MovieChat Forums > The Little Princess (1939) Discussion > Wasn't this movie originally in black an...

Wasn't this movie originally in black and white?

posted 19 years ago by Shawmin9
39 replies | jump to latest

I LOVE black and white movies. My biggest pet peeves is that someone somewhere decided to take a crayon (so to speak) to the greatest movies of all times. One thing that makes these movies so great and timeless (in my opinion)is that they are black and white. The first time I saw this movie it was black and white - I swore it was! But I was rather young at the time. I absolutely positively REFUSE to buy a movie that has been "colorized." But every time I have seen this movie since the first time it has been - colorized...

Can someone - anyone - tell me...
Wasn't this movie originally in black and white?
and Where can I buy the black and white copy?

[–] ronbuc 19 years ago

The Little Princess was originally done in color. I've seen it shown on American Movie Classics in color.

[–] freefall79 19 years ago

i think it was originally balck and white but coloured in later there is someting very amiss about the colour and thats by 1930's standards

Thunderbirds Aren't Slow

[–] eedoon 19 years ago

In a way, you're right. The original negatives are black and white but later color was added in Technicolor's imbibition process. But the movie is essentially shot with color in mind.

If you mean there's something amiss, I think because either (a)there's no major restoration process for this movie yet, or (b)it was still in its original color treatment - original Technicolor didn't looks like the one we saw in Gone With the Wind or Adventures of Robin Hood DVD, they have been color adjusted by modern equipment. According to the famed film historian Robert A. Harris, original Technicolor in the 30s doesn't really looks really natural. This could be one of the reason.

[–] Cdorothygale-1 17 years ago

You are SO mis-informed! This was filmed in 3-strip Technicolor, which involved 4 separate negatives: Red, Blue, Yellow, and black-and-white. I was 10 years old in 1939 when this was released (the same year of Gone With The Wind, incidentally), and I can tell you that the color was stunning, as were all 30s and 40s Technicolor prints. Not look natural? You mean like WIZARD OF OZ, which was also released in 1939. I suppose not, but when it is in its' original condition, it is GORGEOUS! Buy the fifth Temple collection from Fox; you will see restored prints of THE LITTLE PRINCESS and THE BLUE BIRD. They are breathtaking. Because Fox let the copyright of PRINCESS expire, every film copier in the country has made his version of the film, with radically different color results. But Fox retained the negatives, and Wow!You should see it now.

[–] UncleCliffy 19 years ago

The movie is originally in color. Unfortunately, it has been treated rather roughly, and substandard prints have ended up on VHS and DVD. If there is one film desperately in need of restoration, it is this one. I have never seen it on television without awkward jumps where frames are missing -- the DVD copy I have has these awkward jumps as well, some of which make some scenes utterly a mess (I can't tell you which scenes, because I don't have the film running at the moment).

As for the colors: the darks are too dark, the skin tones are completely washed out. A competent restoration effort would restore this film to its original brilliance.

[–] silver_lava 19 years ago

I think the problem is this movie is one of the cheap prints you see, well, I'm not sure what they're called. But they're movies that are very cheap to buy and print and produce to sell on DVD or VHS for low prices for a quick profit. Reefer Madness, The Man with the Golden Arm, The original Little Shop of Horrors, they call all be found on these cheap prints, from multiple distributors. Nobody usually bothers to take the initiative to restore these cheap prints. I'm not sure about the colourization history of The Little Princess, but I do know many Shirley Temple titles have been colourized. While I, for the most part, do not agree with colourization, I accept it for Shirley Temple movies as it is a good way to show the films to a new generation who may be initially turned off by black and white. 20th Century Fox usually does a pretty good job with the colourization, it usually looks pretty natural. But I do agree something needs to be done about this film. It seems as if Fox is overdue for a DVD release of Temple's titles, so maybe they'll eventually release a special edition of this, as well.
Lindi

[–] strawberryalarmclock13 19 years ago

I think this was originally in colour. And I got one of the cheap kinds the other day for only $1. It didn't seem too awkward or jumpy. Only minorly in a couple parts.

[–] Doylenf 19 years ago

This was never colorized. It was filmed in TECHNICOLOR and widely publicized as Shirley's first film in that process. It's just that it needs a good restoration because most of the prints available are not high quality. I understand even the new DVD is not up to standards.

I can't understand anyone questioning whether this was in Technicolor or not. It says so right on the screen in the opening credits!!!

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mr_killroy 19 years ago

I actually have a rather interesting copy. It is in color and states that it was filmed in technicolor, yet the opening company logo for 20th Century Fox is still in B&W

[–] mattderojas 18 years ago

I have one just like that. Don't know if it's the same as yours, but it was released by Goodtimes Home Video (through their Kids Klassics label) in 1991.

"If you don't like duck, you're rather stuck"

[–] besch-3 19 years ago

I saw the same movie you saw and yes it was in black and white but it wasn't Shirley Temple that starred in it. I would love to have a copy of the black and white one that you are talking about. If you find one let me know.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] simon-285 19 years ago

Surely you can just turn the colour down...

[–] rbj1 18 years ago

In 1995 Fox released most if not all the Shirley Temple Movies, including "The Little Princess," on VHS. The one I bought was #16 in the series and an A-1 print. This was Shirley's first color movie and was NEVER released in black & white. As far as movies that ARE colorized, I buy it in black and white and file it in my collection under the original release date of the move and then I buy the colorized version and file it under the video release date.

[–] Doylenf 18 years ago

For once and for all, please listen...

THE LITTLE PRINCESS was widely advertised as Shirley Temple's first Technicolor film. Furthermore, it says so right on the credits at the film's start. Why this inane thread even exists, I don't know. How dumb is dumber???

The technicolor has never been restored. The film went into Public Domain prints that were on the dark side. That's all. But believe me, it was photographed in Technicolor and even Natalie Kalmus has her usual credit as technicolor advisor.

[–] WBKID2 18 years ago

May I answer this question. I played BECKY in The Little Princess and it was shot in technicolour. The papers made a big todo about this because this was Shirley's very first color movie. Where there may have been some confusion is when it was first screened on television it was screened in black and white.
Blessings to you and all of your loved ones. Don't forget to read my autobiography MY FIFTEEN MINUTES and you'll get all of my inside stories on some
of the biggest icons of the industry that I was very lucky to have either co-starred with or just knew very well. One of the longest chapters in the book is on Shirley. We reamin very good friends to this day.
Blessings to you and all of your loved ones Sybil Jason

[–] bwalright 18 years ago

My wife made me watch her fave film; Little Princess last nite on TCM. Just have to tell you that you are refreshingly delightful in it & what an adorable movie it still is! Great to hear from you & we look forward to seeing more of your flicks & reading your bio.

[–] photoseller 18 years ago

This movie was shot in color, not in B&W and then later colorized, it was in color from the start

"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give."
- Norman MacFinan

[–] Pipchick 15 years ago

Hello WBKID2. I am watching this movie as I type. I've seen it many times, it's one of my favorites. I thought you were adorable and did I fine acting job. I loved Arthur Treacher. Was he as funny in real life as he appears on film?

[–] stargazer1701-1 15 years ago

The Little Princess list ‘Technicolor’ on the opening credits. It would also work well in black in white.

Hello Sybil Jason.

Smoke me a kipper. I’ll be back for breakfast

[–] katyrosefoster 8 years ago

My, maybe misguided 2 cents, I could have swore most of the movie was black and white until a dream sequence by Shirley that suddenly turned to color????!!!!! I was a child growing up in the 80's and owned this movie since i was like 4 yrs old(on vhs) Maybe just my child mine remembering differently. but i know there was black and white and i know there was color.

[–] cambridgejohnny 17 years ago

Hi Shawmin,
The movie was shot in technicolor, but you may have first seen it
years ago on a black and white set.
I know I did.

[–] skeeterskloot 17 years ago

You're not alone. This was one of my favorite chilhodd movies and I vividly remember it being in black and white. I can't watch the color version, it just seems so garish to me. I'm literally stunned to find out that it was originally filmed in color.

[–] WBKID2 16 years ago

Hello Skeeterkloot: So glad you liked THE LITTLE PRINCESS and it is not surprising that you thought that the movie was originally shot in BXW. Many people did but that was incorrect information.
It was originally shot in colour and the ORIGINAL colour was not garish ( copies of it were) but a lovely soft and natural colour. The reason the rumour went around that it was shot in BXW a is the fault of early tv showings of the film. At that time they only showed it in BXW on television. As a guest I was often invited to screenings of LITTLE PRINCESS and although the people that ran the showings proudly felt that they were showing it in the original colour print it wasn't until a few years later that that finally and happily occured. If you want the nitty gritty of the behind the scenes stories of that movie please do read my award winning autobiography (2005) MY FIFTEEN MINUTES which was followed by, as requested,my second award winning book FIVE MINUTES MORE. I am now writing my thrid book and enjoying doing so immensely.
Blessings to you and yours from BECKY from the 1939 movie LITTLE PRINCESS and Warner Bros first child star under long term contract. Sybil Jason

[–] zombiesushi 16 years ago

I have this on dvd (one of those old crappy dollar store editions) and my copy is in B&W. i think i got screwed:(

*´¨)
¸.·´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·´Ask me about my e-books, I share:)

[–] Cdorothygale-1 17 years ago

No. THE LITTLE PRINCESS was filmed in gorgeous Technicolor, as was Shirley's THE BLUE BIRD. You may very well have seen a black and white print of this many years ago, because it was common to release B&W prints of color films, as most people had B&W sets. However, you are sadly misinformed as to why movies of the 30s, 40s, and 50s were mostly B&W. This was no artistic decision; Technicolor film cost three times what B&W film cost. Now, the reverse is true, and now nearly every movie is in color!

As for colorization, if you have not seen the recent colorizations of the B&W Temple films, or THE MARK OF ZORRO, you are missing a great treat. So many films, which begged for color, (THE GREAT ZIEGFELD), can gain new life when the colorization is top-notch, as it is now. Open your mind as well as your eyes.

[–] Nemesis7293-1 13 years ago

I'm sorry to disagree, but "colorization" is ALWAYS a profanation! It is never acceptable! It always has, and always will look shockingly cheap and artificial. In NO way does it even begin to approximate Technicolor. "Colorization" is ONLY for cretins who are to intellectually bereft to tolerate the beauty of a B/W film.

[–] BrooksBro 12 years ago

Colorization" is ONLY for cretins who are to intellectually bereft to tolerate the beauty of a B/W film.

I may be a "cretin" but at least I know the difference between "to" and "too"!

I enjoy colorization of an appropriate film, provided it is done well. It is also a justifiable device to introduce some young people to classics they may never see otherwise. They will learn to appreciate b&w in time.

Aren't you taking this way too seriously? As Alfred Hitchcock used to say "It's only a movie."