MovieChat Forums > A Night to Remember (1958) Discussion > Why black + white?

Why black + white?

posted 12 years ago by palisade-1
22 replies | jump to latest

I quite like the film just as it is, but wondered (while watching the "Making of" documentary) what the reasoning was for choosing to film it in black and white, since even in the 50's color film was the norm. Was it to save money? To give it a more "documentary" feel? To re-create the ambiance of the time? Filming in color would have made it difficult to incorporate those shots from the launching of the Queen Elizabeth et al.

I was surprised that this was not mentioned and wondered if anyone knows the reasoning behind it?

[–] arbilab 12 years ago

Color positive film was available almost from the dawn of movies but it is difficult to work with as exposure errors cannot be corrected.

Technicolor (3-strip) became available in 1939 and put to good use--Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz--but at great expense.

Kodak color negative film was invented in 1949. There were a couple intermediate systems that weren't altogether satisfactory, like Polacolor.

Even with the advent of color, 'dark' subject matter was often shot in BW. That would be my explanation.

_______________________
It's twue! It's twue!

[–] palisade-1 12 years ago

Thank you, that makes a lot of sense. While I'm a big fan of film of that era (50's and 60's), I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the technical aspects. In this film, the B&W "feels" right.

[–] bobgod1 11 years ago

The film's producer Bill MacQuitty claimed that the main reason ANTR was shot in black and white was the need to incorporate existing b/w film clips like the launching of the Queen Elizabeth and other stock footage, plus various scenes taken from an earlier German Titanic drama.

[–] TheGuyWithTheFeet 11 years ago

I think it works from an artistic standpoint as well. The clothes are very period for a 1950s movie (an era in which period clothes had a decidedly 50s bent to them). With the close attention paid to sets and costumes, it almost looks like a moving period photo.

[–] NothingButTheBest 11 years ago

I find the black and white picture really effective for the horror of that night also.

The world is your lobster.

[–] TheGuyWithTheFeet 11 years ago

It was to incorporate archival film. But it was also a stylistic choice to give it the feel of footage from 1912. And, if you watch it, it really does feel like a postcard from that era.

[–] MikePaul854 11 years ago

It does give it a more nightmarish feel for what the victims must have experienced that night.

[–] joystar5879 10 years ago

Actually, Three-Strip was available as early as 1935...when it was used in the final scene of HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD, and for the film BECKY SHARP. It was also used in the 1936 film RAMONA. By 1938-39, it was more common, but still extremely expensive, and with fewer cameras available.

There were some gorgeous films made in 1939, like DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK, DODGE CITY and WIZARD OF OZ, but I wonder how many more there would have been, if the majority of the TC cameras hadn't been hogged by SELZNICK and GWTW. (VBG)

I do hope he won't upset Henry...

[–] liscarkat (18541) 2 years ago

Kodak color 35mm film was available at least as far back as 1936. It was originally meant to be used as motion picture film, but ended up being used more as still-camera film.

[–] snoho 12 years ago

Well I think it dates the movie correctly. Plus they had fewer technology for their special effects back then. The B+W would have probably allowed them to get away with more things. I find it hard to watch exterior shots of the ship because it just looks so fake lol. It's almost as if it's bricked to the ocean floor.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] annmason24 11 years ago

Could someone tell me what happened to the young married couple? I know they were fictitious, but there were indeed young married couples who died on the Titanic. As I recall, this couple was killed when the smokestack collapsed on them, is that correct?

I found it interesting that this film would decide to have an unhappy ending for that couple, although audiences of that period liked happy endings.

I very much like the black and white; it made filming, I'm sure, much easier. It made the story a stark contrast: a fight for survival; you lived or you died, no in between; black and white.

An excellent film that I have been waiting a long time to see.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Could someone tell me what happened to the young married couple? I know they were fictitious, but there were indeed young married couples who died on the Titanic. As I recall, this couple was killed when the smokestack collapsed on them, is that correct?

Yes, they were killed when the smokestack fell on them. But it wasn't at all unusual for such an "unhappy" event to be in a 1950s film, or in films from earlier decades for that matter. Individual tragedies have always been incorporated in films to arouse audience sympathies. Quite common. And in a film like this it's the sort of thing you'd expect to see, to bring home the enormity of the tragedy.

In truth I've never had much sympathy for this couple. They adamantly refused to do anything to save themselves (not even to save the wife) until far too late. They were both so wrapped up in some foolish romantic haze about facing their fates together that it's difficult to muster much feeling for them. Only near the end did they try to save themselves. Presumably, when at the last moment they saw the stack about to fall on them the romance of dying together abruptly became less appealing.

[–] Crystal (534) 6 years ago

Right? Those 'starry eyes' disappeared in a hurry there!

[–] gamertrav 9 years ago

Color films actually weren't quite as common in the 50s as you seem to think. Even in the late 50s there were still a lot of films being shot in black+white. However most big budget films (which A Night to Remember is) were shot in color by this time, so it is a bit of an anomaly in that sense.

[–] sage2112 9 years ago

I don't think color films were the norm in the .... well you said 50's but I think you mean '50s (the decade of the 1950s - see how the tick mark replaces the "19"?)

[–] palisade-1 9 years ago

well you said 50's but I think you mean '50s (the decade of the 1950s - see how the tick mark replaces the "19"?)

Both "50's" and "'50s" are correct forms of reference to the decade of the nineteen-fifties. There are regional variations (most UK reference sources prefer the non-apostrophe ending 50s), while both can be found widely used in the USA. The use of "50's" is an older usage but still quite acceptable.

See:

http://www.english-for-students.com/50s.html

https://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/50s.html

Different style guides may specify one usage or the other.

[–] pawtrax67 9 years ago

If it was and English historical drama in the late 50's and 60's chances are it was in Black & White. For the following reasons.

1) Black and white made it easier and less obvious for any miniatures, or stock film. Just like Sink the Bismarck!.

2) It was probably cheaper at the time. The UK didn't have the budgets Hollywood had.

3) Subject matter. Black and white seems more fitting for a grim tale. Also gives it a more historical look to it.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] old3eyes (331) 4 years ago

I'm watching a colorized version of it now. It's on YouTube. I suspect it was done by an amateur but quite good. Better than black and white.

[–] Owlwise (1535) 4 years ago

Colorized is never better than the intended black and white.

[–] MaximRecoil (4639) 3 years ago

"since even in the 50's color film was the norm"

No, B&W was the norm in the 1950s:

1961 was the last year in which the majority of Hollywood films were released in black and white.

Robertson, Patrick (2001). Film Facts, Billboard Books, p. 167. ISBN 9780823079438

And it wasn't until the late '60s that nearly all movies were in color, i.e., it was unusual for Night of the Living Dead (1968) to be in B&W, but entirely ordinary for A Night to Remember (1958) to be in B&W.