X-Envelope-to: CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:35:32 -0500
From:         JACKSOSM@VUCTRVAX.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Coloriz. isn't defilement or evil

Subj:   RE: Coloriz. isn't defilement or evil

>Rick Francis <C47805NF@WUVMD.BITNET> writes:
>
>A bunch of convoluted arguments in favor of colorization.
>
>The fact is: colorization is defilement and is evil.  Colorization is not the
>only evil defilement.  I would add the following:
>
>1. Panning and scanning of widescreen films.  Which only proves that seeing
>half of the frame is NOT better than seeing nothing.
>
>2. Adding more "up-to-date" music and even new voices to cartoons -- a
>practice I had not noticed until recently.  You can see it with Casper
>the Friendly Ghost and other cartoons from that studio.
>
>3. Insertion of footage to drag films out to two nights and therefore more
>commercials -- a practice that used to be very common on network TV, but maybe
>they have abandoned it.  Notice: I am not talking about restored footage that
>directors originally wanted in the film.  I am talking about OUTTAKES that
>nobody wanted.
>
>4. Insertion of scenes especially shot for TV.  Another practice that I think
>has been abandoned.  Example: EARTHQUAKE, the TV version of which has some
>characters not even in the original film.  And this version is still shown on
>local channels.
>
>5. Showing silent films at sound speed.  Also, showing silent films with sound
>effects.  I know that someone out there will call me a purist, and/or claim
>that silent films should be relegated to ancient artifact museums, and/or that
>silent films were accompanied by sound effects originally.  But when you watch
>a Chaplin comedy with assorted grunts, squeals and pig noises, you will know
>the meaning of defilement.
>
>6. Speeding up film to fit into time slots (they call it "time compression")
>and/or to get in additional commercials.
>
>Where will it all end?  I am sure that everyone has seen Paula Abdul's video in
>which she appears with Cary Grant, James Cagney (both colorized no less) and
>Gene Kelly (in the original color, I believe).  I can just imagine future
>video producers and entrepreneurs deciding to alter older films by inserting
>new stars, etc. so THE MALTESE FALCON would be shown a) colorized;  b) with
>some new music, maybe by Tone Loc;  c) with Bogart's voice dubbed in by, say,
>Tom Cruise; d) with Mary Astor removed completely and Madonna in her  place;
>d) all "old-fashioned" dialogue removed &  some new jargon put in its place
>(Sam Spade: "Why'd she dis me? I'm clueless."); e) all "corny" scenes removed;
>f) with the film sped up so it could fit into a 90 minute time slot,  etc etc.
>                                       --M. Kerbel

Sounds like a serious case of "translation.  Of course, Rick feels t
that unless "translation" occurs (a.k.a. gene splicing, metamorphosis,
transmogrification...and so on, c.f. Orwell's concept of the "ministry
of truth" in 1984), art becomes artifact, suitable for storage in
vaults, which, as I understand the discussion, is the apparent destiny
of B/W films.  Rick's argument boils down to the assertion that
"translation" in art is ubiquitious and necessary, therefore inevitable.
But I still can't see why he equates the mutilation of B/W films with
the process of "translation."  He has invested a lot of energy in
explaining why these ideas are coterminus, but I think he confuses two
entirely different processes: exegesis with entropy.

Because literary texts are translated into other languages
and received by other cultures, changes, both intended and unintended,
occur to the original work. This is a function of the root ambiguity
associated with all translation, and, in fact, all forms of
communication.  Cultural and historical diversity create distortions
(which, by the way, are not always destructive) in the text.  The kinds
of changes that are imposed on B/W films through colorization do not
enhance the understanding of the works.  Colorization isconstitutes a
destructive and gratuitous defacement of B/W prints that better deserve our
understanding and appreciation.  Rick's comments have
stimulated quite a lot of debate on this subject, probably more than
some people would prefer.  I respect his opinions and the intelligence
with which he conveys his ideas, but I believe he is absolutely wrong on
this matter.  Of course, since Rick doesn't actually  endorse the
practice of colorizing films, perhaps this entire discussion is moot.

j-man

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU