Timeless Black and White TV Classics

[mleach]

Drinking in those movies from the 30s and 40s...

wasn't liquor more stronger back in the 30s & 40s than it is today? I know for a fact its the case with cigarettes and cigars. A pack of Camels or Lucky Strikes from the 40s and 50s had double the tar and nicotien than what they do now.
Not long ago I saw online a 1974 magazine ad for Marlboro Lights. The tar level for Marlboro Lights in 1974 is less than regular Marlboros today. Still though it doesn't make smoking any less dangerous even though I have heard in recent years that most younger smokers ( those under 30 ) who smoke cigarettes and in increasing numbers cigars (mainly the Black & Mild brand ) don't inhale, just puff.

 

[BlueHen]

Maybe B&W somehow contributes to a timeless quality.

You're absolutely right. The Outer Limits, The Munsters, and The Addams Family certainly wouldn't be the same in color.

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

Cigarettes back then were shorter and unfiltered. They were also just tobacco and rolling paper, without all the fillers and additives used today. Shorter cigarettes have less tar and nicotine because (a) you smoke less and (b) you get more crud per puff the longer you smoke a cigarette because of all the crud building up as the smoke passes through. They probably had less tar back then because tar comes mostly from the non-tobacco ingredients.

Most liquor is 80 proof. The standard used to be 86 proof.

 

[RadioMan203]

Maybe B&W somehow contributes to a timeless quality.

You're absolutely right. The Outer Limits, The Munsters, and The Addams Family certainly wouldn't be the same in color.

I would say the color version of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" seems quite different than it's black and white counterpart.

 

[John-Summers]

I read a newspaper article a few days ago that brought up the idea of colorizing B&W TV shows to make them more palatable to present-day cable TV outlets like TV Land. I can "hear" a collective groaning from all of you, and ordinarily I would agree. I don't believe B&W theatrical motion pictures should ever be computer colorized, especially those shot in B&W to evoke a certain mood. The author of this article held the same opinion. However, a new "I Love Lucy" box set has included a colorized version of the "Scotland" dream sequence from the Europe episodes as a special feature, and from all accounts, it looks really good, as good as if it had been shot in color to begin with. The reason is that computer technology is light years ahead of where it was 10 or 20 years ago, when most people would agree it was awful.

First, lets exclude shows in which the use of B&W creates a particular atmosphere (The Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Hitchcock, The Untouchables, the 50s Dragnet, even The Addams Family and the Munsters). And keep in mind that most shows were shot in B&W because that was how they were to be broadcast. Had the networks had color capability in the 50s and early 60s, everything most likely would have been shot in color. If colorization could be done well, as good as color film, what would be the harm to giving new life to shows that are now shunned because of their dated appearance. Would the world fall apart if "I Dream of Jeannie" or "The Patty Duke Show" were colorized?

I'm inclined to think people who like classic shows don't care about them being in B&W (I don't), and those who don't wouldn't watch them anyway, B&W or color. I haven't seen this colorized "Lucy" segment, and I remain skeptical about it, but to read this article, even the skeptics were impressed.

 

[LKellerIII]

"Cigarettes back then were shorter and unfiltered. They were also just tobacco and rolling paper, without all the fillers and additives used today. Shorter cigarettes have less tar and nicotine because (a) you smoke less and (b) you get more crud per puff the longer you smoke a cigarette because of all the crud building up as the smoke passes through. They probably had less tar back then because tar comes mostly from the non-tobacco ingredients."

I agree partially - shorter cigarettes obviously had less tar and nicotine because they were shorter, just as those traditional hard-as-a-rock bagels from 30 years ago had less calories than the snow-tire sized bagels they sell these days. The other day, I saw a guy munching on what I thought was a kid's baseball mitt...it turned out to be a HUGE croissant. But I digress...

Both my parents smoked - father quit in 61, my mother in 68. Filter cigarettes were pretty much the norm by the late 50s- not that many people smoked non-filters. Also - the cigs may have been shorter, but people smoked a lot of them - many were chain smokers, lighting a new one from the lbutt of the one one they were finishing. That's almost impossible these days unless you work at home, don't go to public places very often, and don't want any friends.

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

"Cigarettes back then were shorter and unfiltered. They were also just tobacco and rolling paper, without all the fillers and additives used today. Shorter cigarettes have less tar and nicotine because (a) you smoke less and (b) you get more crud per puff the longer you smoke a cigarette because of all the crud building up as the smoke passes through. They probably had less tar back then because tar comes mostly from the non-tobacco ingredients."

I agree partially - shorter cigarettes obviously had less tar and nicotine because they were shorter, just as those traditional hard-as-a-rock bagels from 30 years ago had less calories than the snow-tire sized bagels they sell these days. The other day, I saw a guy munching on what I thought was a kid's baseball mitt...it turned out to be a HUGE croissant. But I digress...

Both my parents smoked - father quit in 61, my mother in 68. Filter cigarettes were pretty much the norm by the late 50s- not that many people smoked non-filters. Also - the cigs may have been shorter, but people smoked a lot of them - many were chain smokers, lighting a new one from the lbutt of the one one they were finishing. That's almost impossible these days unless you work at home, don't go to public places very often, and don't want any friends.

There are some studies suggesting that people who smoke low n/t cigs smoke more of them to make up for the fix they are not getting. Todays butts with trash ingredients are cheaper to produce and people consume more of them.

 

[stevezodiac]

You're absolutely right. The Outer Limits, The Munsters, and The Addams Family certainly wouldn't be the same in color.
[/quote]

We bought the Munsters DVD set a couple of years ago, and it included the pilot (with a different Lily and Eddie) in color. It was sooooo cheap looking, B&W is the great equalizer.

 

[bpatrick]

Phil Silvers' 1963-64 series was The New Phil Silvers Show.
He played Harry Grafton, a factory foreman with Bilko's con-
man streak. Like Berle and Gleason before him, Silvers tried
to run the whole show (produce, direct, and star), and it
detracted from his performance. Plus, there wasn't a sympathetic
character like Doberman. Another difference: Harry had a
home life, which I doubt Bilko would have ever considered.

Re cigarette smoking in the 1930s and '40s: I wonder if
filter cigarettes had been invented then. My dad's dad
was a pretty heavy smoker in those days; I think
he smoked unfiltered cigarettes (I don't know since I
wasn't born yet), and it helped kill him (along with being
overweight) at age 47 in 1951. But then again, who knew?
Smoking was considered cool, and in those days obesity
meant you were healthy.

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

Phil Silvers' 1963-64 series was The New Phil Silvers Show.
He played Harry Grafton, a factory foreman with Bilko's con-
man streak. Like Berle and Gleason before him, Silvers tried
to run the whole show (produce, direct, and star), and it
detracted from his performance. Plus, there wasn't a sympathetic
character like Doberman. Another difference: Harry had a
home life, which I doubt Bilko would have ever considered.

Re cigarette smoking in the 1930s and '40s: I wonder if
filter cigarettes had been invented then. My dad's dad
was a pretty heavy smoker in those days; I think
he smoked unfiltered cigarettes (I don't know since I
wasn't born yet), and it helped kill him (along with being
overweight) at age 47 in 1951. But then again, who knew?
Smoking was considered cool, and in those days obesity
meant you were healthy.

CBS was so anxious to get Phil Silvers back after unceremoniously canceling Bilko before it's time that he had a production deal to produce other shows for the network. His own show flopped but the production deal was not a total loss. Check the end credits (if they are not too compressed) of Gilligan's Island (Gladaseeya Productions).

Beyond a certain age, obesity meant you were prosperous.

 

[mleach]

Re cigarette smoking in the 1930s and '40s: I wonder if
filter cigarettes had been invented then. My dad's dad
was a pretty heavy smoker in those days; I think
he smoked unfiltered cigarettes (I don't know since I
wasn't born yet), and it helped kill him (along with being
overweight) at age 47 in 1951. But then again, who knew?
Smoking was considered cool, and in those days obesity
meant you were healthy.

Filter cigarettes came around in the early 50s ( 1953 I believe ).
Marlboro and Kool both known for being filtered cigarettes were around long before then
( Kool was around in the 1920s !! ) but both were non-filtered. Not sure what the first fitler cigarette brand was but I did hear an old aircheck from the early 50s on reelradio.com years ago that featured a commerical for Hit Parade Filter cigarettes.

Sadly smoking despite the known health risks is still considered "cool" today to many young people
Will Smith somewhat launched the cigar craze back among those under 30 back in the 90s when he was chomping down on one in the movie Independence Day.

And many of the popular stars among kids within the last ten years such as Backstreet Boys, N'Sync,
Colin Farrell, Matt Damon, Ben Afflick, 98 Degrees, Nicole Kidman, many of the gangsta rappers and of course Britany Speers are all smokers. And many of them don't hide their habits either. I have heard that Jennifer Lopez and Alecia Keys
as well as many of the so-called super models, they too smoke.

True smoking is on the decline but still a lot of kids are lighting up. Sadly !!

 

[Stanislav]

Re: smoking in old flicks.....what's interesting is that even though those cigarettes were unfiltered and much stronger than today's, if you watch a lot of those films you'll notice that a lot of people (particularly women) didn't really inhale -- watch any Bette Davis movie for the classic "quick puff and immediate exhale" technique. I think what happened is that as cigarettes gained filters and started to deliver less nicotine, that sort of thing wasn't delivering as much bang for the puff, and smokers started inhaling more deeply and holding it in longer to compensate. As a result, today studies show that even "low tar and nicotine" smokers are no safer because they tend to inhale even more deeply to get the same effect.

 

[Julius Leonard Marx]

Re: smoking in old flicks.....what's interesting is that even though those cigarettes were unfiltered and much stronger than today's, if you watch a lot of those films you'll notice that a lot of people (particularly women) didn't really inhale -- watch any Bette Davis movie for the classic "quick puff and immediate exhale" technique. I think what happened is that as cigarettes gained filters and started to deliver less nicotine, that sort of thing wasn't delivering as much bang for the puff, and smokers started inhaling more deeply and holding it in longer to compensate. As a result, today studies show that even "low tar and nicotine" smokers are no safer because they tend to inhale even more deeply to get the same effect.

Like Bill Clinton, Bette didn't inhale. Actors who are non-smokers typically do something similar on screen.

 

[TexasTom]

There are a LOT of shows from the past who for a variety of different reasons don't hold up well today for a lot of people.

[...]
I Love Lucy, true it is still on the air today but many say that show hasn't held up over the years mainly because of all the smoking scenes and the few scenes where Ricky spanks Lucy. Today some would call Ricky an abusive husband.

[...]

Hogans Heroes and Dennis The Menace and even though its from the 80s, one can add Diff'rent Strokes to the list. Those shows suffered mainly because of the personal problems of its co-stars. Kinda like watch a Joan Crawford movie today. For many its hard to watch one of her classic movies without thinking "..NO MORE WIRE HANGERS !!"

Some shows like I Love Lucy can get away being dated or whatever and still continue to be on TV today while others really don't.

I'd argue that if a show continues to be broadcast and attracts significant audiences, then it probably has managed to hold up well for a lot of people.

By that definition, both "I Love Lucy" and "Hogan's Heroes" have held up, because both shows continue to perform well in syndicated reruns, even though they are both many decades old. Also holding up well over the years are "Andy Griffith", "Perry Mason", "Little House on the Prairie", "Hawaii Five-O", "MASH", "Bewitched", "Star Trek" (original series", and "The Twilight Zone".

Some of these are shows that I personally enjoy, others are ones I don't much care for -- but they've all stood the test of time. In particular, "Perry Mason" and "Andy Griffith" are turning in impressive ratings in some markets...

On a semi-related note, I wonder how many of today's hot shows will hold up as well for as long as these classics have? My guess is that few of them will, although I can easily imagine viewers 30 years from now still watching "The Simpsons" in reruns.

 

[ChuckTiller]

My two favorite black 'n white westerns were Maverick and Bat Masterson with Gene Barry. Encore westerns is showing two back to back episodes weekday afternoons 4PM-5PM CST. In 30 minutes, in his well dressed suit with his can and derby hat, he would gamble, catch the bad guy and still have time to make love to a lady.