Aesthetics of Colour and Black & White

[ruben]

During the last week I had the opportunity to watch four films at the cinema:

1) "Good Night and Good Luck", produced in black and white 2005 by George Clooney, about CBS broadcaster Edward Murrow's bold fight against Senator McCarthy.
2) "Casanova", colour 2005, directed by Lasse Hallstrom, filmed in Venice, about the well known 18th century playboy.
3) "Lord of War", colour 2005, directed by Andrew Niccol, with Nicolas Cage, about the rise of an arms dealer from the 80s' to present day.
4) "The 17th Parallel", black and white documentary film from 1968, by legendary film documentarist Joris Evans, about the daily life and fight of Vietnamese peasants, living alonside the ex-separation lines between North and South Vietnam, against US military intervention.

I must say that I liked them all and enjoyed very much. But from the aesthetical photographic point of view, to which I ussually pay attention, my perception diverges a lot, and perhaps teaches me something new, related to the aesthetics of B&W and colour images.

From the latest point of view, although the story was of real interest, "Good Night and Good Luck" was a real failure. This is my personal opinion. My feeling is that the lack of a good photographic director made the black and white media hard to diggest. And here something curious: although a bad "still" picture will remain bad whereas done either in b&w or colour, it seems to me that the b&w at this film, made it worst. Aesthetically, the film was done as if the use of b&w was totally accidental, and it was to be in colour, but for an unexpected reason it was b&w.

In contrast, the documentary b&w film from 1968, done under war field conditions, and collecting very different b&w pieces (from contrasty fine grain, up to flat and somewhat unsharp pieces, through grainy but high contrast as well), looked superb... Obviously the dramatic contents play here a subjective byas. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that being the film maker a b&w veteran documentarist, is quite felt in the general aesthetics of the film. Theoretically speaking, this film could be done today in colour as well, but the photo-director may have to ad a lot of attention to the colour media in such a case.

"Casanova" and specially the macro shots begining "Lord of War" are both high quality shooted. But while "Casanova" could never stand being done in b&w, "Lord of War" had a good chance.

My lessons?:

a) As colour is the dominant media, b&w cannot be used any more undiscriminately, as my general film. We are seeing today black and white from a colour point of view. Issues that should be photographed in colour, may be killed in black and white.

b) But the same is not true the other way around. Technical limitations aside, there are less chances that an image suitable for b&w may be killed if done in colour.

c) Should I liquidate my b&w darkroom and do away with b&w film?. Of course not. But I definitely must be more aware of colour and b&w image fitting. I may say that b&w suits more drama or tension, while colour fits, besides brilliant colour and colour composition, what I may call current reality, life detail. Including perhaps street photography that doesn't aesthetically relates to the past, but to day. (Am I dropping a small bomb here?)

Any opinions are welcome, as I feel myself walking over new land, and far from clarity.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

About "Good Night and Good Luck": I have a completely different assessment. I think the B&W was used effectively, the lighting was well used to exploit it, and the tones had a surprising "true" B&W film feel.

I think that this experience would have a lot to do with the theatre where it's shown; I was lucky enough to go to one where they project the film onto the screen still, and not project cathodes or some other method onto a screen like so many new chains do.

I have not seen the other movies you've talked about. It is all subjective.

Have you seen "Young Frankenstein"? Try and rent a DVD of it; now, that's also a well-made B&W film (technically speaking), made back when it was already antiquated. You may also get a good kick out of it. 🙂

 

[vincentbenoit]

I may say that b&w suits more drama or tension, while colour fits, besides brilliant colour and colour composition, what I may call current reality, life detail.

Not sure I'm following you here... Do you mean that B&W is classy whilst colour is vulgar? 😉

Vincent

 

[vincentbenoit]

About "Good Night and Good Luck": I have a completely different assessment. I think the B&W was used effectively, the lighting was well used to exploit it, and the tones had a surprising "true" B&W film feel.

Agree.

Vincent

 

[bmattock]

Someone here on RFF (not me) once said that they use color film when they want to show you something, and B&W when they want to tell you something.

Last night, my wife and I watched "Murder on the Orient Express." Despite the fact that it was filmed in color, it felt like B&W.

A few months ago, I watched "The Third Man." Filmed in B&W in 1949, I could not imagine it any other way. To each their own, I guess.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ruben]

About "Good Night and Good Luck": I have a completely different assessment. I think the B&W was used effectively, the lighting was well used to exploit it, and the tones had a surprising "true" B&W film feel.

Yes, agreed, but there was not good image composition, nor quality framing.

