i'm just going to be honest right here at the start so we're all on the same page: i do not think this is a particularly good video. it is by no means bereft of redeeming qualities, but those qualities are massively overshadowed by this essayist's reliance on assumptions, generalizations, and outright bad information. in this review i'm going to talk about both the good and the bad, but understand that i'm not interested in being mean for the sake of meanness, nor am i here to bully or make fun of anyone. at time of writing this video has 90,000+ views, and NationSquid's channel has 390,000+ subscribers. with an audience of that size, i think some measure of critical scrutiny is warranted.
"The Biggest Lie in Hollywood" is about the history of color film in general, and the development of the 3-strip Technicolor process specifically. the "lie" in question is the idea that Technicolor films are truly "in color," because technically they were shot in black and white. this is true by a dictionary's standards, and to NationSquid's credit he does a good job explaining the process that led him to this conclusion. with Technicolor, three strips of monochrome film are shot with red/blue/green filters in front of each; when developed, those monochrome film strips are then dyed cyan/magenta/yellow; when projected on top of each other, the result is the "appearance" of full-spectrum color, despite the fact that no color information was captured on set. basically: Technicolor films aren't "in color" because they weren't shot on color film.
it would be very easy to spend the bulk of this review hammering on that specific technicality. first of all, color information was captured on set. you have three different monochrome frames capturing the relative luminance of a scene as shot through three colored gels. yes, technically even after the dying process those three frames are still monochrome... but they're monochromes in three different hues. it's not a "trick" or an optical illusion that they reproduce color when combined, it's just how light and color work. NationSquid insists several times that this is proof that Technicolor films aren't "in color," that it's actually "your eyes tricking you," but that just is not true. the process is irrelevant; if the end result appears to your eyes to be "in color", then it is definitionally in color. his later furtherance of this supposed presentational deception through the lens of a CRT's phosphor dots at least has a symbolic case in that, if you look close enough, the image is actually a matrix of red green and blue rather than a "perfect" reproduction. but even then, is an old school superhero comic not "in color" if it uses the Ben Day process? are human beings not really "made of matter" because matter's actually just a collection of atoms?
you get my point. but if that were my only complaint, i wouldn't be writing this review. bold assertions aside, his explanation of how technicolor works is generally pretty good. he even reproduces the process through still photography, then later again in CRT video to believably insert himself into an episode of The Brady Bunch. this is cool! i like it when essayists do this! there is a level of technical knowledge here that's impressive and effective. but his faulty thesis carries water for dozens of tiny generalizations that range from odd to annoying to revisionist to outright falsehood. for example, early on he confidently says "you probably think The Wizard of Oz was hand-painted frame by frame to be in color," thus setting up this video as debunking a "popular misconception" that i've never heard anyone say in my entire life, and on this particular subject i've been paying attention for a long time. this moment has the air to me of a formative personal experience from one's youth (ie thinking Oz's color was hand-painted before learning about Technicolor) being misconstrued as an obvious universal experience. could be wrong, but that's my gloss. this is something everyone does sometimes, but your writing is stronger when you pause to reflect on these personal connections any time one makes it into a script to make sure it actually holds up to scrutiny. consider that a running theme of this review.
before we even hit the one minute mark, NationSquid bafflingly states that "no matter how immersive [B&W films] were, absolute suspension of disbelief was never possible. there was always one thing missing... color." it's an easy enough statement to let roll over you when you're still trying to get your bearings through the introduction. it feels like a dangerously impetuous way to start, but lord knows sometimes you gotta oversimplify to write through the opening minutes efficiently. hell, sometimes you even put such flags in as a deliberate trap-- you know, play towards an easy conventional conclusion only to critically re-evaluate it with a more nuanced one later on. i did as much in my recent video about the Doctor Who 60th Anniversary Specials, where i spent significant time praising the show's practical effects before circling back around later to highlight the essential role that digital effects play even in practical effects-heavy productions, and how often we throw digital effects workers under the bus in our haste to praise practicals. now, i personally find the idea that color or lack thereof has any bearing on "suspension of disbelief" to be totally nonsensical, but whatever, sometimes you say wack shit to get where you want to go, and that's probably not even really what the video is about anyway... is certainly what i hoped. but after about thirteen minutes of generally pretty good technical process explanation, the video then jumps into a crash course on early film history which, uh, leaves some things to be desired.
he talks about B&W film as possessing a "degree of separation" which allows viewers to console themselves that everything on screen is make-believe. by lacking the color dimension, you see, B&W denaturalizes its subject and makes it feel less real. perhaps there's an argument to be made there, except NationSquid frames it as though the B&W film experience is inherently less affective due to the absence of color. he never says as much directly, but his conclusion sure seems to be that our experience of media today is qualitatively more nuanced and sophisticated than it was 50 years ago, that people today feel more deeply, experience more vividly the contours of a film's world when it is in color. consider the following paragraph:
It's much easier to watch footage of the Vietnam War in black and white, because it makes the events feel further away. "This is a whole other world, it couldn't happen to me." if you met Elvis in person, you'd probably faint. I would probably faint. But instead, you can watch him in the comfort of your own home. Film and television allow you to feed into your curiosity of what is being shown on screen without the consequences, and with black and white it was even moreso. And it's this exact frame of thinking that allowed black and white pictures to serve as their own form of art in the film world, which prolonged its dominance over color.
citation needed. citation needed. citation needed. if B&W footage of the Vietnam War made it feel further away, how do you explain the massive student protest movements that helped get the draft rescinded and end the war? do people today seem any less prone to distancing themselves from contemporary wars now that their coverage is in color? what "consequences" are we avoiding by watching film and television-- as opposed to what, literally meeting Elvis Presley the man in real life? where's the relevant profundity in pointing out that these are different experiences? is media duplicitous for not bombing us in real life when we watch footage of a bombing? and how is B&W "even moreso" prone to this consequence-free affect when it comes from a time when virtually all film and television was B&W, including all the same kinds of essential journalism we have today? i just want to take a big red pen to that last sentence. what do you mean by "frame of thinking"? what do you mean by "form of art"? what mechanism, precisely, do you think allowed B&W to "prolong" its dominance?
elsewhere there is a discussion of how silent film evolved towards sound and color. nominally this is meant as a comparison point for how other major technological transitions were received, opening the door for what should be an interesting discussion of artistic epistemology. i know that it should be interesting because this era is a special interest of mine, which is why i can't let it slide that NationSquid namedrops Cecil B. Demill and DW Griffith as "innovating the landscapes" of silent cinema (????) and then moves on as if the matter is settled. here's a protip for all you aspiring video essayists out there: if your essay is all about correcting a "popular misconception," make sure you do at least a cursory investigation of all your other inherited conceptions first just in case you're missing an opportunity to add more nuance and context to your discussion. it's not even that Demill and Griffith are unimportant figures, but rather that saying their names alone in 2024 without mentioning, say, Mary Pickford, Dorothy Arzner, Alice Guy Blaché, or any one of the hundreds of women who dominated and defined silent cinema betrays a shallow wikipedia-level understanding of the history at best. you only bring those two up when they're the only two you know about, and at that point you should probably just gloss over the subject entirely for both our sakes.
when discussing the problems of phonograph records desyncing from silent films, NaionSquid hits you with a one-two punch that made me shout out loud in the privacy of my own office:
phonograph records were already popular when silent films were a thing. hell, the technology itself even predates film. i mean, technically, silent film should've never existed in the first place.
what's he saying here? is he saying that because records were a popular media format, no other formats should've emerged? is he saying that it's weird B&W film became popular since records already existed? or is he saying that film should've never been silent because we could have just used records to add sound? the chain of logic he lays out here is strained and confusing, and the succeeding lines provide little clarity. it's weak argumentative writing, a basic undergrad-level "many people say" type approach that permeates this whole middle portion of the essay. on its own, if you lack domain knowledge, you might be able to accept this chain of logic. but me, the special interest haver, the film school goer, i hear all this and i can't help but wonder why he's neglected to mention that silent films usually shipped with bespoke sheet music, and that movie houses employed dedicated musicians to perform them? anyone with more than a few hours of knowledge on silent film will tell you that "silent" is a misnomer, as it was rarely if ever experienced "silently" by the audience. one could, if they were in the mood, connect this to the monochromatic nature of Technicolor and explore how our experience of media is historically contingent to the material reality of extant transformative processes. instead, NationSquid leaves this context out, and the absence screams of well-intentioned ignorance. it indicates a narrow engagement with history that contradicts his philosophical confidence, which is nominally what English classes exist to beat out of you. these are the sorts of over-generalizations that are acceptable in a classroom where you're meant to be learning how to argue, but quickly become dangerous and misleading when they're confidently presented without review to a large audience for profit.
