How Technicolor changed movies



You know this scene from The Wizard of Oz. It happens just after Dorothy croons in sepia-toned
Kansas, Toto wags his tail,
and the house gets caught in a tornado. She travels from a faded film strip to a Technicolor
world. But there are three things about this scene
you might get wrong. And each one helps show the real history of
Technicolor. These misconceptions explain what the
“Technicolor triumph” really was, from the technical aspects that made it work, to
exactly why it took over the movies, to the way in which the technology shaped the look
of the 20th century. Lie #1 – Wizard of Oz is not the first Technicolor
movie. Not even close. You might know that, but a lot of people don’t. Come on Maryland Science Center, you’re
better than this. Historian Barbara Flueckiger has an exhaustive
timeline of color in film, from hand-painted film
to the first movie filmed in “kinemacolor,” A Visit to the Seaside. But Technicolor stood out, and even it has
a history that long predates The Wizard of Oz. Herbert Kalmus, Daniel Frost Comstock, and
W. Burton Wescott founded the company in 1914, with the “Tech” referring to MIT, where
Kalmus and Comstock met. It started by merging red and green – into
a new image that roughly looked like this. You can see the look in this range of movies
from the late 1920s and early 30s. It could do passably well with skin tones,
but there’s no blue in these dresses for a reason. Blue came into the mix in 1932, when Technicolor
added the key third strip. They showed off the process in Walt Disney’s
Flowers and Trees, a gorgeous animated feature that was a botanist’s nightmare. You know, there are evil trees in Wizard of
Oz, too. “What do you think you’re doing?” Anyway, in order to get Technicolor to work,
it was an insanely difficult process. Technicolor distributed
guides like these and we can make a reasonable simulation digitally,
with a scene like this. So here’s a scene of some Lego people who
are apparently worshipping Lawrence of Arabia? Not sure what’s going on here, but it’s
our starting image. A technicolor camera would typically take
that picture and shoot it through a prism that split the light into red, blue, and green
negatives for the picture. Those negatives were then flipped into positive
“matrices,” which eventually got soaked with dyes of the
complementary colors. So the red matrix turned cyan, the green one
magenta, and the blue one yellow. Then the dye was transferred — this was
called a “dye transfer process” to create a final gorgeous Technicolor image. So if you’re anything like me, that explanation
might make you feel like the scarecrow. “Oh I’m a failure because I haven’t
got a brain.” So let’s try it again, but only look at
that red channel. So keep your eye on the View-Master, the red
in the Rubik’s cube, or maybe the Lego guy’s hat. It is all kind of dark now, because that’s
just the red color in the negative. Now flipped in the matrix, that red is really
bright, which means that when it’s dyed, it won’t get a lot of
cyan. And that makes sense. Cyan is the complementary color — it’s
the anti-red. So where you want a lot of red, you do not
want a lot of cyan. That way, when it comes together, you get
a ton of magenta and some yellow. You don’t have a lot of cyan, because the
cyan cancels out the red. In the earlier days of Technicolor, they also
had to amp up the contrast. The company would add a black and white layer
underneath the matrices to serve as something called "the key." You can see the results early, in films like
1934’s La Cucaracha, The Trail of the Lonesome Pine,
and Robin Hood, all of which came out well before the Wizard of Oz. It’s easy enough to roughly copy the technology
that “Technicolored” the Wizard of Oz. RGB split, color bath, mesh, repeat. But the film strip processes are just part
of the story. Lie #2: this scene? It’s not going from a black and white world
to a color one. The set was actually painted sepia-tone so
the same Technicolor process could be used for the bright Oz reveal. Today, it’s much easier. I can draw a box with my hand and with a click,
black and white and color play together. They even had techniques to do stuff like
this in the Oz days. But the fact that they built a sepia house
shows how Technicolor’s technical limitations shaped all color movies. “This is one of the cameras that was used
to film The Wizard of Oz.” “It weighs 4 to 500 pounds, and these cameras
were bigger than ordinary motion picture cameras because they had to run three strips of film
through them at any given time.” So remember — this scene? That had to be done with this beast of a camera. Those three strips didn’t just require more
space, they needed tons of light. That set had to be blazingly overlit to get
enough light through to these three strips of film. The set was reportedly 100 degrees Fahrenheit
at times. Sound was an issue, too. “It’s so loud when you’re running three
strips of film through a camera, so they had to build this blimp around it. It’s filled with soundproofing material
so when you’re making a sound film you don’t get all the sound from the camera throughout
the studio there.” Technicolor’s advantages outweighed its
limitations. It’s main advantage was the way in which
it could capture the tone of a scene. Two movies made in the same year could have
a different look, not just because of the choices made in front of the camera. Technicolor consultants and directors tweaked
the palette of the film by adjusting the cyan, magenta and yellow dyes. The complicated dye transfer process gave
Singin’ in the Rain some of its magenta-hued skin and deep saturated colors. The film and technology weren’t the only
things that gave Technicolor movies their distinctive look. It also shaped the world that they chose to
film. Lie #3: This isn’t the real Dorothy. It’s Judy Garland’s body double. She wore specially designed clothes and makeup
to match the sepia world, so Judy Garland could swoop in, in the same shot and
a blue dress, to join Technicolor Oz. These movies, and Oz, were shaped around Technicolor’s
abilities, from head to toe. “The second page that you see here is the
part of the script that shows the ruby slippers being unveiled, but what it shows is that
they were still silver shoes at this point, but the producers of the film really wanted
to show off that Technicolor that they were paying for, so they wanted them to be sparkly
ruby slippers that would look good against the yellow brick road. So they changed it at the middle of production
to ruby slippers.” Today, the shoes are kept under low light
to preserve them, but during the shoot they were blasted with light to accommodate the
camera and make those sequins sparkle. These weren’t just on-set decisions — Technicolor
was always pulling strings behind the curtains. Look at the credits for Wizard of Oz, and The Trail of the Lonesome Pine, and A
Star is Born, and so on and so on. You’ll see one name over and over. Natalie Kalmus. Once married to Technicolor cofounder Herb
Kalmus, she ruled with an iron fist over Technicolor productions for many of the early
years. Kalmus had over 300 film credits where she
gave Technicolor advice — and sometimes told directors what to do. This is the IMDB page for a woman born in
1882. In
documents like “Color Consciousness,” she extended her reach into art — the essay
includes aesthetic color theory. “Red: danger, blood, life, heat. Green: Nature, outdoors, freedom, freshness.” Kalmus’s influence was significant, but
it’s as important as a reflection of Technicolor’s power. Technicolor had its own processing facilities,
and its own camera crew that continued Natalie Kalmus’ work after she left the company. The technology and the production process
gave Technicolor a significant competitive advantage to alternatives being used. Despite all those alternatives shown on Barbara
Flueckiger’s website, studios stuck with Technicolor for a long time. It had a reliable system and
could be shown in any theatre in splendid color, without requiring special equipment. Technicolor eventually fell to cheaper processes
through the 1950s, like Eastman Color, that used a single strip. The Godfather, Part II was one of the final
major releases to use the Technicolor we recognize. But old prints remain surprisingly vibrant
today due to the dye transfer process used. Today, I can snap my fingers and be in
The Matrix or in Stranger Things’ Upside Down. Ok. What are all these dust particles? Is this asbestos? Am I covered in asbestos right now? Technicolor was never just a click —
the look was formed by the camera’s strengths and weaknesses, the artistic choices made
for color, and the Technicolor company’s infrastructure and supervision. In that key scene from the Wizard of Oz, you
might not have known the trivia about Dorothy’s double, or the sepia doorway, or even that
it wasn’t Technicolor’s debut. But one thing is easy to understand, intuitively. The movie is all about it. Technicolor wasn’t a switch or a doorway. It was a whole world, just waiting on the
other side. You can nerd out a lot more on Technicolor
by checking out Barbara Flueckiger’s website, or Eastman House, which was really generous
with their time and a lot of the images that you saw in this video. I’ve linked both of those below. You can see the director’s commentary for
this video in an additional video that we’ve made where I share some behind-the-scenes
info and a few of the details that couldn’t quite fit in.

