Question... can an indpendent black and white HD/HDV film be commercially as acceptable as a colour film?
Black And White...
- Thread starter mr-modern-life
- Start date
I've heard some people say that B&W films are always riskier bets in the market place, because it's seen as a Art House style choice.
I think that's less true than it was ten years ago -- You only have to look at products like Sin City to see that B&W can do box office, if it's done well.
The only thing I would point out is that B&W is harder to light. You do it differently from lighting for colour -- it takes experience to adjust your eye to lighting for contrast, rather than colour -- it helps if you use a camera with a high res B&W eye piece, rather than a colour LCD.
It also makes sense to have someone do the lighting who has done a lot of B&W stills work -- as most of the great B&W DOP's aren't working these days.
I think that's less true than it was ten years ago -- You only have to look at products like Sin City to see that B&W can do box office, if it's done well.
The only thing I would point out is that B&W is harder to light. You do it differently from lighting for colour -- it takes experience to adjust your eye to lighting for contrast, rather than colour -- it helps if you use a camera with a high res B&W eye piece, rather than a colour LCD.
It also makes sense to have someone do the lighting who has done a lot of B&W stills work -- as most of the great B&W DOP's aren't working these days.
In theory, lighting for B&W is the same as for colour, as you should always have the contrast in mind.. However, people are tending to start more with colour these days than with B&W, so the art form has been lost. Ansel Adams zone system techniques apply to lighting no matter what medium you're recording with. Granted, it's geared toward still photography the ideas apply to motion pictures as well.
cheers guys. It's a hard call as we want to set it out from the norm, with teh idea os using highlighted colour like Sin City for blood etc.
If you watch the extra feature of that you can get a good idea how to go about it..
Cheers guys
As usual the two best things to do are:
1. Ask your distributor. They know much more about the market than any of us do.
2. Take a look at your local video store. How many black and white movies to you see on the shelves?
My experience is no. People don't want to see movies in black and white. I found it interesting to look at the box office totals for 6 Coen brothers films:
The Ladykillers $39,692,139
Intolerable Cruelty $35,327,628
The Man Who Wasn't There $7,494,849
O Brother, Where Art Thou $45,506,619
The Big Lebowski $17,498,804
Fargo $24,567,751
One was considerably less successful than the others. Makes you wonder why.
I wholeheartedly enjoy B&W films... if they're done right. That's the sticking point here. It's difficult to create a popular, new B&W film. Sin City is the rare exception since it was so technically innovative.
I wish someone would bring back the cinematography of the 1930's and 1940's films <drool>, that would want to make me want to see more B&W titles. The soft closeups, the shadowy staircases, Bogart and Bacall...
I wish someone would bring back the cinematography of the 1930's and 1940's films <drool>, that would want to make me want to see more B&W titles. The soft closeups, the shadowy staircases, Bogart and Bacall...
I don't think the fact that "The Man Who Wasn't There" did less box office was entirely down to the fact it was B&W. It was also the most Art House Coen Brother's movie since Barton Fink, which was in colour and grossed $6,153,939, which for a $9M budget was a staggering loss. (Great film mind you)
But even that faired better than "The Hudsucker Proxy," also a colour film, that grossed $2,869,369 on a $25M budget.
Truth is that those Coen Boys just have to go out there and make a great film that doesn't have mass market appeal every now and again.
However, what I will concede is that because B&W is perceived by the industry to be more difficult to place, then you might be limiting the distributors that you can approach and also the way that they push it.
I also think, despite the fact I mentioned Sin City, it's a dangerous precedent because anything with the Tarantino name attached to it can afford to break all of the conventions -- plus it was recreating the look of an existing mass market product (Frank Miller's comic book).
If you're looking at B&W films that did well in the colour era, then Rumblefish leaps to mind, as does Erazorhead and The Elephant Man, but with two of those you're talking about David Lynch -- another film maker for whom the regular rules don't apply.
Bottom line though is Rik is right -- talk to your intended distributor first -- test the water.
Pre Fargo, they were struggling. From Fargo to Ladykillers their films were doing fairly well - with one staggering exception. Look at that percentage drop. I'm not suggesting that the stock was the one reason, but if you look at the box office in the last ten years will you find any films shot in black and white that did well? Twenty years? You might be right, we have to go all the way back to Elephant Man and Rumble Fish. Maybe Celebrity in 1998. Clerks in 1994 would be the exception, rather than a good example.
I suspect it was all the color in Sin City that helped - and the big names. And I suspect that a truly independent movie, shot in black and white, wouldn't find a distributor no matter how good it is. I'm passionate about black and white, I love it, I would shoot 90% of my movies in black and white.
I suspect it was all the color in Sin City that helped - and the big names. And I suspect that a truly independent movie, shot in black and white, wouldn't find a distributor no matter how good it is. I'm passionate about black and white, I love it, I would shoot 90% of my movies in black and white.
Maybe the train of thought here is focused on the fact that not many B&W films are made in the first place. So there is a natural fear of how a film in B&W is something that will draw enough people to want to watch it. But, if Money is what you're concerned about then perhaps you could just go mainstream all the way. Sorry.. Wasnt trying to be sarcastic 
Money is what I'm concerned about. In order to earn a living making movies we need to think about the marketability. The moment you are out the hobby stage - and there is nothing wrong with making movies as a hobby - money matters.Maybe the train of thought here is focused on the fact that not many B&W films are made in the first place. So there is a natural fear of how a film in B&W is something that will draw enough people to want to watch it. But, if Money is what you're concerned about then perhaps you could just go mainstream all the way. Sorry.. Wasnt trying to be sarcastic
Man this is making my life hard. A B&W British no budget no star action film. Fuck I may have killed the movie before we started!
True, but look what B&W did for Kevin Smith. Sometimes, you have to gamble.
Indeed and gamble is one thing I love doing