Modern Hollywood Hates Real Colour!

Frequent commenter, Ricardo Cantoral, pointed this Blu-Ray box art out to me in the comments on my last post. I am likewise appalled by how lackluster (and plain ugly) the art direction is on this box cover. Especially when you consider how rich the colour was in the original version of True Grit, as evidenced by the still I've included below.

Unfortunately, a lot of recent Blu-Ray releases of classic films from that era are suffering the same fate when it comes to the way the idiots in the various home video departments are choosing to market them to the consumer. It's quite obvious from the way recent films look that Hollywood has turned its collective back on real colour, preferring to sap it all out through digital desaturation technology and replacing it with what amounts to a blue, brown or gold monochrome with a few key areas pumped up with a complementary colour for contrast. I personally find the process ugly and maddening, resulting in me shunning most films released today.

Therefore, I think it's terribly ignorant of modern Hollywood to foist their tasteless choices onto older movie buffs, by way of marketing classic colour films of the glorious past with this repugnant box art. Here are some more examples of this obnoxious trend:

Not only is this devoid of the movie's colour, but look at the lousy composition, with the image cut off in the middle of Ratso Rizzo's right eye!

Though Hitchcock shot this classic caper in vivid Technicolor, it appears that Cary Grant and Grace Kelly are consoling each other over having both been stricken with jaundice!

Judging by what they've done to poor Popeye Doyle here, I think there is more likely a French's Mustard Connection.

And finally, here's one that I find unforgivable. This new seven disc set on Blu-Ray of the films of Marilyn Monroe is being marketed with this washed out black and white still (against a sterile white background), slightly accented with very muted colours, when most of the films in this collection are some of the most gorgeous Technicolor films of all time! I'll probably end up purchasing it for the (presumably) sharp, vivid colour  prints of these great films, but I'll be doing so DESPITE this awful marketing decision on the box art. Seriously, why couldn't they take a cue from the box art of the DVD collection pictured below and present Marilyn in all her Technicolor beauty?

I think I need to clear my mind of all this modern Hollywood tastelessness by watching Marilyn's iconic Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend number from Gentlemen Prefer Blondes:

Send In The Clones

A couple months ago, after much debate, I made the decision to phone in a cancellation order on my cable TV service. That cancellation took effect a few weeks ago, so I am now without TV reception whatsoever. Fact is, I haven't liked what TV has offered for many years now, so I really couldn't justify paying the exorbitant monthly fee for it anymore. There are numerous reasons as to why I no longer enjoy TV, but for now I'm just going to specify one of them. (With more rants to undoubtedly follow!)

Take a look at the DVD cover shots I've posted above of a cross sampling of several current TV dramas. In my opinion, based on these cast pics, they might as well all be from the same show. Note the similarities throughout:

- The cast members are all rather stand-offish from each other, with no interaction among themselves. The poses are pretty stiff, straight up and down (with a few exceptions). They all seem very self aware, caught up in their own presumed self-importance, hands on the hips and crossed arms all geared to intimidate. These cast shots all remind me of the way contemporary rock bands pose in their publicity shots. Ugh!

- Aside from a central figure who may be an older character actor, the ensemble casts are all blandly attractive young hipsters, all obsessed with looking cool and aloof, the young men usually sporting several days of facial hair, the gals all trying to be as badass in attitude as their male counterparts. They all seem so devoid of individual personalities and mannerisms that they are pretty much indistinguishable from each other!

- None of these shows feature real colour. I've posted about this ugly trend of desaturation before, but it's become the default look for all television dramas as well as most dramatic films these days. They all use their silly computers to remove all the natural colour and give everything a blue-grey tinge or tamper with it in various other ways. Additionally, all these shows are as dark visually as they are in tone, with foreground characters kept mostly in shadow, yet being backlit with unpleasant florescent light or strong blue-grey window light. Despite some of these shows taking place in hot, sunny climes, the warm colours of a hot sunny day are never evident.

To be fair, the only one of these shows I've actually seen is Criminal Minds (and a bit of one episode of Warehouse 13, which was wretched), but I'm certain that I've probably witnessed bits and pieces of most of these and numerous other likeminded shows, so I really don't think I'm off-base with my overall assessments. In the case of these contemporary crime dramas like Criminal Minds, CSI, NCIS, etc, they all seem to feature ever more grisly criminal acts shown in nauseating detail. The main characters are all just ciphers, not really personalities at all, every last one of them acting in the exact same manner in every episode, one by one putting in their two cents worth of analytical deduction in those roundtable scenes. And the overall tone of every episode seems to be one of unrelenting grimness!

