Though only one process in a very long hisÂtoÂry of film colÂorÂing techÂniques, from hand-tintÂing to chemÂiÂcal and mechanÂiÂcal means, TechÂniÂcolÂor has had the most influÂence of them all. DurÂing the GoldÂen Age of cinÂeÂma, the 1930s and 40s, the techÂnolÂoÂgy was “undoubtÂedÂly,” write KrisÂten ThompÂson and David BorÂdÂwell in their Film HisÂtoÂry, “the most strikÂing innoÂvaÂtion” of the era, and it came to domÂiÂnate by way of masÂsive hit films like The WizÂard of Oz and Gone with the Wind. It didn’t hurt that “the TechÂniÂcolÂor comÂpaÂny monopÂoÂlized the process, supÂplyÂing all camÂeras, proÂvidÂing superÂviÂsors for each proÂducÂtion, and proÂcessÂing and printÂing the film.”
But TechÂniÂcolÂor didn’t arise overnight. FoundÂed in 1914, the TechÂniÂcolÂor comÂpaÂny proÂduced colÂor films for two decades that were “still experÂiÂmenÂtal,” notes Atlantic ediÂtor AdriÂenne LaFrance, “oftenÂtimes to the point of being absurd.” But by the mid-30s, TechÂniÂcolÂor No. IV—which used prisms to split the light onto three strips of film for the three priÂmaÂry colors—could proÂduce hyperÂreÂal, strikÂingÂly beauÂtiÂful images. By 1939, when audiÂences saw the yelÂlow brick road, lion, scareÂcrow, green-faced wicked witch, and those sparkling ruby slipÂpers come alive before their eyes, TechÂniÂcolÂor had triÂumphed.
In the video essay above from Vox, Phil Edwards explains what this means, and how “the techÂnolÂoÂgy shaped the look of the twenÂtiÂeth cenÂtuÂry,” and debunks three misÂconÂcepÂtions about The WizÂard of Oz, includÂing the idea that it was the first TechÂniÂcolÂor movie. Edwards explains the oriÂgins of the comÂpaÂny with three colÂleagues from M.I.T., from which the “Tech” part of the name derived, and how the three-strip process came into its own sevÂen years before The WizÂard of Oz, in a 1932 DisÂney carÂtoon called “FlowÂers and Trees.” This aniÂmaÂtion was the first to feaÂture the three-strip innoÂvaÂtion, which used an “insaneÂly difÂfiÂcult” dye-transÂfer process. (In the folÂlow-up video below, Edwards addressÂes comÂments, quesÂtions, and corÂrecÂtions to his essay above.)
Despite TechÂniÂcolÂor IV’s advance, live-action films throughÂout the 30s still used earÂliÂer feaÂtures of the techÂnique, “ampÂing up” the conÂtrast with a black and white layÂer of film underÂneath the colÂor. OthÂer techÂniÂcal limÂiÂtaÂtions conÂtributed to Technicolor’s disÂtincÂtive, eye-popÂping look. The WizÂard of Oz, for examÂple, does not actuÂalÂly move from black and white to colÂor when Dorothy leaves her disÂplaced Kansas house and walks into Oz. Instead, the filmÂmakÂers paintÂed the set sepia and used a Judy GarÂland douÂble (also paintÂed). MasÂsive, and masÂsiveÂly loud, camÂeras and a conÂsidÂerÂable expense added more burÂdens for TechÂniÂcolÂor filmÂmakÂing, but the advanÂtages outÂweighed these probÂlems, Edwards argues, includÂing the abilÂiÂty to adjust the dyes to use colÂor in strikÂingÂly difÂferÂent ways from movie to movie.
BrilÂliant, overÂsatÂuÂratÂed greens, yelÂlows, and reds in films like The WizÂard of Oz and SinÂgin’ in the Rain led to new ways of using colÂor to tell stoÂries, such as those perÂfectÂed by StanÂley Kubrick over 40 years after TechÂniÂcolÂor IV’s debut. “The three-colÂor process,” LaFrance explains, “creÂatÂed films puncÂtuÂatÂed by colÂors so elecÂtric they were surÂreÂal.” ImagÂine the effects of these visions on young impresÂsionÂable audiÂences in the forÂties and fifties—who went on to design the look of the sixÂties and sevÂenÂties. We may forÂget that the dawn of TechÂniÂcolÂor “was itself a reflecÂtion of film processÂes that creÂatÂed a richÂer, colÂor-floodÂed verÂsion of the real world,” yet both film and the design of the real world came to look the way they did due in large part to TechÂniÂcolÂor film.
RelatÂed ConÂtent:
EarÂly ExperÂiÂments in ColÂor Film (1895–1935)
Josh Jones is a writer and musiÂcian based in Durham, NC. FolÂlow him at @jdmagness
Leave a Reply