43 Comments

  1. sclogse1 said:

    Ultimately, I bow to the genius of these film makers. You gotta remember electricity was only around a few decades before Technicolor. Machining…how long before? I have a Kodak Cine II 16mm camera, and the thing is a marvel of engineering for mass production. And it's a tank. Just the shipping costs…

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  2. Upson Pratt said:

    My "Jackman Color" process never took off. I invented it in 1932 when I was 54 years old. I broke me and took all my money. My special process had colors nobody ever saw before like "Grorange", and "Dyodium", also there was "Lakia" which gave my test audiences headaches. The told me my process produced fumes that killed some people.

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  3. JakulaithWolff said:

    Them Cyans must be stopped.

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  4. JakulaithWolff said:

    What if our films has always been and are actually still black and white but its the editors job to colorize them?

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  5. greebleClown said:

    5:53 I work backstage in theater. Let me tell you, powerful enough LEDs were the best thing to happen for everyone involved. Still gets friking hot, but not as bad as it was.

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  6. Adrian Arencibia said:

    This is when movies were a lot better in my like if anyone agrees with me.

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  7. callum 6098 said:

    fun fact about me:
    when I was like 6 i once asked my mum ‘back in the olden days, could you only see black and white?’
    i’m so smart!

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  8. radhika nair said:

    mind=blown

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  9. Charlotte Connelly said:

    Gone with the wind "39 has gorgeous technicolor

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  10. 뿡뿡! ^__^ said:

    100 degrees Fahrenheit = … WHAT? This is the 21st century, for God's Sake. Use the universal standard metric system! Is it so bloody hard? I am sick of having to look up a temperature conversion every time I watch an American video. I love America, but for the love of God, get with the program. The entire world uses Celsius, not Fahrenheit. It is simpler and makes more sense. I looked it up for anyone who isn't American: 100 degrees Fahrenheit = 37.8 degrees Celcius.*

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  11. Joujoubox said:

    But if you need to use a dye of the opposite color, why not just add red blue and green to the negatives?

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  12. Christian Værum said:

    What is the music used inthe beginning?

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  13. Dominique Descottes said:

    Actuellement en dans un espace physique de quelques dizaines de cm2 il est possible de réaliser un trqvai identique a celui qu'il était possible de faire avec ce très volumineux matériel,coûteux,complexe
    Mais il a laisser de très belles,et mémorables.productions
    20/20 pour ce documentaire

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  14. BixLives32 said:

    Wrong about one BIG detail! —about the CMY. That would have required "K" -i.e. BLACK. I.e., cyan, magenta and yellow have no way of easily producing BLACK. Yeah, it can do fair replica of back, but the latitude is poor without a dedicated black channel . RGB idoes much better with this. Technicolour is basically RGB. It is also highly over-saturated.
    HOWEVER, KODACHROME was out and commercially available c.1934 and s FAR superior and CHEAPER. Yes, the developing process was insane, but it still would have been simpler, CHEAPER and more accurate.
    I was a custom film and darkroom technician for a spell. A wealthy family once brought in a huge box of family 8mm KODACHROME film -all pre-1937. Most of it from 1935 – 1936. The celluloid was decomposing, but the condition was quite and restorable. The big news was that i did not need to do ANY colour corrections! It was bloody perfect…80 years later! All I did was clean the film, fix broken parts with software and transferred it modern stock. TRUE STORY: Jean Harlow, once ended up in the hospital BLINDED for a spell because the strong Technicolour LIGHTS, on close-ups, burned her corneas!
    SO…Maybe you know why Hollywood did NOT choose the Kodachrome process? I cannot figure this out. Perhaps the Great Yellow god, wanted too much bread?

    PS: Kodachrome was invented by a home inventor in his bathtub c. 1932! The processing requires 25 steps and deadly accurate temperatures. Golly.

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  15. BPP 9 said:

    I still feel like the scarecrow but this was informing

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  16. • TinCan • said:

    "You know this scene from The Wizard Of Oz?"

    "no…no i really don't…."

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  17. Chaíça said:

    Incredible

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  18. James Davidson said:

    The video is hard to watch, many of the effects are just out of point.

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  19. PUVI said:

    So those palettes were kinda cmyk?

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  20. Eggpie_614 said:

    Bruh you look like Bart from Donut Media.

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  21. Metcaslix said:

    What's the point of the slow zoom on the host's face? Vox has so many questionable edits, it's more distracting than the material they're talking about.

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  22. Joel Berggren said:

    It's "cyan" to "sighn".

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  23. Young & Funny said:

    It may not be the first colored film, but it is the first technicolor film, right?

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  24. Turbo Presents said:

    I guess every color movie is then a reminder.

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  25. David Hill said:

    Fun fact , here in Australia "technicolor yawn" is slang for vomiting

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  26. Patrick Copland said:

    Vox should just stick to what they do best – fake news.

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  27. TheHanjoe300 said:

    8:16 well got damn, she was working hard.
    I wonder if anyone else worked on that many films

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  28. TheHanjoe300 said:

    Thanks for answering one of the questions I always wondered.

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  29. K Vishvesh said:

    Aan 1953 was first Hindi Movie to be made in technicolor

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  30. Concepcion30 said:

    Shoot, I always thought Gone With The Wind was the first color movie, guess I didn't know the answer to that trivia question either.

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  31. Michael Dean said:

    Good vid. But….Baking music louder than host talking = bad editing choices.
    BAD AUDIO IS A HATE CRIME! #BAIAHC

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  32. Epic Snows Vlogs said:

    Nice vid but the first coloured captured scene is and animation made during 1830

    I know I didn’t believe it iver

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  33. overdramatic loser. said:

    am i covered in asbestus

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  34. Dave Otuwa said:

    9:45 You're not talking about curtains, are you?

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  35. Sonia L said:

    What about Guillermo Gonzalez Camarena?

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  36. A 1981 Volkswagen Scirocco said:

    But does it run Crysis?

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  37. Rob said:

    6:19 that clown is terrifying.

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  38. This Is Jess Paul said:

    So educational!!

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  39. BobEckert56 said:

    Superb episode!

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  40. Pedro Pascoa said:

    damn, a lady with such power back then! way to go

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  41. 8101 TV fannn said:

    There is no way the wizard of oz came out in 1939?

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  42. StudioSmith said:

    Ypu forgot to mention that the sepia scenes were shot with technicolor but then painted over frame by frame.

    June 29, 2019
    Reply
  43. TheOfficeChair said:

    It’s the same if you have monochromatic colour blindness.

    June 29, 2019
    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *