whiten them?????? I think they are still a million miles away from perfecting this technique. But one day they will get it looking like Technicolor from the 1940's, and when they do; I will celebrate the day! But I still think it's a long time coming....

[bobfells]

David,

I think that colorized films on DVD should be paired with the b/w original. I've seen a little of the Shirley Temple films and I agree with you that the colorization is pretty bad. I bought the Alister Sim A CHRISTMAS CAROL on DVD a few years back that offered both b/w and color. I liked the color version technically, but b/w was an important part of the mood so I prefer that. Thinking out side the box, it might have been a smart move to keep the current day scenes in b/w but the scenes of Christmas Past and President in color. When Scrooge wakes up on Christmas morning and realizes that he has a chance to right his wrongs, then I'd put the finale in color. But when in think of this film now, I think of b/w.

Bob

[Donald Binks]

Unlike some, I prefer to keep an open mind on the subject.

Yes the early attempts at colouring black and white films didn't hit the mark and were a waste of space. All I am saying is that the process seems to be improving with age and my recent viewing of "Holiday Inn" was testament to it being 95% there.

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

David,

I think that colorized films on DVD should be paired with the b/w original. I've seen a little of the Shirley Temple films and I agree with you that the colorization is pretty bad. I bought the Alister Sim A CHRISTMAS CAROL on DVD a few years back that offered both b/w and color. I liked the color version technically, but b/w was an important part of the mood so I prefer that. Thinking out side the box, it might have been a smart move to keep the current day scenes in b/w but the scenes of Christmas Past and President in color. When Scrooge wakes up on Christmas morning and realizes that he has a chance to right his wrongs, then I'd put the finale in color. But when in think of this film now, I think of b/w.

Bob

Yes, some time ago I bought HEIDI (1937), which I recall seeing in the early 1970s, and was very annoyed that it was colorized only. If it had been both, fair enough. Couldn't be arsed to take it back, though. And funnily enough SCROOGE / A CHRISTMAS CAROL was given free with one of the dailies, but colorized only. Luckily I now have a proper copy as draining the colour unfortunately doesn't do the trick.

[Gumlegs]

Chiming in here as an ex-archivist.

Upthread, someone noted the utility of colorizing films that presently exist only in black & white. I believe UCLA did this with a portion of a Fred Astaire TV spectacular several years ago. If I recall correctly, most of it came from a color videotape, but a portion was a black & white kinescope. This strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

I thought the restoration of "Mammy" should have done this. Portions of the (then) newly-rediscovered 2-strip Technicolor footage were unusable, so Warners chose to use black & white footage in sepia. It was okay. It worked well enough. But I think colorizing those small portions to match the original Technicolor would have been smoother.

While I do not like colorization, in general, I do not object to its being done. If it gets old films a new audience, that's a good thing. Also, for it to be effective, the people doing the colorizing have to get the best possible source and preserve it. That's usually camera negative, if available. Otherwise, it's ... the best possible source. The source itself isn't colorized; that's a computer process that outputs a new master, so to speak ... post.

[wich2]

1. Colorization HAS already been done to replace lost color.

2. I have it on good sources that on occasion it has even been done w/o acknowledging the fact. In other words, it WAS good enough to fool the viewer as original.

-Craig

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

Chiming in here as an ex-archivist.

Upthread, someone noted the utility of colorizing films that presently exist only in black & white. I believe UCLA did this with a portion of a Fred Astaire TV spectacular several years ago. If I recall correctly, most of it came from a color videotape, but a portion was a black & white kinescope. This strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

I thought the restoration of "Mammy" should have done this. Portions of the (then) newly-rediscovered 2-strip Technicolor footage were unusable, so Warners chose to use black & white footage in sepia. It was okay. It worked well enough. But I think colorizing those small portions to match the original Technicolor would have been smoother.

While I do not like colorization, in general, I do not object to its being done. If it gets old films a new audience, that's a good thing. Also, for it to be effective, the people doing the colorizing have to get the best possible source and preserve it. That's usually camera negative, if available. Otherwise, it's ... the best possible source. The source itself isn't colorized; that's a computer process that outputs a new master, so to speak ... post.

Having seen only the (variable) Technicolor sections from MAMMY on YT, I was unaware of this problem. MAMMY was scheduled a couple of times on British TV, but I was unable to see it for work reasons and have yet to see it. Perhaps a sepia / colorized double copy would have been best. I recall something like this at the MGM season at London's NFT. DEVIL-MAY-CARE (1929) and THE FLORODORA GIRL (1930) had sepia / colour tint for the Technicolor sequences. Colour material has since turned up on YT for both films, tho' the FLORODORA sequence (to me) is in better shape than that for DEVIL-MAY-CARE. Both prints were very good in other respects.

[rangebuster]

I put on movie shows for local primary age children at their After School Clubs. In addition to cartoons I introduced Laurel and Hardy, The Three Stooges and Our Gang - in colour!! Then, after the first three shows, I switched to screening them in black and white. Not one child mentioned the switch. They had become hooked on the characters in colour and were not concerned about the change. I knew I was on a winner when Stan and Ollie appeared in B&W and the kids cheered as soon as they saw the bowler hats!! I certainly don't prefer films to be colourised but I'm always willing to have a look at them. Legend Films do an excellent job. Among their titles are the John Wayne Lone Star westerns, four of the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes, Our Gang shorts, "The Outlaw," "The Great Rupert," and even "Plan 9 from Outer Space." On their Abbott & Costello box set there is a colourised version of the "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" trailer.

[bobfells]

Better in b/w? Fred Astaire once related how he bought his mother a brand new color TV so she could see his upcoming TV special in color. Afterwards, he asked her how she liked it. She said the show was fine but after a few minutes she decided to watch the rest of the show on her older b/w TV. Astaire asked why and she answered, "Well, the color looked fine but I kept wondering what it would look like in black and white." There's a moral in there somewhere.

[Donald Binks]

Better in b/w? Fred Astaire once related how he bought his mother a brand new color TV so she could see his upcoming TV special in color. Afterwards, he asked her how she liked it. She said the show was fine but after a few minutes she decided to watch the rest of the show on her older b/w TV. Astaire asked why and she answered, "Well, the color looked fine but I kept wondering what it would look like in black and white." There's a moral in there somewhere.

(Sir) David Frost introducing colour television to the U.K. viewing audience back in 1968:

"For those of you watching this in colour, I hope you will both be happy with it - for those watching in black and white, I hope you will find it colourful!"