An Argument on Film Colorization

Film colorization, though may not be an extremely controversial topic, it has garnered some debate over the years. Film colorization is exactly that, the colorization of black-and-white movies for distribution or to be shown on TV. My argument is against the colorization of classic movies. I am against this because I believe it is ruining the filmmaker’s original intent.

Proponents of film colorization, such as Hollywood studios and various other film owners say that the owners of these movies have the right to present the films in whatever way they see fit (Yarrow). They also believe that enhancing these movies with color will help introduce them to a new audience. In doing this, the owners gain high television ratings and cash from video sales. This will have the proponents of film colorization believe that audiences prefer these versions over the originals, while there are still many people who do prefer the original.

There are various reasons why people are against film colorization. As I had said before, it ruins the original intent of the film (Penn). Filmmakers are probably the largest opponents of film colorization. They had painstakingly crafted the movie they wanted it to be. They do not want people “messing around with their visuals” (Trex). These filmmakers range from such famous people like Woody Allen to John Huston, critics such as Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert  and even actors, such as Jimmy Stewart. One well known example of a filmmaker standing up for his film against colorizing was from 1985, when Ted Turner, whose company Turner International owned a large backlog of movies and who made a “cash cow” from film colorizations, decided to color Orson Welles’ magnum opus Citizen Kane. Orson Welles was only weeks away from his death, and he asked a friend, “Don’t let Ted Turner deface my movie with his crayons.” This shows that filmmakers are very protective of their films.

Another reason against the colorization of movies is because of the morality of it. These companies believe that they can get a quick buck just from dusting off an old film reel, adding color to it and just rereleasing it. In 1988, Variety magazine reported that the cost to use the computerized software to add color would cost about $300,000 and the average revenue of that rerelease is $500,000 (Trex). In doing this, a studio could make almost double of what they invested into releasing its product. People have even criticized the outcome of the process. The question is if it is right to take something someone else created and change it to make a profit.

Another argument would be that film could technically be considered a form of art and that these companies are defiling something that is a work of art. In the fall of 1988, the National Film Preservation Board began operating, as an attempt to safeguard classic films during a time when colorization was in debate (Yarrow). Every year, the board can name up to 25 movies that represent “our nation’s historical and cultural heritage.” (Yarrow) Filmmakers see this as a milestone. Director Elliot Silverstein proclaimed, “Congress has acknowledged that film is an art.” (Yarrow) But, sadly, the board can not protect films from being colorized.

In conclusion, the coloring of black-and-white films ruins the intent of the filmmaker; how the film was originally supposed to look like. Changing the film’s look can drastically change the mood that the film original gained. Although the studios may be right in their intent to introduce these classics to a new, younger audience, are they also doing this out of greed? Is it comparable to, say, painting a moustache over the Mona Lisa? I believe that something should be done to boycott these film studios and their “altered materials”. 

Works Cited

Penn, Michael C. “COMMENT: Colorization of Films: Painting a Moustache on the ‘Mona Lisa’?” LexisNexis.  Litigation Essentials. University of Cincinnati. 1990. Web. 7 February 2013.

Trex, Ethan. “How (and Why) Are Black and White Films Colorized?” mental_floss. 25 January 2011. Web. 7 February 2013.

Yarrow, Andrew L. “Action but Ho Census on Film Coloring”. The New York Times. 11 July 1988. Web. 7 February 2013.