A new film, as yet untitled, made by Peter Jackson (of Lord of the Rings fame) and his company WingNut Films has just been announced. Commissioned by the UK World War I centenary art organisation 14-18 NOW, and scheduled to be premiered at the London Film Festival in November 2018, with cinema and school showings and a BBC One broadcast planned, it is clearly expected to make a great impact as it marks the end of the 1914-1918 centenary events. The film is described on the 14-18 NOW site as follows:
Building on Jackson’s extensive interest in and knowledge of the First World War, this exciting new film will use modern-day techniques such as colourisation to portray the Great War as never before, and promises to provide a 21st-century public with a unique new perspective on the 20th century’s most shocking conflict.
What is going on here? Colourisation of black-and-white film is not a new thing, of course. It was introduced in 1980s by studios with the hope of converting old film into more marketable commodities for generations who could only accept colour. The results were frequently garish, and the reactions from filmmakers and commentators was invariably hostile, objecting to the abuse of art and the ignorance of how the films has been originally composed (lighting, design, costume) for showing in black-and-white. There was nervousness over what would happen if ever someone decided to colourise Casablanca or other such classics. In the end, colourisation became a niche activity, derided by anyone who knew their film history, but still surviving on some bargain bin DVD releases and afternoon TV slots.
In 2003 there was a television series, World War I in Colour. Over six episodes it presented an entirely colourised film of the war, accompanying a standard narrative related by Kenneth Branagh. Aside from its garishness, there were criticisms from those who knew their military history and their film history. To begin with, in the First World War era, film was made on orthochromatic stock. Such stock was sensitive to green and blue, but lacked red sensitivity. Only with panchromatic stock, introduced in the 1920s (after earlier experiments) was sensitivity to all colours established. So the idea that by colourising a First World War film you were using the black-and-white record as a key to a hidden colour record was false. The authentic colour could not be digitally deduced from the monochrome. So it was that there were falsities of uniform colours, insignia, skin tones, skies and landscapes. It was a fantasy, the equivalent of a period colour postcard, or the artificially coloured films of that time, where colours were painted mechanically onto the film stock. Very pretty sometimes, but quite untrue.
There was some colour film made during the first few months of World War One, in the Kinemacolor process. There were some scenes taken of Belgian troop movements and the evacuation of Ghent and Ostend – footage that is now lost – and film of the British navy off Scapa Flow in 1915 for the documentary feature Britain Prepared, a few minutes of which do survive. This is what that colour looks like:
But the rest the First World War film archive, 99.9999% of it, is in black-and-white. That’s the historical reality. That is our inheritance.
There is an argument for the colourisation of footage from the First World War. One can say that the original film is, of course, not reality, but a reflection of reality. Overlaying it with colour is only a further treatment of that reflection of reality, a way of looking at the past rather than the pretence of being the past itself. One could argue that the original filmmakers would have chosen colour if they could (undoubtedly so), so that colourisation is only a belated response to their wishes. One could argue that Jackson’s film is a work in its own right, with the express purpose of communicating an idea of the immediacy and humanity of the war through means that speak to a young generation who know nothing of black-and-white film. The original films remain in black-and-white, to be consulted separately as the precious artefacts that they are. No damage has been done, and some good has been achieved.
Such arguments can be made, and the latter forms the basis of this new work. But it is a nonsense. Colourisation does not bring us closer to the past; it increases the gap between now and then. It does not enable immediacy; it creates difference. It makes the past record all the more distant for rejecting what is honest about it. Jackson has said in interview:
The results we have got are absolutely unbelievable. This footage looks like it was shot in the last week or two, with high definition cameras … It’s not the usual film of the First World War. The faces of the men just jump out at you. It’s the human beings that were actually there …
If we want to encourage a new generation to understand what the war meant – and of course this is a good thing – we should be inviting them to look at the films as they were made and through that effort to appreciate them for what they are, and what they meant in their time. It’s the effort that creates the understanding. Without that there is no true sympathy, only false sentiment. Film that looks like it was shot last week belongs only to last week.
Apparently not only has the Jackson film has been made with the blessing of the Imperial War Museum (home to the UK’s First World War film archive), but the IWM co-commissioned it. This seems hard to believe. To me, it is contrary to everything that film archiving is about. Yes, on some occasions archive film can and should be manipulated for particular ends. It need not always be treated reverently in its original form alone – that way elitism lies. But using it to show what it is not does more damage than good. If we want people to understand the past, we should not be colouring it.
- The press release for the Peter Jackson film, for which just the one still has been made public so far, is on the 14-18 NOW website
- There was almost no colour film of the First World War made, but quite a number of colour photographs survive, taken using the Autochrome process. There is a fine display of some on Slate.com. Here’s an example: