Chas said:

I think if it was released int color it might have done better. I think doing it in b&w, then having it set in modern day was kinda disjointed. It needs to be one or the other: B&W set in the early 20th century, or in color set in the 80s. Also, maybe don't give away the ending in the opening scene.

For all its flaws, I still love the movie, and it brings me back to my early teens.

I assume a color print exists if they shot it that way. I don't think it'll ever see the light of day, however.

Yeah I always wondered why Prince gave away the ending at the start of the movie as well. When I show it to friends, I mute that part.

Se7en said:

Black and white photography forces the viewer to focus on the content, instead of the colors.

If a film maker has to force a viewer to do anything, then they're not making a film correctly. They may drop hints, or provoke thought and you choose to dive deeper into the intricacies of a film, but to force you into this or that isn't great film making. Let's face it, it's not winning any awards (except Razzies), but it is better than Graffiti Bridge.

By the way, black and white films have tons of shades of greys, whites, and blacks in them. That is color, too. So already the "black and white instead of color" is a misnomer here.

KingSausage said:

.

Countless classic films were shot in stunning locations and in no way does that reduce the majesty.

.

Countless? Then name three. Name three classic films shot in stunning locations in black and white.

.

You do realize that a film like CASABLANCA taking place in stunning exotic Morrocco was shot on the Warner Brothers back lot in Burbank, California? When black and white films were the state of the art in filmmaking, film productions did not go on location. You think LOST HORIZON was shot in the Himalayas? Location filming in the days of black and white simple was not common at all.

.

When color stock became the norm it coincided with the rise of the ease of global air travel. The first James Bond film DR. NO actually went on location to an exotic locale. And guess what, they used color film to take advantage of that beautiful locale.

.

But Prince in 1985 goes to the French Riviera...and shoots it in black and white. Idiotic.

Cloreen said:

KingSausage said:

Countless classic films were shot in stunning locations and in no way does that reduce the majesty.

.

Countless? Then name three. Name three classic films shot in stunning locations in black and white.

.

You do realize that a film like CASABLANCA taking place in stunning exotic Morrocco was shot on the Warner Brothers back lot in Burbank, California? When black and white films were the state of the art in filmmaking, film productions did not go on location. You think LOST HORIZON was shot in the Himalayas? Location filming in the days of black and white simple was not common at all.

.

When color stock became the norm it coincided with the rise of the ease of global air travel. The first James Bond film DR. NO actually went on location to an exotic locale. And guess what, they used color film to take advantage of that beautiful locale.

.

But Prince in 1985 goes to the French Riviera...and shoots it in black and white. Idiotic.

Have you had your plus sign today?

As this is discussed, it reminds me of the actual set of The Adams Family, shot in black and white. The set was actually very colorful, and purposely so,because pink or gold translated differently than having everything a monotone color to begin with.

jayspud said:

Strange question but are there any outtakes or altered scenes. I say this as I watched the film on UK television about 10 or so years ago and the scene where Mary Sharon shows her 'Birthday Suit' Kristin was visibly topless and yet not on my video version. It always intrigued me as to who made that edit bearing in mind neither Prince nor Kristin seemed to have a problem with nudity at that time. I was a little shocked seeing the change on tv 😉 No, I did not stare 😊

Wait, so you are saying the TV version was showing full on glass cutters, where the DVD and theatrical release did not?

leadline said:

Cloreen said:

I think the film looks lovely. I quite like the cinematography and costuming - even without the color.

Maybe I'm weird but it looks somewhat timeless to me in b&w, whereas the color pics give it more of an 80s vibe.

I would love to see it in color, though...

KingSausage said:

Tarkovsky's Ivan's Childhood. Kurosawa had beautiful hillsides and mountains in many of his films. Sticking with Japanese cinema, have you seen The Human Condition?! Hitchcock's I Confess was shot mostly on location in Quebec City, one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Kubrick's Paths of Glory. Many westerns from the black & white era that featured stunning shots of the American Southwest.

.

Uhh, maybe you shouldn't get involved in this discussion. I'll take your Kurosawa example to demonstrate that you shouldn't be questioning what I said earlier.

.

Uhh, Kurosawa made black and white films because A) it was the style he was most comfortable with, and B) because that was the cheaper more available film stock in war/post-war Japan. It was not due to an artistic choice. And here's how we know that. In 1970 Kurosawa made his first film in color. He never made another black and white film in his life. Got that? Once color stock was available for him, he never made another black and white film. And, by the way, when he went to film that gorgeous Siberian wilderness for DERSU UZALA, he didn't decide to use black and white to photograph that lucious landscape. Only a fool like Prince would go to a spectacular landscape...and use black and white.

.

Black and white film was never a director's choice to capture the beauty of nature or marvelous cities. If it were done that way it was done because of the cost factor or for the time that the film was made, black and white was de rigueur. Only an incompetent like Prince used black and white to photograph a marvelous location.

.

Seriously, forget any historical argument, I just ask you do you think a filmmaker in 1985 filimg the French Riviera in black and white was a wise decision?

.

.

[Edited 6/3/16 15:11pm]

jayspud said:

Strange question but are there any outtakes or altered scenes. I say this as I watched the film on UK television about 10 or so years ago and the scene where Mary Sharon shows her 'Birthday Suit' Kristin was visibly topless and yet not on my video version. It always intrigued me as to who made that edit bearing in mind neither Prince nor Kristin seemed to have a problem with nudity at that time. I was a little shocked seeing the change on tv 😉 No, I did not stare 😊

Very interesting. I suspect the version you saw on UK tv was presented 'open-matte', so you were seeing visual information at the top and bottom of the screen that was never intended to be seen. There were VHS copies of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure that had the same problem; when Pee-Wee pulled his 'infinite bike chain' out of the compartment on his bicycle, you could clearly see that there was just a hole cut out of the bottom and the chain was being fed in through there. In film, the entire vertical image area recorded is never actually seen by the audience.

As for a colour version, I'm of two minds: I adore UTCM in b&w, and I'd really love to see a colour version. But I'm afraid to, because I worry that if I saw it, future viewings of the film in b&w might feel like they were 'missing something'!

Cloreen said:

KingSausage said:

Tarkovsky's Ivan's Childhood. Kurosawa had beautiful hillsides and mountains in many of his films. Sticking with Japanese cinema, have you seen The Human Condition?! Hitchcock's I Confess was shot mostly on location in Quebec City, one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Kubrick's Paths of Glory. Many westerns from the black & white era that featured stunning shots of the American Southwest.

.

Uhh, maybe you shouldn't get involved in this discussion. I'll take your Kurosawa example to demonstrate that you shouldn't be questioning what I said earlier.

.

Uhh, Kurosawa made black and white films because A) it was the style he was most comfortable with, and B) because that was the cheaper more available film stock in war/post-war Japan. It was not due to an artistic choice. And here's how we know that. In 1970 Kurosawa made his first film in color. He never made another black and white film in his life. Got that? Once color stock was available for him, he never made another black and white film. And, by the way, when he went to film that gorgeous Siberian wilderness for DERSU UZALA, he didn't decide to use black and white to photograph that lucious landscape. Only a fool like Prince would go to a spectacular landscape...and use black and white.

.

Black and white film was never a director's choice to capture the beauty of nature or marvelous cities. If it were done that way it was done because of the cost factor or for the time that the film was made, black and white was de rigueur. Only an incompetent like Prince used black and white to photograph a marvelous location.

.

Seriously, forget any historical argument, I just ask you do you think a filmmaker in 1985 filimg the French Riviera in black and white was a wise decision?

.

.

[Edited 6/3/16 15:11pm]

*

Transferring Under the Cherry Moon to black and white may not have been a brilliant decision, but it does, for some, add to the feel of timelessness, which was one of the things they were attempting to create. And, while I don't disagree with your notion that releasing the version in color may have added to the viewing experience, the film has so many other flaws--poor acting, poor direction, and not being able to navigate effectively the transitions between comedy and drama--that most still would not have enjoyed it. (I'll add that I actually like it as a quirky little film with a nice message about love overcoming all, even though I'm bothered by some of the racial choices of the film, but I understand why most people dislike it.) On the other hand, and I know your point is about beautiful landscapes, I think that Spike Lee has some of the most vivid, moving, and symbolic cinematography; yet, many who don't like Lee's themes or directorial method still don't like his films, regardless of the wonderful cinematography. I could also name lots of other films with beautiful cinematography that I think are poor films. Thus, I could only agree that filming in black and white was idiotic if that was the single reason why most people dislike the film. As such, filming in black and white was simply Prince being Prince, doing the things that others may not do and living with the results. The film being in black and white didn't bother me, but it bothered others. However, his death scene was a much worse creative "choice" than choosing to release the film in black and white, and, again, this is coming from someone who likes the film. Still, "Wrecka Stow" is worth the price of admission, that, and "It's a full moon, I'mma werewolf, bitch kiss my ass." Oh, and let's not forget, "I'm my own man, just like Liberace." Color or no color, that film is funny, even when it's not trying to be.

Cloreen said:

For those that need to see the French Riviera in colour take a hoilday there

Guitarhero said:

KingSausage said:

Guitarhero said:

For those that need to see the French Riviera in colour take a hoilday there

Or watch To Catch a Thief.

Yes or watch that.

KingSausage said:

One more: Last Year at Marienbad.

Shit, I've barely even touched Russian cinema.

But I guess the logic of "filming the Riviera in black & white is stupid" is just about equally dumb as "Mountains was the last great song Prince ever wrote," so I guess I'm not surprised.

Reading your debate, Last Year at Marienbad was the first film that came to my mind when thinking about movies filmed at beautiful locations that looked fantastic in black and white.

Under The Cherry Moon looks best as it is in black and white, timeless.

Guitarhero said:

For those that need to see the French Riviera in colour take a hoilday there

I did that and even listened to Parade while on the train from Nice to Cannes. It was a lovely experience.

sexton said:

Guitarhero said:

For those that need to see the French Riviera in colour take a hoilday there

I did that and even listened to Parade while on the train from Nice to Cannes. It was a lovely experience.

Sounds perfect

sexton said:

SoulAlive said:

I agree that this film should have been in color.The 80s was a very bright,colorful decade.This film should have reflected that.

The movie wasn't supposed to be reflective of the 80s. It was supposed to be in the style of a 1930s romantic comedy.

KingSausage said:

I DO think he made the wise choice. Filming the movie in black and white (or converting it later) gave UTCM a visual style and element of class that it just wouldn't have otherwise. The movie might have looked cheap and garish otherwise.

.

Come on, just look at the color photos posted on this thread. Why bother wearing that glittering gold suit if you are going to convert to black and white? Why film the sparkling azure blue of the Mediterranean if audiences are just going to see it as dull gray? Once again look at the color photos here. The film is a stiff of all stiffs but in color at least the film would have been dazzling to look at. It would have had some value.

.

The black and white doesn't add class at all. It just is an insanely pretentious move by an inept amateur filmmaker. Prince believed his audience would say, "Oooh, black and white. This must be art." No, instead we said, "What a dope. The guy spends millions to film on the spectacular Cote d'Azur and he films it in black and white."

sexton said: