At what point was shooting in black and white out of art, not money?
 

Most movies shot in black white up until the 50s that wanted to save money it seems. However, it seems that in the 60s, or 70s, so many were shooting in color that the onyl reason to shoot in black and white was out of art. But at what point did it become art?

I noticed that in the 60s that more European movies seem to be in black and white than American as well as more Asian movies, so perhaps for America in the 60s, it was out of art, but still out of money, for non-American movie industries overall?

Re: At what point was shooting in black and white out of art, not mone
 

Shooting on black and white for economic reasons did last at least into the 60's with films like Night of the Living Dead.

From the mid 50's onwards though it was often an artistic choice, partly because filming in B&W was an art form with a longer history and colour required different skills that needed to be developed, partly because colour film stock took time to develop to level were many were happy to use it.

Re: At what point was shooting in black and white out of art, not mone
 

Oh okay. What about 90s movies like Clerks and Pi? As I understand it, black and white was more expensive to shoot on than color in the 90s, so did those low budget filmmakers have to spend more on their movies to shoot in black and white then?

Re: At what point was shooting in black and white out of art, not mone
 

No. Shot on 16mm.

Re: At what point was shooting in black and white out of art, not mone
 

Oh but since black and white film was more costly back then, wouldn't 16mm color still cost less than 16mm black and white?

Speed and versatility, if you do a black and white shoot you don't have to worry about lighting.


Frances Ha for example was in BW I think mostly because they did an act in Paris and they likely wanted to get all those scenes done in a day.


I don't recall Pi but with Clerks you don't have to worry about getting everything in during a certain window of time.

Re: At what point was shooting in black and white out of art, not mone
 

Well I've went to film school before myself, and where is it written you don't have to worry about lighting in black and white?

It's not a question of worry but of time how much time do you spend on lighting for your shots?

Re: At what point was shooting in black and white out of art, not mone
 

Oh okay. You mean how much do I spend on mine personally? It depends on who the DP/cinematographer I am working with. I guess an hour if we hurry.

Films like Pi were obviously an artistic choice to shoot B&W, in that case I would say to help get across the claustrophobic story of the protagonist, shifting him away from the colours of the recognisable world. As a photographer I can say that removing colour from the image allows you to focus more on texture and contrast in situations were colour maybe a distraction.

I don't agree that lighting isn't an issue with B&W but it does present different issues and I can imagine it speeding up certain shoots.

Lighting is always important, even in black and white. The one aspect of shooting in black and white that might save time & money is set design. The B &W film maker doesn't have to worry about colors on set dressings not looking good on film or looking different than expected. All they have to worry about is the tonality of light and dark objects.

But mostly black and white photography is used for artistic reasons, of which there can be many.

Re: At what point was shooting in black and white out of art, not mone
 

Yeah for that reason, of real locations not having the best color, I would like to shoot in black and white, but am always talked out of it, since i decreases the marketability of a movie.

What's type of film are you making? (subject?style?)

A big issue with colour on location of course is light, shooting in say the golden hour is going to give you very different results to the middle of the day. B&W results will also depend on the time of day in terms of the angle and intensity of light but daytime shooting can be more fruitful not having to worry about colour.

If your film is aiming at the arthouse market or some kind of online viewing then I doubt shooting B&W would hold you back much in terms of audience.

I'm thinking of Spielberg wanting Schindler's List to look like an actual piece of history.

Yeah, that's a good point, and a good reason for a director to shoot B&W.

Re: At what point was shooting in black and white out of art, not mone
 

I think I heard that Mel Brooks shot Young Frankenstein (1974) in B&W so it would look as much like the original film it was spoofing as possible.

Why he didn't do the same with Dracula Dead and Loving It (1995), I don't know. (I do remember hearing a reason, but I don't remember what it was).

Re: At what point was shooting in black and white out of art, not mone
 

Ah... found an explanation on IMDB (trivia section) about why Dracula Dead and Loving It was not filmed in B&W like Young Frankenstein...

When Mel Brooks and the rest of the filmmakers gathered together for the first time to discuss the making of the movie, one of the early questions was should the picture be made in black-and-white, mainly because Brooks' earlier film Young Frankenstein (1974) was made in black and white in order to give the movie the feeling of the old Universal Frankenstein films. This idea was dropped, mainly because, as Steve Haberman said in the audio commentary of the film in DVD, a lot of the great Dracula movies were in color, specifically the Hammer pictures starring Christopher Lee and Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992).

I can't really buy this explanation since Brook's Dracula comedy was spoofing the original 1931 version (even used lines from it) and not the Hammer films. There were Hammer films made in color about Frankenstein also, but Brooks wasn't spoofing those when he made Young Frankenstein... rather he was spoofing the original James Whale black and white classic.

Oh it's a very low budget horror thriller type I guess it would fall under, set in modern times.

If you did it as a 1950s style B budget horror film, you could go B&W and I'd bet your film would get more notice.

Have you seen A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (2014)? You really should check it out, it's a tiny budget indie horror shot in B&W.

Re: At what point was shooting in black and white out of art, not mone
 

Okay thanks I will check it out. Mine is more like The Silence of the Lambs or Seven, in terms of story and tone so not sure if that falls under the horror or thriller genre, and not sure if B $ W is the best for that type of story.

Re: At what point was shooting in black and white out of art, not mone
 

I always thought the term 'art' was just another word for scam.

So to answer your question, I'd say it was always out of money (if B&W was done after color was made available). Meaning, they're making you believe you're watching something greater than it is by giving you the impression that black and white makes it art, and you can't judge it like a normal movie, you have to try and connect with it or you're just not experienced, man.

Drugs probably help lower your standards, which is what Jimi mean't by "are you experienced?" Are you burnt out enough to buy into this bull**** art idea? I mean, it doesn't need action, it has a french guy on a bike and is void of color, right? Make something up in your mind and we'll go with that. And don't give me that, "it's how it makes you feel." Well, guess what, our moods and perspectives are going to fluctuate a lot over the course of the shelf life of that criterion bluray we just spent 60 bucks on.

Unless the director explains why they chose to mute the visuals (and it makes sense).

Re: At what point was shooting in black and white out of art, not mone
 

Well what about a movie like Citizen Kane, or Casablanca? Were they shot on black and white cause of art, or did they have the budget to shoot in color if they wanted to, but chose not to, for the look?

The answer could only come from the mouth of the directors and or producers of those two films. Maybe sometime in the past Orson Welles and Michael Curtiz said why those films were shot in black and white, if so the answer might be found with an internet search.

In the early 1940s when those two films were made, the process for color was three strip technicolor which was a patented process owned by the Technicolor company. As a result, studios shooting in color back then had to lease the camera equipment from Technicolor and were under obligation to shoot the color film under guidance from a Technicolor supervisor who at times would be on the set. The supervisor would dictate to the film maker what colors should be used and in what intensity. I can't image someone like Welles liking his creative hands tied by a Technicolor supervisor. Plus shooting in color back in the 1940s was very expensive and mainly used on musicals and costume movies and not often used on dramas.

As an art school graduate... I kind of really LIKE this line!!! :)