So the question is: is Clerks the last genuine black and white movie?
The thing is it can be harder and more time consuming to properly light sets with black and white, from what I've read, as well as working in tones instead of colours and making sure they show up well.
And really it seems like they used b&w more for the artistry than being absolutely forced to use it because of the budget
The flaw with the example is that they could have chosen to simply not have the room be pink. That seems more an artistic reason than a practical one.
I understand, but for one, Whedon has a worth of about $100 million, so I'm sure he could have dipped into his coffers if he had to offset the limited budget.
Secondly, there would have been such a minimal difference if they had decided to keep it in color instead.
One character having a bright pink room is the sort of thing that lends character to the nature of moviemaking.
, but if I can find cheaper ways to do it on a small budget, I will. Just because he has the money, doesn't mean he wants to spend it needlessly.
Exactly. Which proves it wasn't for artistic intent and the black and white was for budgetary reasons
Unless the director does not want that.
filmmakers often use their own funds to finance their films if they have to.
What I'm saying is they didn't have to shoot in black and white,
Exactly, purely because of aesthetics and not money limitations.
Exactly. "If they have to." Joss didn't have to. He could just shoot in black and white and not spend the money..
They did to save money
o not spend money changing the aesthetics
Joss had the ability and the funds to shoot in color.
Whereas with Clerks, Kevin Smith was forced to use black and white film, he had no option to use colour like Whedon did.
The success of his film did not depend on it in being black and white.
The film would have been the same in color or in b&w.
A neglible amount.
Aesthetics that only need to be changed subjectively, not by any strict requirement.
budgeted with his unlimited funds.
Robert Rodriguez made a color film for a fraction of Smith's budget. By your rationale, Smith had plenty of money to shoot in color and chose not to. So Clerks was not black and white for budget reasons any more than Much Ado About Nothing
He wasn't shooting in black and white to make some huge profit. It was to just get it made.
Or he doesn't want to repaint his house. As many filmmakers do not wish to repaint sets
You can make all the arguments you want, but at the end of the day, the creator himself has specifically stated he shot in black and white for budgetary reasons.
A misnomer. Simply spending an extra grand or two (seeing as Whedon probably financed the film himself) to repaint a couple of rooms or reconfigure lighting wouldn't break his costs.
Just because Rodriguez could afford colour film doesn't mean Smith could.
And he could have easily just made it in colour.
Or he could have just not repainted it and shot it as it was. In colour.
No doubt he would say that to avoid labels of the film going for style over substance.
Irrelevant. Plenty of studios wouldn't break bank to shell out a few million for a movie. Doesn't mean they should if a budget has already been established
If it's all about the bottom line, as you are pointing out, then yes, Smith could've. He had nearly four to five times the budget. Robert Rodriguez made it work. Clearly, Smith could've too since he had more money, which you're arguing Whedon did.
He'd have to repaint and redress the sets. Which would cost money.
Which he did not want. Plus, there's a lot more to set/costume design than just "shoot it as is."
So the only recourse left is to call the creator a liar?
You keep saying irrelevant as though you can just wish away facts.
Are you really telling me he couldn't write an extra check for a few thousand to repaint some rooms and get some proper lights?
As I said, their circumstances were different. Smith has gone on record saying his only light source was florescent lighting since they were shooting at night (Rodriguez obviously didn't have to worry about that), and they wouldn't have the money to colour-correct it if it turned out bad in colour
Again, purely for aesthetic reasons.
Maybe, maybe not.
I hardly think a pink room would ruin the set design.
Well aside from being talentless and a hack, I'd imagine being a liar is the least of his faults.
Except when Smith shot during the day.
Well, no, there is no maybe. There is a lot more to designing the visual look of a film than just "Let's just shoot it." That's why people specialize in cinematography and DP'ing.
You'd be wrong. An overpowering color like that could throw off the entire look of the scenes, bleeding into other colors, ruining the tone, over powering the characters, and distracting the audience
But I would like you to elaborate on how he's "talentless and a hack." But please, none of that "in my mind" nonsense. That's not evidence.
In any case, back to your original point: That's wrong too. Following, Pi, and Escape from Tomorrow all came out after Clerks. In black and white. For budget reasons.
Only scenes outside the store. They were only able to shoot inside during the night when the convenience store wasn't in use.
Plenty of filmmakers are able to use a set "as is" because they don't need to redecorate.
Yeah. "Could" throw off a scene. Or it could just add to a film's charm
Anyway, as I've repeated tirelessly to you, it's an aesthetic decision, not a practical one.
It's evidence precisely because he's the sort of person that would use the black and white budget excuse as some kind of fashionable attempt to dismiss it as an artistic gimmick.
Following maybe. The other two don't count.
The fact that we can now shoot movies with iPhones proves those filmmakers were just more hipsters jumping on the "we're too cool to shoot in color" bandwagon.
scenes where you can clearly see the sun outside.
Yep, could. Not for this movie.
Except when it saves money. Like in Much Ado About Nothing.
Your opinion is not evidence. Sorry.
Yes, they do. Especially since Pi came out the same year as Following.
Randy Moore: "We were shooting with really fast lenses wide open, so our depth of field was razor thin. Black and white helped us enormously with focus and composition, since we were doing almost everything in camera and didn't use a focus puller."
Subjective enough not to be considered a budget issue.
It saved him a tub of paint.
The black and white was part of the movie's main attraction.
The problem is your not willing to see the other side of the story. You're myopic.
Fact: It was more expensive for Aranofksy to film Pi in black and white.
They could have used different lenses, they could have used different cameras.
It's a given fact that modern filmmakers are able to shoot in colour and not worry about costs.
The fact that a movie was released this year that was shot on an iphone on the streets of LA proves that black and white isn't a necessary tool anymore.
So go out and spend money on other lenses and cameras? Yep. Budget reasons.