Star Wars and Black-and-Whites: “If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It!”

I know some restorations to film are necessary – “some” being the operative word here. A film needs to be upgraded to high definition to put it on a Blu-ray disc, even if the film wasn’t originally shot that way. I just looked through my Blu-ray collection, and it is mainly comprised of films that have been released in the last ten years when high-definition is the norm and with visual effects that would knock your socks off. The only Blu-ray I have that doesn’t have either of these aspects is All The President’s Men (1976) because you just can’t leave that on the shelf at Best Buy when it’s only five dollars.

I will not, however, buy Star Wars: Episodes 1-6 on Blu-ray, because that restoration just killed it for me. I can barely handle watching Return of the Jedi (1983) on DVD because Sebastian Shaw was the true Anakin Skywalker, post-Vader. Shaw is missing in this version, and with Hayden Christensen taking his place. This was unnecessary! Even changing Boba Fett’s voice to Jango’s (his father’s) was a change that took something away from the character. These were the only complaints I had with the DVD releases, even though I felt that the 1997 Special Editions should have been the ones to receive that DVD special treatment. Those changes, in my opinion, were necessary. I can’t see myself watching fudged-out gel on the bottom of a landspeeder.

When I saw the list of changes made for the Star Wars Blu-ray releases, I almost cried…in anguish. Who would want to hear Darth Vader cry “Nooooooooooooo!” as he is defeating the Emperor? And why do we need even more changes and tune-ups? I think I’ll stop at the DVD and only collect the new Star Wars films on Blu-ray.

Now let’s talk about black-and-white movies. They were shot in black and white, because color film may have not been available quite yet (at least in a wide range). But black-and-white is still just as effective. I have It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) on DVD, with both the original and a colorized version available. I’ve watched the black-and-white version numerous times because that’s how it should be viewed. I couldn’t get past the first five minutes of the colorized version, because it was too grainy and distracting. Why must this procedure be done?

(3-D film is another transformation that I’m not completely on board with. You can read my thoughts about it here.)

I tried (once) with King Kong (1933), and it just looked like a cheap B-movie. But this movie is so much better than that. The “look” of a film is one of the most important aspects of it because that’s the first impression of the picture. Black-and-white may lack color, but is that a big deal? The picture and performances are still there, and in great clarity. Orson Welles even said that black-and-white “is an actor’s best friend,” because it focused more on the actor’s feelings and expressions.

While this would be the case in the old black-and-whites, movies have evolved into color since then. Sure, The Wizard of Oz (1939) is in both aspects: the sepia tone when Dorothy is in Kansas and bright, rich colors after she lands in Oz. This is an exception to my argument since this was originally the purpose of the story and cinematography. Gone With the Wind (1939) is dazzling in color, too. I can’t fathom watching these two films completely in black and white. It would serve no purpose, just like adding color to black and white. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Or better yet, if it ain’t broke, why break it?!

Happy watching!