COLORIZED LAUREL AND HARDY
BigStar303
<< BigStar wrote that he was averse to veiwing the results of the
colourisation process on two grounds. He wanted someone to explain how the
colourisation process was different to ( quote ) " applying your own store
bought water colours to the surface of the Mona Lisa in an effort to
"improve" upon the original. It is different because with the colourisation
process the original piece of work is left intact. If someone did try to
paint over the Mona Lisa with water colours in an effort to improve it, it
would be an act of vandalism on a masterpiece. If someone painted over
their own COPY of the Mona Lisa, i have no problem with that. >>
Nice try, but it doesn't work. Yes there is only one "Mona Lisa," but the print
of "Helpmates" I screen on my home VCR is identical to the one you screen on
yours, or the one that's shown in a theatre. In all cases, it _is_ the original
work that Stan Laurel and others have created for us to view.
Just because you have preserved a copy somewhere in black and white doesn't
change the fact that *what you're putting before the public* with a colorized
film is the original artist's (or artists') work in an adulterated form,
*without the original creator's permission or approval*. It is absolutely
identical to "improving" upon the Mona Lisa.
Let's say I decide the black and white works a gallery is displaying at their
latest photography exhibition are a little on the dull side. I'm certain they
would look a lot better and be more "appealing" to more of the public if I
hand-tinted them. So I sneak in at night and do exactly that. I surely would be
subject to arrest for defacing them...despite the fact that the artist still
has the negatives in his possession and can always strike new prints.
And never mind the legalities of it -- from an aesthetic standpoint, colorizers
are engaged in exactly the same practice.
<< The second point BigStar makes is that it is "aesthetically bogus", like a
Shakespeare play set in a modern language or setting. I remember seeing
Romeo and Juliet in it's contemporary setting many years ago and i enjoyed
it very much. Recently i saw the modern film version of Romeo and Juliet
set in modern times and i enjoyed that version of the story too. It didn't
occur to me at the time that i was enjoying an aesthetically bogus film but
if it had of done i wouldn't have let it bother me.The important thing was
that i was enjoying the film. Again it comes down to personal choice and
opinion. >>
Perhaps this wasn't the best of examples. But I think the point to be made is
that treatments such as this remain novelties, no matter how well done they
might be. The latest movie adaptation of Shakespeare is unlikely to supplant
the classic version of it -- though come to think of it, for a lot of young
people who saw the film as much for the purpose of ogling the young hunks and
babes in it (and for the contemprary music soundtrack) as they did for the art,
perhaps it will. There is something in this element that makes me uneasy about
colorized Laurel and Hardy, too.
But the larger point is, the classic, original versions remain available to
all. Everyone has been giving these bland assurances that we should have a
choice -- after all, you can always watch the black and white versions if you
choose.
Oh yeah? I don't know what the situation is in the UK, but I challenge you to
go into a U.S. video store and buy me a black and white copy of "Way Out West."
Or "Men O' War." Or "The Hoosegow." Never mind the jumbled state of
availability now...go back a few years when the films as a whole were in wider
circulation. Perhaps I would be slightly less exercised about all of this if
there truly were parallel availability. But that has not been the case. In far
too many instances, the powers that be have decided *on my behalf* that it is
color, and only color, I shall see.
<< BigStar also says that " When we view a film of real human beings moving
through the contemporary world of the 30's and earlier, we have come to
accept that this will be portrayed in the medium of black and white film.
It simply " feels" right. I have to disagree again i'm afraid. The
Untouchables, Titanic even the film Chaplin, the list of films set before
the 1930's and made in colour is endless and all of them "feel" right to
me. >>
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Of course, thousands of films are made that
portray all eras of history in color. However, I was speaking specifically of
films that were actually *made* in the 1930s or earlier -- and obviously so.
When we see Ollie speed through the streets of Culver City on a ladder in "Hog
Wild," it's quite obvious that we're seeing the *real* streets of Culver City
as they existed at the time -- not a recreation of them. Maybe the casual
viewer is too ignorant or just doesn't care enough to differentiate, but if I
watch a film made in the mid- to late-30s or earlier, it's very clear to me
from a multitude of clues -- some of which I mentioned earlier (print and
soundtrack quality, etc.) -- what it is I'm watching. When you start messing
with this mix by adding phony color, something just doesn't "feel" right.
<< I agree that the best colourisation techniques in the world can't hide the
fact that the film stock itself is not as clear as that which was achieved
later on in fim history, but the clarity of the film stock does not change
if you are watching in black and white. >>
I'm not quite clear what you mean here.
<< Incidentally, i recently watched
the film classic ' The Longest Day' in its colourised form and i was amazed
at how realistic the colour looked on a more modern black and white film. >>
Of course. "The Longest Day" was made in the early 60s, and in 70mm if I'm not
mistaken. The effect of applying color to it will obviously not be nearly so
jarring as applying it to an early 30s film.
<< The day i bought my first Laurel and Hardy video is one that stays in my
memory. I saw the colourised version of Way Out West on the shelf in the
video store and thought, i'll see what Laurel and Hardy look like in
colour. I now have every Laurel and Hardy film available on video both in
black and white and in their colourised form. If i hadn't seen those colour
films on the shelf in the video store i might not have begun collecting
Laurel and Hardy films in the first place and i would have missed out on so
much enjoyment. Anything that encourages people to watch the boys films is
fine by me. As a great man once said " You can take a horse to water, but a
pencil must be lead." I was ' lead' to Laurel and Hardy because of the
colourisation process and that is why i will always love Stan and Ollie
whichever way i watch them. >>
I'm happy it worked out for you this way, and I won't argue the point that
anything that wins new converts to L+H can't be all bad. I just really question
the thought that the one thing that has held back millions of people from
buying Laurel and Hardy films and developing an appreciation for them is the
fact that they are in black and white.
I find it instructive that when the folks at Cabin Fever issued their wonderful
Our Gang series a few years back, they didn't see the need to render them in
color. To my knowledge, this didn't impinge upon their success in the
marketplace at all. Instead, Cabin Fever emphasized restoring the prints to as
close to their original release form as possible. We can only hope that the
boys will get the same reverential treatment one day.
Roger A Sturrock
BigStar303 <bigst...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990112000711...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
>
> Nice try, but it doesn't work. Yes there is only one "Mona Lisa," but the
print
> of "Helpmates" I screen on my home VCR is identical to the one you screen
on
> yours, or the one that's shown in a theatre. In all cases, it _is_ the
original
> work that Stan Laurel and others have created for us to view.
Yes it does work. A copy of the Mona Lisa is identical to the one you see
hanging in the Louvre. What you see is the original work that the original
artist created for us to view. I say again that if someone wants to paint
over his copy and display it, i have no problem with that.
Let's say I decide the black and white works a gallery is displaying at
their
> latest photography exhibition are a little on the dull side. I'm certain
they
> would look a lot better and be more "appealing" to more of the public if
I
> hand-tinted them. So I sneak in at night and do exactly that. I surely
would be
> subject to arrest for defacing them...despite the fact that the artist
still
> has the negatives in his possession and can always strike new prints.
But of course this would be wrong. You don't have the owners permission to
hand-tint his photo's. I'm not sure who owns the rights to the Laurel and
Hardy films in America but it's a pretty safe bet that permission is sought
from them before any colourising is done. One thing i am positive about is
that the company that colourises these films didn't sneak into the film
owners warehouse late at night and colourise them while no-one was looking.
And never mind the legalities of it -- from an aesthetic standpoint,
colorizers
> are engaged in exactly the same practice.
Okay. You think that colourisers are destroying or defacing Stans work. The
only person that could have really cleared this point up was Stan himself.
I am sure that given the choice he would have preferred his films to have
been made in colour. It's no secret that Stan once said that his biggest
regret was that Babes in Toyland wasn't made in colour.I see no reason to
think that he wouldn't have wanted the rest of his films to be made in
colour. I honestly believe that if the technology had been available at the
time all the Laurel and Hardy films would have been made in colour.
Therefore while you say that colourisation is not the way the original
artist would have wanted us to view his work i say that neither is black
and white. Quoting from Glen Mitchells wonderfull Laurel and Hardy
encyclopedia ' Rosina Lawrence, the heroine of Way out West has vouched for
the computer colours authenticity'. Another qoute ' McCabe believes that
Laurel would have approved of the new technology if consulted about the
colour content'. Okay so Stan obviously can't have been consulted but this
quote at least shows that Stan probably wouldn't have had any obections to
colourisation in principal. If any one should know whether Stan would have
approved of something or not it's John McCabe. One more quote from the same
book, ' There is no questioning the technical quality of computer added
colour'.
Maybe i'm not getting the full picture about what the situation is in the
USA. In the UK, to celebrate the 70th anniversary of Laurel and Hardy's
teaming a company called the Kirch Group has recently restored and
preserved original versions of the boys films.These films have then been
transferred to safety film using the finest surviving 35mm elements. The
result an image of fantastic quality. When colour is added to these films,
because the film stock is so good the colourisation looks on most of the
films very authentic. In cases where colourisation looked too 'bogus' ( as
you would say ), the Kirch group has simply left these films alone. For
this reason you can only get the Live Ghost, Come Clean, all the silent
films, etc, in black and white form.
> But the larger point is, the classic, original versions remain available
to
> all. Everyone has been giving these bland assurances that we should have
a
> choice -- after all, you can always watch the black and white versions if
you
> choose.
>
> Oh yeah? I don't know what the situation is in the UK, but I challenge
you to
> go into a U.S. video store and buy me a black and white copy of "Way Out
West."
> Or "Men O' War." Or "The Hoosegow." Never mind the jumbled state of
> availability now...go back a few years when the films as a whole were in
wider
> circulation. Perhaps I would be slightly less exercised about all of this
if
> there truly were parallel availability. But that has not been the case.
In far
> too many instances, the powers that be have decided *on my behalf* that
it is
> color, and only color, I shall see.
You have my genuine sympathy here. I suppose the distributers must be
thinking that you can buy the colourised video's and if you want to watch
them in black and white simply turn the colour down on your tv set. I wont
insult you by pretending that this could be an option for you. That is not
your point, i know. If enough people want the films in black and white they
should be available. Maybe they are only available in the colourised form
because more people want to buy this version of the film. If people do want
to buy the colourised videos then obviously there must be an earthly reason
for the process.
> When we see Ollie speed through the streets of Culver City on a ladder in
"Hog
> Wild," it's quite obvious that we're seeing the *real* streets of Culver
City
> as they existed at the time -- not a recreation of them. Maybe the casual
> viewer is too ignorant or just doesn't care enough to differentiate, but
if I
> watch a film made in the mid- to late-30s or earlier, it's very clear to
me
> from a multitude of clues -- some of which I mentioned earlier (print and
> soundtrack quality, etc.) -- what it is I'm watching. When you start
messing
> with this mix by adding phony color, something just doesn't "feel" right.
>
Yes, okay. Maybe this was me just 'not getting it'. Being born in the
seventies and a native of the UK, i wouldn't have a clue what Culver City,
for example, looks like today never mind in the 1930's. I admit that films
from around this period do have a certain feel to them.
<< Incidentally, i recently watched
> the film classic ' The Longest Day' in its colourised form and i was
amazed
> at how realistic the colour looked on a more modern black and white film.
>>
>
> Of course. "The Longest Day" was made in the early 60s, and in 70mm if
I'm not
> mistaken. The effect of applying color to it will obviously not be nearly
so
> jarring as applying it to an early 30s film.
You seem to agree that colourisation will obviously look more realistic on
a more recent film. Does that make it ok for this film to be colourised ?
If so, at which point in film history should we be able to colourise films
without offending you ? Obviously not the 1930's because this would be
aesthetically bogus, but the 1960's is ok because the effect then is not
nearly so jarring.
Maybe that last paragraph was arguementative and if so i apologise. The
truth is i agree with you in certain ways. Colourisation should not be used
without due regard for the artistic integrity of the product it is used on.
Lets face it, no-one wants to see the colourised version of Schidlers List.
However, i do honestly believe that the artistic integrity of the Laurel
and Hardy films has not been compromised by the colourisation process. Lots
more people do too. That is why these videos sell.
I think the thing that annoys me most is that Laurel and Hardy fans who
enjoy the colourised films are getting a pretty rough deal at the moment.
In this news group alone ive heard them called among other things ' not
true Laurel and Hardy fans' and as Bigstar wrote ' deluded'. I am a true
Laurel and Hardy fan and i am not deluded, i simply have a different
opinion to you. That is allowed isn't it ?
BigStar303
<< Yes there is only one "Mona Lisa," but the print of "Helpmates" I screen on
my home VCR is identical to the one you screen on yours, or the one that's
shown in a theatre. In all cases, it _is_ the original work that Stan Laurel
and others have created for us to view. >>
Roger replied:
<< A copy of the Mona Lisa is *identical* to the one you see hanging in the
Louvre. What you see is the original work that the original artist created for
us to view. >> [emphasis added]
That loud "thud" you just heard is the sound of art critics and aficionados the
world over fainting dead away.
You can't seriously believe this statement, can you? If you do, tell you
what...ask an art critic to imagine that the original Mona Lisa is being put up
for sale and to estimate a monetary value for it. Now ask him or her to do the
same with that so-called "exact copy" you have hanging in your house.
<< I say again that if someone wants to paint over his copy and display it, i
have no problem with that >>
Nor would I. Hey, in the privacy of your own home, with a *copy* of an original
art work, you can do whatever you please. Convert a black and white L+H film to
a Quicktime movie and play around with it in Photoshop to your heart's content,
if that's what turns you on.
However, this is quite different from the owners of the films putting *their*
colorized versions on sale to the public (while simultaneously making the
original black and white versions unavailable).
Your statement implies that you *would* have a problem with painting over the
original Mona Lisa. Hopefully this is not solely on the grounds that it's
vandalism.
So I repeat, a Laurel and Hardy film put on sale to the public is in every way
the absolute original work of art. Unlike a painting, an infinite number of
*exact* copies can be struck from the original through purely mechanical means.
We have yet to (and thank God never will) devise a machine that can accomplish
the same thing with a painting.
So again (and I'm as weary of making this point as I imagine everyone else is
of hearing it), **in terms of the ultimate interaction between artist and the
audience for that art**, there is no functional difference between colorizing a
Laurel and Hardy film for mass consumption and slapping paint on the Mona Lisa
(or, in my earlier example, rewriting portions of "A Christmas Carol" and
putting it out under Dickens' name). You're taking the artist's original work
of art and adding to or altering it after the fact.
I won't belabor my example of a black and white photography exhibition that
someone takes it upon himself to hand-tint. You focused on the sneaking in part
rather than the result of the act itself, which was my fault for posing it that
way (though I did say "never mind the legalities").
This has always been my focus on the colorization issue as well. Certainly, the
holders of the rights to these films are legally entitled to do what they've
done. That has never been an issue. Just remember that a legal right doesn't
automatically confer a moral one.
<< Okay. You think that colourisers are destroying or defacing Stans work. The
only person that could have really cleared this point up was Stan himself. I am
sure that given the choice he would have preferred his films to have been made
in colour. It's no secret that Stan once said that his biggest regret was that
Babes in Toyland wasn't made in colour. >>
I have said before that "Babes in Toyland" gets a pass in the colorization
debate. It's the one film out of all of theirs that truly does cry out for
color due to its setting. In fact, I watched the colorized version at our local
SOD meeting at Christmas time, and I managed to refrain from gnashing my teeth!
But "Babes in Toyland" is a bad way to prove the case for the rest of the boys'
work.
<< I honestly believe that if the technology had been available at the time all
the Laurel and Hardy films would have been made in colour. >>
But it wasn't, and they weren't. The films were staged for black and white.
They were lit for black and white. They were shot in black and white.
As others have pointed out, Stan's lighting director has quoted him as
requesting that the sets be lit in a very flat manner, with no dramatic
lighting effects, because he wanted no distractions from the characters and
their interplay. While we don't have Stan's specific views on colorization, we
do have this virtually direct quote from him...and I think it's quite
instructive.
By the way, when I originally answered this section, I took a side trip into
another area of art where I see a parallel. Thankfully, in the interests of
shortening a post that's already way too long, I've decided to remove it from
here. It will appear in a separate post, which everyone can freely ignore (as
most are doubtless doing to this as well!).
<< Quoting from Glen Mitchells wonderfull Laurel and Hardy encyclopedia '
Rosina Lawrence, the heroine of Way out West has vouched for the computer
colours authenticity'. >>
No disrespect whatsoever meant to the memory of a great lady, but I marvel that
anyone could have such a precise memory for colors more than 50 years after the
fact. Do you remember the *exact* color of the sofa your parents had when you
were 7 years old that they threw away when you were 15?
In any case, the authenticity of the colors is not the issue.
<< McCabe believes that Laurel would have approved of the new technology if
consulted about the colour content'. Okay so Stan obviously can't have been
consulted but this quote at least shows that Stan probably wouldn't have had
any obections to colourisation in principal. If any one should know whether
Stan would have approved of something or not it's John McCabe. >>
This is sheer speculation on McCabe's part. I believe Stan's views on lighting
present a better argument for the opposite view.
Me:
<< ...if I watch a film made in the mid- to late-30s or earlier, it's very
clear to me from a multitude of clues -- some of which I mentioned earlier
(print and soundtrack quality, etc.) -- what it is I'm watching. When you start
messing with this mix by adding phony color, something just doesn't "feel"
right. >>
Roger:
<< Yes, okay. Maybe this was me just 'not getting it'. Being born in the
seventies and a native of the UK, i wouldn't have a clue what Culver City, for
example, looks like today never mind in the 1930's. I admit that films from
around this period do have a certain feel to them. >>
Thank you!
(Re colorizing "The Longest Day"):
<< You seem to agree that colourisation will obviously look more realistic on a
more recent film. Does that make it ok for this film to be colourised? >>
I would argue that it does not. Again, the filmmakers, including the
cinematographer, lighting director, et al, bent all of their efforts toward
making a great black and white film. Colorizing, no matter how advanced the
process, will inevitably do violence to this work.
