rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - How About A New Isandlwana Film

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:38 am

Please bear with me on this.

I know 'Zulu' was spectacular due to the scenery and uniforms, etc., in colour, but this other method could work.

I've watched several documentaries (films too) , where scenes/re-enactments are filmed in black-and-white, giving a dramatic 'aged' feel, but at the same time clear, crisp, sharp images, not grainy or dull.

Obviously, colour is fantastic, especially showing the African landscapes, as well as the various uniforms, but this way of filming, will/should allow more focus on action/details, rather than shades of red tunics, or other things that colour enhances.

Seeing old photographs in my Zulu War books, but also of other campaigns, including uniforms and portrait photographs of the era, 'takes you back' to the time, better than stunning colour.

Many fans of 'Zulu' may disagree, but from a historical view, even for a wider audience, black-and-white instead of colour could be the key, in bringing, on the big screen anyway, events somehow closer, narrowing the gap between now and then.

It is something that I'm concentrating more on, preventing me being obsessed with this colour and that, allowing to get to the heart of the historical battle without worrying about such a distraction.

Any opinions ?

Coll

Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:14 pm

Sheldon

If you are still there, and still talking to me, I'm wondering about your opinion of more modern black-and-white films ?

Films, such as 'Schindler's List', set in W.W.2. which used it to great effect, with the memorable adding of red to the child's jacket, in amongst the bleakness and tragedy of the surroundings.

I can't think of any others at present, apart from a George Clooney film, set in the 50s or 60s.

Are you of the opinion, black-and-white being used nowadays, has a place or not in cinema, especially its use in historical films ?

C.J.

PS. Nothing to do with CGI or accuracy this time round.

Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:51 pm

Denton Van Zan wrote:

.................
I can't think of any others at present, apart from a George Clooney film, set in the 50s or 60s.

I seem to recollect that the D Day re-ceation film, "The Longest Day" was in black and white.

Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:42 pm

Coll,
Don't worry, I don't hold grudges! That George Clooney film you mentioned - THE GOOD GERMAN - is showing on Channel 4 at 11.05pm tonight. I didn't like it, but black and white is as valid a resource as anything else in the cinema's box of tricks and it's a pity it isn't used more often. The problem with TGG is that its deliberately retro aesthetic (it was designed to look like a film made in the 1940s) is poorly executed and the drama is rather turgid. But the b&w at least is beautiful!
Sheldon

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:21 am

Sheldon

Thanks for replying, although I didn't think I'd get an answer, especially so quickly.

I've just watched 'The Good German', but hadn't seen it before, or even knew it was a b&w film, so I'm now aware of 2 such films George Clooney was in, the other being 'Good Night And Good Luck', which was a more media/political-type film.

I've gave a couple of reasons why I like this modern use of b&w in my original post, but I'm curious to know what you think filming nowadays in b&w gives (for want of a better word) or adds to the subject being covered ?

C.J.

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:36 am

Sheldon

I don't want to intentionally divert the thread but can I just ask you a quick (and I hope not stupid) question as to whether blue ray, or these DVD enhancers, have any significant effect on the perceived quality when viewing b & w material?

Coll

I've not tried it but the thought occurs - could you not play Zulu but reduce the contrast/colour/saturation, or whatever, on your TV set to get a hint of what it looks like in b&w?

Personally, I think b & w works better in photographs rather than in moving images. I can well remember as a kid going to see films at the cinema - or even the Xmas films at school - and being disappointed if it was "only" in black and white. I did enjoy "The Train" though; now, Durnford did play a "blinder" in that! Wink

Best

H

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:00 am

Haydn

Lowering the contrast/colour, I don't think will show b&w at its best, because there may be more to filming in b&w than not using colour film, to bring out the sharpness of the images, defining them more clearly.

I only know a tad about photography, which I know isn't exactly the same, but apparently to get a really good b&w photo, my book suggested using an orange filter over the lens. Not sure why. Confused

Film-making techniques, must have a somewhat superior method of showing b&w at a higher level, taking into account lighting, shadows,etc.

C.J.

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:49 pm

Coll,
You're quite right that black and white is more than a matter of turning the colour down on a monitor or even just shooting or printing on monochrome stock. Usually cinematographers will light differently for b&w, to bring out the contrast more - colour-in-b&w tends to took washed out. As for the value it brings, like any other technique it depends on why it's used - one common reason is that (as in the cases of the two Clooney films - though I think the self-directed GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK is much better than THE GOOD GERMAN) it's a shot cut to suggesting period, because of the association most people have of b&w with old movies. In the 50s and 60s, when it was no longer the standard "default" option or used for reasons of economy (colour stock became much cheaper in the 50s), it was chosen by many filmmakers because it created a more serious, "realistic" atmosphere than the overly bright colour stocks commonly used - hence its use in THE LONGEST DAY and THE TRAIN, to suggest semi-documentary realism. It can also be used for the opposite reason, to suggest a Gothic, expressionistic atmosphere (e.g. in horror and fantasy films, where it helps to create a stylised, self-contained world unlike the real one). But generalisations are odious!

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:30 pm

Sheldon

Many thanks for your detailed answer.

On a different, but connected way to 'Schindler's List', and the scene with the child's red jacket.

I've only seen something similar, in the film 'Reign Of Fire', which although wasn't filmed in b&w, the red colour of the tomatoes and the green of the apple were made to stand out against the bleak surroundings, as well as the flames from dragons and fires caused, outside of the castle walls.

Would dark filters have been used to dull down all the colours not suitable for what is meant to be a burned and blackened, post-apocalyptic environment ?

As it couldn't always just have been filmed on miserable, overcast days.

Obviously, various colours are more prominent inside the castle, with it being lit up by candlelight, etc., in the film.

C.J.

PS. Not sure what you will think of 'Reign Of Fire' as a film, but it is a favourite of mine - hence the new username - but it didn't do so well as the cinema, apparently costing about �60million, but only taking in �80 million.

These figures I've quoted, could be wrong now, as it doesn't include dvd sales, etc.

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:06 pm

I don't clearly recall REIGN OF FIRE, but I'd guess that the colours were altered digitally in post-production. This is now the norm on virtually all films: the negative is scanned into a digital file, colour corrections are made on computer, then the file is "rendered" back to film. I'm sure there are ways of adding or removing colours using traditional photochemical means (as probably happened on SCHINDLER'S LIST), but don't ask me how!

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:38 pm

Sheldon

I wrote a link here to youtube showing the 'Reign Of Fire' trailer, but it doesn't seem to work.

However, it only gives a hint of how it looks and the way it was filmed.

C.J.

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:43 pm

I think I have it on DVD anyway - I just haven't watched it since it came out!

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 7:56 pm

Sheldon

It is like a post-apocalyptic variation of Beowulf - Van Zan being a similar character.

A very different kind of role for the actor who portrays him.

I enjoy it, but not sure if you will.

C.J.

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:07 pm

As I said, I have actually seen it, at the cinema on first release. I just haven't watched it again since.

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:26 am

Sheldon

No, you didn't actually say that.

However, others will be viewing this discussion and may want further details about the film.

C.J.