Miracle on 34th Street (the colorized version)

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/18/06 at 5:53pm

I was watching this on tv the other night. In the scene where Kris is riding in the cab on the way to Bellevue, the scenery outside the back window of the cab wasn't colorized.

[justme2]

Posted: 12/18/06 at 6:26pm

Why were you watching the colorized version? You should be instantly turning the channel to give a clear message to the station running it. Run the movie as it should be, or don't run it all.

*end rant*

Note: If you get TCM in your area, check the schedule for this week and next. They played the movie a couple of weeks ago, and might me again.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/18/06 at 6:42pm

I'm not happy about the colorized films either, but the stations continue to show them. Besides, there was nothing else on tv to watch.

After the movie, they had a "Making Of Miracle" which was interesting. They had an interview with Maureen O'Hara. She had gone to Ireland, and the studio called her back to do the movie and she wasn't too pleased about having to return to the US so quickly. She said they filmed part of it in Macy's after the store closed, and they tried on clothes which they probably weren't supposed to be doing.

They also interviewed Natalie Wood's sister. Natalie was filming two other movies at the same time as Miracle. It's a wonder she could keep them all straight.

ETA: I hadn't realized that they released Miracle in the summer. When they advertised it, they made sure not to mention that it was a Christmas story.

Updated On: 12/18/06 at 06:42 PM

[Rose_MacShane]

Posted: 12/18/06 at 6:45pm

Colorized movies are blasphemous. I can't imagine how awful It's A Wonderful Life would look after that sickly watercolor process...

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/18/06 at 7:03pm

Black-and-white is so passé!

Updated On: 12/18/06 at 07:03 PM

[justme2]

Posted: 12/18/06 at 11:27pm

Yeah, Shirley Temple's movies went through the blasphemous colorization process as well, and it's dissapointing to see those re-issues still available for sale.

Goth...I know the interview with O'Hara that you saw. She was always such a good person to talk to about the movie process. Most, if not all of the classic actors refer to the colorization of the classics as a bastardization of the medium.

thank goodness that effort died. Now, if we could only get directors nowadays to stop re-editing their films for DVD releases and let their work stand as is.

[tmm_fan]

Posted: 12/18/06 at 11:53pm

There is also good colorization and bad. Yes, I do agree that black and white films should never be colorized. But what really gets me about the original Miracle on 34th Street is that the coloring looks so cheap. I mean, the Wizard of Oz is so so much better. The era that those films are from, too ... compared with films of today, one totally gets the feeling that black and white movies are made for black and white, if that makes any sense.

[justme2]

Posted: 12/19/06 at 12:14am

Well, comparing Wizard of Oz to the colorization process of the 1980's is not really right. Technicolor films of the thirties and forties are a different process from the colorization technique that we are talking about here. Wizard of Oz was supposed to be in color, so was Becky Sharp (pre-dating Oz).

The silent movie technique of actually colorizing the negative is closer to what was done in the 1980's. Both processes are terrible, though the silent movie intention was to place color in the film to make a strong point or image, whereas the colorization technique of the 1980's was to "improve" upon a finished classic film in order to "update" it or make it look "better". Which was wrong. Very wrong. The black and white films of the 20's, 30's, 40's, etc...were designed for black and white film stock.

It was like taking an Ansel Adams photo and saying...you know, if we put a little green in these trees, and incrreased the white of the snow capped mountains, this photo would be sooooo much better.

[tmm_fan]

Posted: 12/19/06 at 12:22am

I totally agree, and know that Wizard of Oz was meant for color. And the color there "is" much better than the original Miracle, probably because the sets and whole fantasy aspect of it demand color. I do believe that black and white films should stay black and white, just as color should stay color.

[justme2]

Posted: 12/19/06 at 12:26am

I'm confused by one of your statements above....the one about Oz being better color than the original Miracle's...did you think that Miracle on 34th street was originally in color? The 1940's Miracle?

[tmm_fan]

Posted: 12/19/06 at 12:35am

Oh no, of course not; I definitely prefer the black and White version. Just comparing the colorized one with wizard ofc oz, I prefer wizard of oz. The colorized Miracle doesn't look right and totally misses a huge element from the black and white version.

I wasn't referring at all to the re-make (which I actually like as well; not as much as the original, but it's stlll pretty good).

[justme2]

Posted: 12/19/06 at 12:37am

oh! Thank you for clarifying!

The colorization of any film is distracting, as the colors are most often pastel-ish and very often, as someone noted above...parts are left uncolored. Like Shirley Temple's teeth, for one. Yeah, grey teeth? Not cool!

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/19/06 at 2:25am

The colorized Yankee Doodle Dandy has cagney looking like a made up cadaver in a funeral home

The colorized King Kong makes evident the primitiveness of the special effects. Imagine Citizen Kane getting the makeover .

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/19/06 at 8:53am

tmm_fan---You are absolutely right when you say that black and white films look like they were MADE to be b&w.

I had a good friend who was a star at Warner Bros. during the time of both b&w and color films. She made both for the studio, and said her makeup was very different for b&w than for Technicolor. The b&w makeup was subtler, more shadowy. The lighting was very different on the sets. The fabrics and materials chosen for the costumes were different. They were all geared toward what worked best in b&w.

For color, she said her makeup was MUCH heavier. Deep red lips, longer eyelashes, thicker foundation, etc. This was for the Technicolor lighting which was VERY bright and very intense. Again, sets and costumes were designed differently for color photography, as well.

So, you're basically taking the art director, costume, hair & makeup personnel's very careful and calculated decisions... and throwing them out the window with a bunch of cheap computerized tints that try to show you what wasn't meant to be there in the first place.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/19/06 at 9:20am

"I had a good friend who was a star at Warner Bros."

I've always denied that you and Bette Davis were contemporaries.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/19/06 at 10:16am

Oh, PJ, that made me laugh.


Actually... I was her mother.

[broadwaystar2b]

Posted: 12/19/06 at 11:28am

I absolutely loathe the colorization of the classics

Do they even sell the original Shirley Temple films in B&W anymore? I still remember that they colorized "The Little Colonel" which totally negates the final scene of the movie when they actually switched to Technicolor for dramatic emphasis.

[justme2]

Posted: 12/19/06 at 12:30pm

They are more difficult to find than the colorized versions, broadwaystar2b....but I haven't searched for a Temple movie for awhile now, so I hope the DVD's went back to the original black and white.

[hannahshule]

Posted: 12/19/06 at 12:46pm

For a lot of the Shirley Temple DVDs you are given the choice to choose to watch the original BW version or the colorized on the menu.