In contrast, the crime dramas of the 60s and 70s that I grew up with, kept the violent imagery to a minimum, instead building the shows around the charismatic personalities of the detectives, and allowing some light, joyful moments to break up any chance of slipping into grim monotony. Detectives like Joe Mannix, Jim Rockford, and Lt. Columbo seemed far more human and likable than any of their counterparts today. And from the colour and lighting, you knew all three of these particular shows took place in sunny LA!

So, there you have it - the first of what may become several more rants about what television has deteriorated into. Sorry, but that's how this self-confessed curmudgeon feels about it.

More Colour Commentary

My blog post from Sept. 24th entitled Whatever Happened To Colour? was noticed and picked up by the folks over at Boing Boing which led to a lot of comments both for and against my stance on the issue of desaturation run rampant on today's movie screens (not to mention in most TV shows now too.) Well, that Boing Boing post was in turn noticed by the folks at CBC News, and producer Nigel Hunt then contacted me to ask if I'd be interested in being interviewed on the subject.

I agreed to it, so Nigel brought cameraman Doug and on-screen personality, Deana Sumanac to my home to conduct the interview. Though they were here for about an hour, only about 10 seconds' worth of what I said actually made it in to the segment, but I know that's par for the course with TV news and the piece was finally broadcast on tonight's broadcast of CBC News' The National. Anyway, if you're curious enough to take a look, don't blink or you'll miss me!

Thanks again to CBC's Nigel Hunt for putting it together and showing interest in my views on the issue. I'm also very happy to have had the pleasure of meeting lovely Deana Sumanac, shown in the photo above.

Whatever Happened To Colour?

Those who know me well know that I am very much steeped in the popular culture of the 50's and 60's. In fact, most of my favourite movies were made in roughly that twenty year span. That's not to say that I believe movies were better overall from that era in terms of writing and direction, but when it comes to colour and sound then, yes, there's a wealth of pleasure for the senses to be found during that period.

Just the other night I put on my DVD of 4 For Texas, starring Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin alongside those fine Swedish and Swiss imports respectively, Anita Ekberg and Ursula Andress. To be sure, it's a mindless piece of fluff that would never end up on any film critic's list of all-time classics, but it's a bit of fun and most importantly, it looks great! Like most films of that era, it is crisply lit and absolutely awash in lush colour. I know most of you likely value content in a film over style, but not me - I prefer style, critics be damned! (Of course, the goal should be to have both wonderful content and style.)

For me, a movie has to lure me through the senses - it must appeal to the eyes and ears. At one time, Hollywood used to knock itself out trying to do this, with lush Technicolor and memorable music scores. Cinematographers, art directors, costume designers - all were hired for their skill in bringing aesthetic appeal to meet with the director's vision. Scenes were beautifully lit in order to showcase the attractiveness of Hollywood's leading stars of the day, with their warm, tanned flesh tones and well-tailored wardrobes:





But not now...

Hollywood has decided that we can't have beautiful imagery anymore. These days, it seems that the default look for most (if not all) movies is like this - colours drained of all their bright hue and given an overall dull blue tinge:





It's bad enough when horror, sci-fi and fantasy movies seem to slavishly adhere to this unpleasant template, but even mainstream adult dramas like Up In The Air and Fair Game (both of which are films that I would otherwise like) are being drained of all their colour in post-production. This unfortunate trend in dreariness also lessened my enjoyment of last year's Best Picture winner, The King's Speech.

Recently, I did some searching on Google to find out whether others are equally disturbed by this ugly trend in today's films. Sure enough, I turned up this article that helps to explain what is going on. It's interesting to read the numerous comments afterward, as there are many, like me, who abhor this unpleasant trend, while others defend it as being true to the director's "vision". Though they may like to think of themselves as unique visionaries, most directors working today merely conform to one basic template of mediocrity that the Hollywood studios all decree must be followed. Because of this trend toward the drab and ugly, I find myself seeing fewer and fewer films with each passing year. Perhaps Hollywood should realize that many older moviegoers are used to far richer looking movies from the more glorious past - today's films just turn us off. BLECCHH!!

Here's a final parting shot. Compare the dreary, blue-tinged Russell Crowe 2010 Robin Hood to the lush 1938 Technicolor classic starring Errol Flynn:




(And if you want to see the warm, rich colours of gorgeous Ursula Andress, here's the trailer from 4 For Texas!)