Episode 2273 | Who Said Reality Needs Color?

Welcome to another episode of Exploring Art Podcast. A Florida International University Student Podcast for the Creative Curious. I'm your host, Cash. I am very pleased to have Florencia. Welcome to Exploring Art Podcast. The title for today's episode is "Who Said Reality Needs Color?" What makes a movie feel real? Is it what we see or what filmmakers have taught us to believe? In this episode, we explore the illusion of reality through Peter Woost and I was Billy Bud in the debate between black, white, and color. From the director's choices to the way our own minds interpret an image, we're asking one question. When you watch a film, how much of the reality is actually real? Hello, guys. Thank you so much for having me. I'm so excited to be here. Of course, so today we're going to be talking about Peter Woostanov and his adaptation of Billy Bud. But especially how the film connects to this idea of realism and perception in art. Before we get into this movie itself, Florencia, can you tell us a little bit about Peter Woostanov and who he was? Yeah, of course. Peter Ossino was a two-time academy award-winning actor, director, writer, and producer. He was everything. He also had a really interesting multicultural background. He was born in London in 1921 to a family with a Russian, German, French, and even Italian roots. He was also known for his humanitarian work and he served as a unit-suff goodwill ambassador for 36 years. So he had a career that went way beyond just acting and filmmaking. Yeah, and I thought that was interesting because when you look at Billy Bud, you can see that Ossino was really interested in more than just making an entertaining movie. He was drawn to the story because of the questions it asked about good versus evil, innocence, authority, justice, and more responsibility. So for somebody who hasn't seen Billy Bud, how would you explain what happens? Well, basically, Billy is a young and innocent savior who is like by everyone, but Clairgert, one of the officers, begins to hate him. And he firstly accuses him of immunity. So Billy becomes overwhelmed and he's Clairgert and accidentally kills him. Captain Bear knows that Billy is in really an evil person, but because of military law, Billy is still come down and executed. And Ossinov actually played Captain Bear himself while directing and producing and co-writing the movie. That's a little fun fact. That makes me a situation really important because he knows Billy is fundamentally innocent, but he also feels bound by military law to do what's right. So you get this conflict between innocence and evil, justice and law, and basically doing what you believe is morally right versus doing what the rules tell you to do. Exactly. And Ossinov makes that conflict even stronger by focusing on Captain Bear's struggles and guilt. He was interested in officers who were forced by the letter of law to carry out punishments that they personally did not want to carry out. Now, one of the biggest artistic decisions Ossinov made was filming Billy Bud in black and white. Florentia, why do you think that choice matters so much? So I think that choice matters so much because Ossinov believed black and white was more expressive and emotional for his, like for this particular story. He thought it emphasized things like the rough texture of the shape, the rigging, the seed, and the sky. It also gave the movie this almost documentary-like feeling. So instead of trying to make everything based really realistic, he cared more about creating a certain mood and feeling. Right. Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree. And that brings us to Ivor Montaglou, because he questioned the idea that black and white could automatically be considered more real. His point makes sense because we actually see the world in color. So if realism just means accurately copying what our eyes see, then technically color should be more realistic. Yeah, but I think that this agreement actually makes the discussion even more interesting. Something can be visually less accurate, but still feel emotionally more realistic. So maybe when we call something realistic, we aren't always talking about whether it looks exactly like real life. Sometimes we mean that it feels convincing or truthful to us. And that leads perfectly into our first question, why do some illusions feel more real than reality itself? I know for me personally, I think it's because art can make us focus more on feelings than literal realism. In Billy, but black and white obviously isn't how we see the world, but it makes the story feel more serious and real. What do you think? I agree. I think analysis can change reality in a way that actually make us pay more attention to the emotion behind it. For example, with Billy Bar, taking away the color, might technically make the image less realistic, but emotionally it can make the story feel stronger. And that raises another question. Can we really trust our instincts about realism and art or those instincts shaped by culture and history? I think they're definitely shaped by culture and history. We're used to seeing old photographs, documentaries, and serious films in black and white because of that. We might actually associate black and white with truth, history, or even reality. Oh, definitely. I mean, if we grow up with completely different visual traditions, we might have a different idea of what looks real. So our perception doesn't exist by itself. Our experiences and the images we've seen throughout our lives influence it. So then, is the illusion of truth sometimes more powerful than literal truth? I'd say sometimes yes. Something doesn't have to look exactly like real life to feel true. Ustenov choosing black and white creates a stronger mood. And even though we know real life is obviously in color. Yeah, yeah. And I think that's what makes this case starting interesting. I think the artist can create an illusion that changes how we emotionally understand what we're seeing. And our last question is, what does this case tell us about the aesthetics of perception? Personally to me, it shows that art really depends on how we perceive it. Two people can look at the same exact thing and have completely different interpretations of it. Ustenov thought black and white can make the movie feel more real while Montague question that because we literally see the road in color, so realism isn't always just about what looks the most accurate. It can also be about what feels true. Exactly. And I think Ustenov and Montague basically represent two different sides of the same question. One focuses more on emotional truth while the other one challenges us to think about, we actually mean when we call an AMNH realistic. And I think that's probably the biggest takeaway from Billy Bud. Art doesn't necessarily have to be perfectly real to be able to communicate something truthful. Sometimes the artistic choices that move away from literal reality are the same choices that make us feel meaning of work more strongly. Yeah, definitely. And it also shows how something as simple as choosing black and white instead of color can change how an audience experiences a film. Exactly. But there's actually a lot more to talk about with Billy Bud than just the plot of the movie. On the surface, it's a story about sailors, military law, and a conflict between Billy Blood and Clagger. But once you start looking deeper into it, there's a lot more philosophical questions involved. There are questions about obviously good and evil, which we went over earlier. There are questions about whether the law is always and morally the right thing to do. There are also questions about, of course, innocence, authority, responsibility, and how we decide what feels real when we're watching a movie. And I think Peter Ustenov is especially interesting because he was involved in basically every major part of bringing Billy Bud to the screen. But the first thing I want to talk about is Peter himself. He was extremely accomplished throughout his career. He won two Academy Awards. He also had a life outside filmmaking and acting. One important part was, of course, working as a UNICEF goodwill ambassador, which he did for around 36 years. But I think that the background is useful when looking at Billy Bud because this is not really a simple action movie or adventure story. Ustenov was clearly interested in human behavior and moral questions. In Billy Bud, he wasn't just the director. He directed the movie, produced it, co-wrote it, and even played it in the movie. That means getting an enormous amount of influence over the story that was presented. And then that brings us into the important question as to why might he have chosen to play Billy but in the first place. I think for one major reason that he was interested in the moral questions combined within the story was that Billy but deals heavily with the conflict between good and evil but it doesn't present that conflict in an extremely simple way. I feel like Billy represents Innocence. He's not presented as somebody who's naturally violent or evil. He's basically innocent sailor who ends up trapped in a situation that becomes much larger than himself and then you have clagger on the other hand that becomes Billy's main enemy. He falsely accuses Billy of mutiny and that accusation is extremely serious because this is taking place within a military environment where authority and discipline as well as obedience are incredibly important and then of course Billy becomes overwhelmed by the accusation and because Billy is difficult to expressing himself verbally he becomes emotional and he reacts physically and then he of course strikes clagger and then clagger dies. Yeah I know definitely. I think that can it really well to a topic because the movie is constantly making us question what is true when Billy is accused of something that well it is in true. He knows the Captain Bear knows that there's more to the situation and even visually the movie uses black and white which creates a version of reality that feels more intense than actual reality and I also like comparing Peter Austin out with Iver Montage because they almost challenge each other as you know believed black and white could make something feel more real while Montage makes you question that idea because obviously the real world is in color. I mean but yeah Captain veer understands that you know Billy's not inherently an evil person. He recognizes Billy's innocence and he mentions it multiple times throughout the story but veer is also the captain you know he represents the authority he has responsibilities that go beyond how he personally feels towards Billy and then because they're operating under military law veer believes that Billy just has to face these consequences of killing clagger so then eventually time passes Billy is unfortunately executed and that's what makes the story so tragic. The audience understands that Billy isn't this psychopath or this murder or that deserves punishment without any further thought or consideration. We understand the circumstances we understand his personality and we understand claggerous accusations we understand that Billy's action was not planned it wasn't premeditated and Captain veer understands these two but the system of law that they're operating under doesn't necessarily have room for all of these moral complications you know what I mean and then I think that's one of the main point themes of the story comes from which is justice versus law normally we like to imagine that law and justice are basically the same thing and they're not if something is legal we just assume that it is and if something is illegal we assume it's unjust but Billy but challenges that assumption something can be legally correct while still feeling morally wrong. Captain veer might be following the rules correctly but that doesn't automatically make what happens to Billy feel fair and that distinction is extremely important there's the unwritten law that there's our personal understanding of morality but sometimes those two things agree and sometimes they don't and when they don't agree what are we supposed to do that's really one of the questions who snuff seems interested and if Captain veer ignores military law because he personally believes Billy is innocent then he's putting his own moral judgment above the rules he's responsible for enforcing you know it's his job to do that but if we follow the law completely he participates in the execution of someone he knows isn't truly evil so either decision creates a moral problem here and I think that makes Captain veer such an interesting character and more complex because he's just not simply deciding between something obviously good and something evil he's trapped between two different responsibilities and he's having an internal conflict and that connects to like another major theme which is morality versus rules you know rules exist for a reason especially in the military rules and authority are extremely important because the entire system depends on discipline you can't necessarily have every person deciding which orders like they personally believe are morally correct because at the same time blindly following the rules does create injustice so where exactly would we draw this line when someone's personal morality should become more important but I don't think Billy but gives it like us and he's the answer to this and I think that's one reason the story is interesting if there's an obvious answer there wouldn't be much to discuss like we are today but instead we're left thinking about what would we do if we were Captain veer like would you follow the law would I follow the law would we protect a Billy would we risk undermining our own authority would we believe that the circumstances justified in making an exception these are questions that make the story so much more than just a movie about sailors but there's another aspect of us and I was adaptation that is really important that's the visual style of the movie specifically the fact that us enough chose to film Billy but in black and white the decision becomes especially interesting when we start thinking about realism according to us and I was thinking about the movie black and white was more expressive and emotional for this particular story I think it helped emphasize the texture of the ship see the sky the sailors they're clothing and even the environment around them and I think that's something worth thinking about yeah definitely one thing this gives me me realises out easily for making choices affect me without noticing I don't usually stop during the movie and think oh why did the director choose this color why did they choose black and white I just feel it and so part of the aesthetic is almost impossible we just experienced the filmmakers choice before we consciously analyse them I think the documentary likes the matters a lot here something I well I mentioned it but he spent 36 36 years as a unit of goodwill ambassador and he came from a really multicultural family so he was someone who spent a lot of time thinking a lot about this issue and I think that makes it really interesting in a story about justice in authority and more responsibility even more interesting and how much it connects to him personally so Billy body isn't Billy but isn't just about whether someone took a role it's also I keep that responsibility we have as human beings when there is lead to something we believe is wrong no exactly and I wanted you know but if you don't mind but logically you know with all that being said the way he filmed the movie and black and white you know obviously me and you now that we live in you know 2026 where everything's in color I mean even before we were born color's been a thing we don't walk around seeing everything in black and white we see color you know the ocean as color the sky people's faces have color clothing as color everything around us has color so logically you might think that a color movie would automatically look more realistic than a black and white movie but that's not necessarily how we experience it you know sometimes black and white can actually make us feel more serious authentic historical or even more emotionally real and that's where the idea of perception becomes important us and I believe that black and white worked better for the story because it created a particular feeling it could make the movie feel almost more documentary like you know and the really interesting because it's really a more interesting because documentaries are normally associated with reality and when we hear the word documentary we think of something recording real events or presenting factual information so even though black and white technically moves the image further away from our eyes actually we see reality it could psychologically make us feel like we're seeing something more truthful I mean I know it seems contradictory at first but how can something become less visually accurate but feel almost more realistic and that's where Iver Monsigno becomes as important to this discussion Iver was an early British film critic filmmaker editor translator and film organizer you know he played an important role in promoting serious filmmaking and experimental filmmaking just like Usonov you know so they both had this same persona the way they filmed and you know made these adaptations but that's just another story for another day I mean but with all that being said I I really do wanna thank you being here for me, Florenceia. Let's see, I wanna thank you so much for joining us, Florenceia, I really appreciate it. This concludes exploring our podcast, subscribe on iTunes, Spotify, SoundCloud, or wherever you get your podcast. Thank you for listening. Please join us soon, remember to stay curious.