 

[ruben]

Not sure I'm following you here... Do you mean that B&W is classy whilst colour is vulgar? 😉

Vincent

Perhaps I had that prejudice hidden, and it collapsed after I saw Good Night and Good Luck. I certainly felt an aethetical vulgarization of fresh black and white materials.

 

[FrankS]

My lessons?:

a) As colour is the dominant media, b&w cannot be used any more undiscriminately, as my general film. We are seeing today black and white from a colour point of view. Issues that should be photographed in colour, may be killed in black and white.

b) But the same is not true the other way around. Technical limitations aside, there are less chances that an image suitable for b&w may be killed if done in colour.

c) I may say that b&w suits more drama or tension, while colour fits, besides brilliant colour and colour composition, what I may call current reality, life detail. Including perhaps street photography that doesn't aesthetically relates to the past, but to day. (Am I dropping a small bomb here?)

Any opinions are welcome, as I feel myself walking over new land, and far from clarity.

Cheers,
Ruben

I'm afraid that I cannot agree with these "lessons". I don't want to go through it, but almost every single statement you make, I can take exception to.

I think you may have discovered some things about yourself, but fail (IMO) while trying to generalize this to everyone else too.

BTW, this is not an irate or angry response, just one that disagrees with your post. (from my point of view.)

 

[ruben]

I'm afraid that I cannot agree with these "lessons". I don't want to go through it, but almost every single statement you make, I can take exception to.

I think you may have discovered some things about yourself, but fail (IMO) while trying to generalize this to everyone else too.

Certainly along this thread I have made very clear I am trying to understand my perceptions and not trying to genealize this to everyone else too. It is through the process of ideas exchange that everybody can gain understanding, and it seems to me that this is the very essence of a discussion forum, instead of a symphonic chorus.

Therefore you are kindly invited to explain your argument, because of your different opinion.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Jocko]

Ruben's points strike me as extremely intriguing, but I'm probably too tired to make a cogent response.

However, one thing I have never understood is why Black and White is regarded as a documentary medium, whilst colour is in some sense artificial. The B&W image seems to me to be absolutely subjective; it deliberately distorts the world of regular perception.

Perhaps the best exploitation of this presumption can be found in the films of Pressburger and Powell - for my money the greatest of all British movie makers. In "A Matter of Life and Death" (1945/6) scenes in the material world are shot in luxuriant technocolour. The wildly saturated tones were deliberately intended to subvert audience expectations, as the scenes in the next world - where much of the film takes place - are in ruthless documentary black and white.

The aim was - as in the yet more bizarre "A Canterbury Tale" (1944) - to assert that the material world is unreal and that only the realm of mind and spirit actually exists. I think that Ruben's point - that B&W requires "drama and tension" or in other words subjective imagination, an intentional leap beyond mundane colour and surface - is absolutely right. B&W is a profoundly creative medium, which to my mind allows us to transcend the merely obvious and represent a higher form of reality.

Sorry if this is incoherant - I'm dead on my feet!😀

 

[Rick Waldroup]

I think Ruben is on to something here. I believe that many modern filmmakers may not have the "touch" for B&W film. They may use it as a gimmick more than really appreciate its artistic merits. There are exceptions. Witness "The Man Who Wasn't There" by the Coen Brothers. Wonderful job of filming in B&W. And especially Woody Allen"s masterpiece "Manhattan" with the opening shot of fireworks over the New York skyline and the music of Gershwin in the background. That is simply B&W moviemaking at its finest and most exquisite, regardless of what era it was filmed in. The true masters of B&W were the film noir directors from the 30's, 40's, and 50's. Often working on small budgets and tight deadlines, they made use of what they had and used extensive knowledge of lighting and shadows to achieve stunning effects. Give me "The Big Sleep" with Bogart in all of his glory, filmed in glorious B&W and who needs color. But Ruben is right- a lot of todays directors simply do not know how to handle B&W. Very interesting thread. Thanks Ruben.

 

[bmattock]

With regard to the artificiality of B&W versus the honesty of color - I must object.

There is no such thing as an honest photography, or an honest frame in a movie. All is reproduction, all is fiction. Whether film or digital, color or B&W, Photoshopped or dodged and burned, we do not even strive for authenticity - we strive instead to match an image that we hold in our minds.

B&W removes all doubt - the viewer is instantly aware that this is not 'real' but is instead telling us something other than 'what it was' at the moment the shutter closed on the scene. Depending upon the level of color, the obvious manipulations, and so on - the viewer may be tempted to believe a color image as a true representation. They will never do so with B&W.

