American cinematographer (Aug 1936)

August, 1936 • American Cinematographer 327 Why All This Hubbub W HAT'S all the shootin' for? Why the current beating of drums and hullabaloo about color films? How prophetic are paragraphs in the pub- lic prints that black-and-white is soon to be a rara avis, an historic museum piece, a quaint and curious custom of an out-moded era? In fine, how substantial is tlie pre- voiling renaissance of color? What is the true, unvarnished opinion of the industry of color's present and future place in motion picture production? In the endeavor to sift this controversial subject. The American Cinematographer has done a bit of pointed probing. In the guise of an inquiring Reporter, it has obtained true, off-the-record opinions and observations from informed factors qualified to reveal views of the in- dustry's many branches. Returns indicate that practitioners of the black-and- white art need not requisition a wailing wall for imme- diate usage nor anticipate approaching days of famine. To the contrary, the multiple-hued films appear mainly to have enhanced appreciation for the superlative artistic and dramatic creations that have been evolved in monochrome. Studio executives are loath to speak out loud on the color situation other than in formal approbative tones. That is good policy. Next week, exigencies of produc- tion schedules may toss a color film in their laps for man- ufacture. The same applies all the way down the line. No one cares to go on record. Tomorrow's task may be a color assignment; and a job's a job in any color. But their hearts are not in these public color puffs com- posed for exploitation purposes. There appear to be sev- eral prime reasons for this chill. Many are based on mani- fest limitations of available color processes under actual production conditions. Doing a feature in color may add anywhere from one to three or more hundred thousand dollars to the cost sheets. Every stage of production is slower and results are none too certain. There are elaborate tests of materials, fab- rics, textiles, cloths, paints, stains, enamels, washes and other piomented substances to establish results of light reflected from these colored surfaces on film undergoing the orocess in question. Juxtaoosition of colors, the effect of one color on an- other, the tendency of "strong" colors to dominate "weak" colors, are matters for tests with actual materials to de- termine. Reflected co^or plays queer and totally unex- pected tricks, and at unexpected moments. It is noh, at this stage of the game, a controllable quantity in the sense that light-and-shadow is. Increased electrical consumption, longer shooting sched- ules with longer salary outlays, higher percentage of re- takes, expensive daily rushes in color, intricate and var- iable laboratory processing in the hands of an outside third party, are a few of the budget-eating items. Libraries of stock shots in color are as nothing compared with black-and-white. Nor can the delicate color be al- tered to fit into production shots. Hence any known color process has definite limits of production possibilities. Story, cast, sets, wardrobe—every item involved—must be whittled down to the narrow ca- pabilities of the process. It is far distant from being a universal or all-inclusive medium at present stages of de- velopment. Regarding Color? With all this outlay of finance and talent, is the fin- ished color product worth it all in terms of audience ap- peal, entertainment value, box office return and eventual net profit? A tour of representative press critics, ex- hibitors and lay ticket-buying film viewers evokes few cheers for the rainbow division. Consensus is that color as a novelty has the exploita- tion value of any other box office novelty. And there it ends. A feature-length dramatic screen offering in color is a glorious technical triumph of modern science. The curious hastened to attend. They gave eye to the spec- tacle, the miracle—it could be done! They saw color and lots of it. Color fairly screamed from the screen and smacked them in the eyes. Color en- thusiasts self-consciously were determined to prove that color could be photographed. And photograph it they did, to the partial eclipse of drama of story or action. This emphasis on photography is an old gag. Any competent Director of Photography could, if he were so short-sighted, make his black-and-white photography so dominant in artistic content as to steal the picture. But he knows bet- ter. In "The Trail of a Lonesome Pine," Walter Wanger used every effort to keep color subdued into its proper place. The process battled him on every point. Even so, the proud boast of his producing staff, which is confirmed by theater-goers, is that after the first few minutes the au- dience lost itself in the unfolding story and became un- aware of the color. Then why color? Other than for its timely exploitation and novelty appeal? Critical reviewers confess their disappointment in con- stant appearance of colors untrue to the photographed subjects. The processes lack reproductive color fidelity, it seems. Flesh tones are noticeably unfaithful and many times unflattering. Women spectators in particular hit on this shortcoming. An hour or more of color, they hold, is too much color at one sitting. It is satiating, tiring. Eyes are accus- tomed to reading from black against white. Books, mag- azines and newspapers are not printed in vari-colored inks. And projected color is not the same as reflected color. The scene is "pretty," but not convincing. It may even be "beautiful," but lacking truth and realism. Hence the objections to features do not always fit short subjects. After an hour or two of black-and-white, ten to twenty minutes of color comes as a pleasant and enjoyable change. Especially where fidelity of color is not vital. A color scenic need not exactly convey truthful hues; the audience has never seen the original for comparison. There are projection problems. Intensity of screen color hinges on the theater. It is not< the same with a long "throw" as with a short one. Release prints may or may not be uniform in color content. Inclusion of color stifles the greatest of audience reac- tions; it does not stimulate the imagination. Color, of Continued on page 334