this is not a problem specific to NationSquid, and indeed, many in his comments share my criticisms. i picked this video because i think it's an excellent example of a broader problem that is by no means new, but certainly made worse by contemporary technology and economics. it is extraordinarily easy to presume yourself an expert, and there's only money to be made in pushing forward as fast and as often as possible. my videos take forever to make because i spend a lot of time fine-tuning the script, which is admittedly disastrous for my bottom line and certainly i could stand to speed things up in that regard, be a little less perfectionist, but the fact remains: in the current political economy of digital media, ignorance is profitable because it's easy and there's no one whose job is to say "now hold on, can you elaborate on this point please?"
there are just so many frustrating, unqualified assertions. he comes around to talking about nostalgia for B&W film and people's experiences of it, saying "The printing process, projectors, and screens that were used at the time just weren't as good as they are now." citation needed! "Black and white was just tolerated because of its cost effectiveness." citation needed!! "In other words Technicolor "looks older" because you were watching it on older technology back then" BUT I'M WATCHING IT ON MODERN TECHNOLOGY NOW AND IT STILL LOOKS VERY DIFFERENT! CITATION NEEDED!!!
he talks about people "tolerating" B&W film, as if everyone was just sitting around like "yeah Casablanca is cool and all, but it'd be better if it was in color." what is this technological determinist nonsense? who in their own time gets hung up on the absence of a technology that doesn't exist? what do you say of Civil War photography, WWI newsreels, the liberation of fucking Dachau, that it's experientially lesser for being B&W? imagine someone saying 2D film is less "immersive" than 3D and that people merely "tolerated" 2D because it was more cost effective. they'd be laughed out of the room! (unless they're James Cameron in 2007, but none of us are or ever will be again.) people use the technology available to them based on the economic and political conditions of the moment in which they're available. yes, B&W was dominant because it was exceedingly inexpensive compared to color film, but what filmmaker saw that as an abject hindrance? the canvas is your canvas, you work with what you have. yes, theorists argued B&W's superiority over color on aesthetic grounds, just as they argued that silent film was superior to the talkies. but such theorizing was secondary, it was a reaction to and commentary on extant conditions over which they had little to no control. people rationalize the times they find themselves in. we tell stories, and then we tell stories about how we told those stories, and then other people interpret what the stories about our stories tell us about the stories that we told. we are human beings and our experience of art runs soul-deep no matter the medium, no matter the spectrum of senses it encompasses-- if the art hits, it hits. we did not "tolerate" the absence of color, nor was B&W "less immersive" or less friendly to "suspension of disbelief." if it seems so today, that's only because color film has been naturalized and B&W made the novelty. by such ham-fisted terms, you shouldn't be able to suspend your disbelief reading a book because words imperfectly recreate the experience they're meant to evoke. no, see, The Wizard of Oz isn't actually in color, because at one point the film stock was B&W. what do you MEAN this map isn't the territory?! manager, i've been duped!!
and perhaps none of this is intentional. if i were to ask NationSquid if he believes in any of the conclusions i've extrapolated here, chances are he'd give an emphatic no. this is what i mean by "well-intentioned ignorance." it's the easiest thing in the world to skate by on an argument that feels sound to you because it maps to your own understanding of the subject. "it doesn't sound wrong to me, so it's probably not wrong, yeah?" you include single-sentence generalizations that are "basically true" because you read them or heard them somewhere at some point, and you know your source is good so if anyone calls you on it you can be like "well here's what i meant." but the more you rely on these half-remembered quasi-truths, the more your rhetorical scaffolding reveals itself to be unfit for the job of supporting your argument. at that point, all the plausible deniability in the world can't save you from yourself. it stops being about whether you're "right" or "wrong," and becomes something far more elemental and difficult to prove: did you do the work? did you sit with your script and scrutinize it, line by line and without ego, even for just a few minutes? a good essayist knows what they don't know, and educates themself when the opportunity arises (or otherwise omits the topic entirely to avoid looking like an ass to someone with actual domain knowledge). it's impossible to avoid making mistakes in this free-for-all media landscape where editors and peer review are a thing of the past. but this does not abdicate you of the responsibility you have to perform due diligence for the sake of not misinforming your audience, nor does it give you an excuse to presume that you in this moment already know everything you need to know. you don't need to be trying to deceive someone in order to be deceptive. it can just as easily happen as the result of laziness.
anyway, that's this review.
color film is made of three b&w layers (with dye couplers) and filters between them!!!!! the only process difference is that the color developer turns the couplers into colored dyes, and the blix removes the silver!! aagh!!!!!