One is not superior to the other - but B&W is no less honest than color - in fact, by informing, it is more honest in that way.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[FrankS]

Certainly along this thread I have made very clear I am trying to understand my perceptions and not trying to genealize this to everyone else too. It is through the process of ideas exchange that everybody can gain understanding, and it seems to me that this is the very essence of a discussion forum, instead of a symphonic chorus.

Therefore you are kindly invited to explain your argument, because of your different opinion.

Cheers,
Ruben

Ruben, this response sounds like you are ticked off at me for disagreeing, yet state that you prefer discussion to a symphonic chorus. Okay, so I'll start:

The use of the term: lessons, sounds to me like you are tying to generalize, and suggesting that we should all learn what you have discovered.

We are seeing today black and white from a colour point of view.
I don't know, are we? Do you know I am?

Issues that SHOULD be photographed in colour, may be killed in black and white.
Who is to tell me what SHOULD be photographed in colour?

Issues that should be photographed in colour, may be killed in black and white.
b) But the same is not true the other way around.
How can you say this? IF somethings SHOULD be photographed in colour, is it not logical then that some things SHOULD be photographed in B+W? Why is it killed in one instance but not the other?

there are less chances that an image suitable for b&w may be killed if done in colour.
Okay, if that is your opinion, you have to respect my right to have a different opinion.

colour fits, besides brilliant colour and colour composition, what I may call current reality, life detail. Including perhaps street photography that doesn't aesthetically relates to the past, but to day.
Again, simply a difference of opinion. I think that B+W is perfect for "life's details" including street. You haven't given any reason for your opinion. It's an aesthetic choice.

You say in your response that you are not trying to generalize, but as I stated, to me it sounded that way, and that's why I responded by saying I disagreed. Like I said, you may have come to some realizations for yourself, but they do not generalize, particularly for me.

I have no issue with your opinions. You have yours and I have mine. You have a right to state yours, as I do mine. Right?

 

[FrankS]

Ruben, do you happen to have a website with any pictures posted? There are none in your RFF gallery. I'm just trying to learn more about where you're coming from - to understand you better.

 

[bmattock]

Ruben, do you happen to have a website with any pictures posted? There are none in your RFF gallery. I'm just trying to learn more about where you're coming from - to understand you better.

You and that 'understanding' people. Freak!

Just kidding!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[John Camp]

One problem with rules or guidelines in art is that they're inevitably wrong for almost everybody but the rule maker, and will eventually be wrong for him, too. You can say, "I'm going to adopt this point of view for now, knowing that five years from now I'll look back and think I was an idiot, but that's okay, because I'm learning something." And that's fine. But once you start promulgating theory, you're limiting the possibilities.

I like the look of B&w, but sometimes it's used as a crutch: a sunset that would be inane in color looks "arty" in black and white -- but the inanity will eventually shine through, as it always does.

A final assignment, class: make a b&w photograph of a Thomas Kinkade painting, and then do an analysis of the aesthetic qualities of each. 😎

JC

 

[aad]

Bill, "The Third Man" is superb-we watched it again last night, and I can say that THAT is what black and white really can do. The lighting, the way the eye is drawn to certain elements-outstanding for any cinema fan, and I think a good demonstration of black and white mastery. Color would have diminished it.

 

[ch1]

I think that the "bad B&W" you said about "Good Night and Good Luck" is in error.

I watched and at first felt as you did. Then I realized they were evoking the mediocre imagery of B&W TV in the early 50's.

It was "meant" to be that way. It was intended to "mimic" (in the good sense of that word) what a documentary would have looked like on a TV in 1954 or so....

 

[RML]

While I completely miss the gist of Ruben's post (sorry Ruben 🙂 ) I do think there is a difference between a photo in B&W or in colour. I happen to shoot everything in colour (I did when I was still using film, I do now when I shoot the R-D1). Having the benefit of being able to convert an image into B&W or colour as I please, I do recognise that some photos simply look better in either B&W or colour. Also, when out shooting I often have an idea that a certain shot should end up in B&W, making a mental note to at least give it a try when developing the RAWs. I also feel that often a photo telling "a story" feels cluttered and illegible when in colour while much more focused and readable when in B&W. I do, however, like to experiment with monochrome instead of "pure" B&W to see how a certain colour suits the photo better. In many circumstances, sepia or cyan-toning simply does a better job of conveying the atmosphere or "story" of a photo.

 

[Gid]

Someone here on RFF (not me) once said that they use color film when they want to show you something, and B&W when they want to tell you something.

I think this just about sums it up. Colour can distract. There is something about B&W that focuses the attention on the subject matter - the what rather than the where. On the other hand, you're unlikely to want to produce a tourist brochure in B&W because you want to convey the vibrancy of a place.

I also agree that you can rescue a shot by converting to B&W - is this cheating?

Gid