And along similar lines to the Laurel and Hardy films of the 30s, we are so
used to seeing black and white footage of the real World War II that I would
say black and white is a good fit here. Not that a great film about WWII can't
be made in color, as apparently "Saving Private Ryan" attests (I've not seen it
myself).
Above all, beyond all other considerations, I just don't see the *need* for
colorization. I cannot for the life of me understand the thought process that
says "This film is in black and white...therefore, it is *automatically*
deficient." Perhaps it's a generational thing...if one grew up in an era when
*everything* was in color (TV and movies), one can't handle black and white?
Just guessing.
<< If so, at which point in film history should we be able to colourise films
without offending you? Obviously not the 1930's because this would be
aesthetically bogus, but the 1960's is ok because the effect then is not nearly
so jarring. >>
Not really. See above. As I've said, I can see the argument for colorizing
"Babes in Toyland." There may be other examples of this nature, though none
come immediately to mind. In all but a few cases, I say "Leave the film alone."
<< Maybe that last paragraph was arguementative and if so i apologise. The
truth is i agree with you in certain ways. Colourisation should not be used
without due regard for the artistic integrity of the product it is used on.
Lets face it, no-one wants to see the colourised version of Schidlers List.
However, i do honestly believe that the artistic integrity of the Laurel and
Hardy films has not been compromised by the colourisation process. Lots more
people do too. That is why these videos sell. >>
Obviously, we differ on this point, as I differ with the "lots of people" who
are buying the videos. But see below...
<< I think the thing that annoys me most is that Laurel and Hardy fans who
enjoy the colourised films are getting a pretty rough deal at the moment. In
this news group alone ive heard them called among other things ' not true
Laurel and Hardy fans' and as Bigstar wrote ' deluded'. I am a true Laurel and
Hardy fan and i am not deluded, i simply have a different opinion to you. That
is allowed isn't it? >>
Of course, and if I've let my strong opinions on this issue get in the way of
civil discourse, I sincerely apologize. I freely admit to having a problem with
this at times. It's the product of caring very deeply about certain
things...and one thing I hope we all share here is a love for the boys and
their work.
Everyone is entitled to his or her views. But in a forum such as this, everyone
must also expect that those views will be examined and called into question if
another participant believes they are supported by faulty reasoning.
ele...@interport.net
> I suppose the distributers must be
> thinking that you can buy the colourised video's and if you want to watch
> them in black and white simply turn the colour down on your tv set. I wont
> insult you by pretending that this could be an option for you.
I'm guessing you all know that the black and white extremes are leveled out for
the colorization process. So even if one were to turn the color off, one would
be left with a washed out, blurry black and white.
It is a crime that so many of the films are only available in these
bizarre-looking versions. Is it a legal issue? It would seem to me that
companies like Kino/Image would be thrilled to release a nice b&w set...
Eric Perlin
>I'm guessing you all know that the black and
>white extremes are leveled out for the
>colorization process. So even if one were to
>turn the color off, one would be left with a
>washed out, blurry black and white.
>
>It is a crime that so many of the films are
>only available in these bizarre-looking
>versions.
Joe Public likes color, and refuses to watch anything that's in
black and white. TRherefore, badly colorized versions of films are
more often widely available than the B&W originals. (BTW, the
colorized version of "Helpmates" is about as bad as colorization
gets.)
I look forward to the day when all of Chaplin's classic silents are
not only colorized, but dubbed with sound as well, alá L&H's
"Double Whoopee."
Maybe videotapes of Marcel Marceau performances should have
dialogue dubbed in, on the grounds Joe Public likes his pantomime
better with dialogue.
Ray Tucker
Maybe we could even take some of their films and digitally replace
certain supporting players with contemporary comic personalities to
add more appeal for modern audiences.
....................Just kidding, of course.
Eric Perlin
>Maybe we could even take some of their films and digitally
>replace certain supporting players with contemporary comic
>personalities to add more appeal for modern audiences.
If the technology exists, why not! And fuck cinema history!
Here are some proposed actor replacements:
James Finlayson: Jim Carrey
Edgar Kenedy: Leslie Neilson
Mae Busch: Sharon Stone
Thelma Todd: Barbara Streisand
Walter Long: Arnold Schwartznegger
Charlie Hall: Danny DeVito
Billy Gilbert: Dan Aykroid
Charles Middleton: James Earl Jones
Ethyl the Chimp: Barney the Dinosaur