1

Pleasantville

A Story of Color

The film Pleasantville (Ross, 1998) shows what can happen if you were to get physically

absorbed into the world of your favorite television show. The main character of this film David

(Tobey Maguire) becomes the main character of his favorite television program “Pleasantville.”

Through the course of this film, David learns what happens when events transpire that do not fit

the “perfect” and the politically correct world of the 1950s. David and his sister Jennifer (Reese

Witherspoon) learn that their controversial actions have consequences on the black and white

town of Pleasantville. When either of the children initiates an activity or idea that is out of the

social norms the world starts to turn from black and white to color.

This film has elements of realism and formalism, the use of color in this film is strikingly

formalist while the story contributes to realism. The use of color transforms the visible reality of

Pleasantville. The beginning of this film is noticeably “Classic Hollywood,” because the

storyline is predictable and easy to follow. This causes the audience to “not think” about any of

the actions or reasoning because the story tells you everything you need to know. If you hear the

sound of a door opening, the camera moves and shows you someone walking through a door.

You as the viewer do not have to assume what happened. This entire idea of “Classic

Hollywood” is how this film is also an example of realism. Realism masks the form of how a

film is made whereas formalism puts it on display.

Andre Bazin says that the “realism of the cinema follows directly from its photographic

nature.” (Bazin 108) The nature of photography itself is being able to capture elements of reality.

Pleasantville being about the lives of normal people who lived in 1958, it initially presents itself

as a realist film. After Bazin presents his argument he then comes to the question “... [is] the
 2

cinema dedicated entirely to the representation if not of natural reality at least of a plausible

reality of which the spectator admits the identity with nature as he knows it?” (Bazin 108) I

believe in terms of Pleasantville this is true. The town of Pleasantville is an example of a type of

plausible reality. It is plausible that in the 1950s there could have been a small town that was

unaware of the world around it. The storyline is coherent and seems like it could be real due to

the decade showcased in the film being 1950. In Bazin’s own words “we are prepared to admit

that the screen opens upon an artificial world provided there exists a common denominator

between the cinematographic image and the world we live in. Our experience of space is the

structural basis for our concept of the universe.” (Bazin 108) As viewers, we can say this world

is real and plausible because of our own experiences with living in a world that presents itself

with similar and almost identical limits.

This leads one to believe that the concept of realism in itself is a subjective practice. If

the reality of a film can only be justified by its viewers this means every film that claims itself to

be realist is subject to interpretation. The shots that are used in this film help to contribute to the

idea that our own experience supports the legitimacy of the film. There are several instances of

point of view shots that are used in Pleasantville. These shots help provide affirmation that this

film has realist elements. You become immersed in the film and feel as if you are talking to the

character and that you are in the film walking around with them. The camera becomes

personified in certain cases that help to submerge the idea that the viewer is one with the film.

The edits of realist films are minimal to better contain the flow of a continuous gaze. Which is

why in this film you see a large number of long takes and establishing shots. It helps to enforce

the idea that this film is an example of “Classic Hollywood.” Also, when there are long takes that

are still, it gives the audience a chance to focus on and look at whatever they want within the
 3

scene. The rooms have depth and most features are evenly in focus giving the viewer time to

explore the world.

Close-ups are a tool we use to create emphasis and detail when we want the audience to

remember certain things. “The … close-up is used above all to isolate a striking expression in a

scene.” (Dulac 310) Dulac would argue that this is something that needs to have careful thought

before being used. “The close-up demands to be handled discreetly. It is too important to be used

without considering whether or not it is absolutely necessary.” (Dulac 310) He believes that “It

belongs to the intimate life of the people or things.” (Dulac 310) It is important to know how

these tools that are common in today's world originated. I feel that close-ups are something that

is more of a formality nowadays instead of a carefully thought out process. They have become

part of a formula for “Classic Hollywood” cinema. The camera starts very broadly with an

establishing shot and then progressively gets smaller and closer to the actors and the important

details of the film as the story guides it to do so.

When George (William H. Macy) and Betty (Joan Allen) have a dispute about marriage

roles there are not any non-diegetic sounds. No soundtrack to make things more dramatic or to

try to swell the scene in a certain direction. The scene is completely silent when the characters

aren’t speaking. This creates tension and suspense within the scene by having the audience wait

to hear what the other characters are going to say. As a member of the audience, you become

immersed in the scene and patiently wait for the characters to say more.

Though all of these realist ideas are true and have significant examples throughout the

film. There are also extensive examples of formalism within this film as well. Roughly halfway

through the film, two of the main characters go to “lovers lane” Margret (Marley Shelton) turns

on the radio and you hear “At Last” by Etta James. As they drive through the trees, colorful

petals begin to fall on them and into the car. The lyrics of the song emulate the scene that is

unfolding before the audience. In the black and white world of Pleasantville “at last the skies

above are blue.” Colors are coming alive right before their eyes and the characters are not sure

what is causing this to happen. If the film were to remain black and white the point would still

get across that the characters are taken aback by the beauty of their environment by their facial

expressions. But it is because of the use of color in this scene that the editors were able to “paint

a picture” so to speak to give a more formal and artistic interpretation of the scene.

As the couple continues to drive through the lane the sound and the song soon changes

from diegetic to non-diegetic sound. The sound is originally coming out of the radio, the car is

shut off and the sound continues slightly louder. This plays into the idea of formalist film theory

because instead of the song just being chosen at random by the radio for the characters to hear, it

starts to help interpret the story of what the audience is seeing.

The shift to color in the film helps the film to overcome conventional reality. “...in

Pleasantville, the gray is a judgment. Not, however, a judgment on conformity but a statement on

the unremitting harshness of daily life that has abraded the color from the world, leaving only the

gray, windswept plains and the ashen existence of their population.” (Kastan, Farthing 209) This

“gray” that the world is covered in is representative of a “cookie cutter” society where people are

bred to be the same and not differ from the status quo. These muted colors seem to participate as

an emotional shield for the characters, the reason why everyone and everything is always

“pleasant.”

“Pleasantville is not unique in “integrating” color and black-and-white within a single

image. In the silent era, individual objects were often hand-painted but usually along with other

objects in the same frame…” (Belton 60) I think this is something that is important to note, this

technique isn’t new. The use of color on a primarily black-and-white film has been done before.

However, the way this technique is used to aid in the meaning the film has changed formally.

Color is used very artfully in this film. “Art doesn’t talk” it communicates cinematically. I like to

think of it as something that might not always be explicitly said but it is something that helps the

audience feel emotion.

Since Pleasantville isn’t the first film to use black-and-white and color it is significant to

look at other films that have used this technique and how they differed. For example, The Wizard

of Oz (Fleming 1939) used more of a dual system of showing black-and-white and color. In

Dorothy’s (Judy Garland) home in Kansas, the world was black-and-white and when she went

entered the spectacular land of Oz the world became Technicolor. “The conventional narrative

material was shot in black-and-white while spectacle was shot in color.” (Belton 60) The

directors of The Wizard of Oz used this duality intentionally.

“For the most part, each chromatic register enjoyed a different diegetic reality. Black-

and-white footage signified one narrative world and color another—but each world functioned as

a credible diegetic reality in itself—in part because of its internal chromatic consistency.

Moments, where footage shifted from one chromatic register to another, violated that earlier

diegetic world but did so in ways that the larger narrative as a whole ultimately recuperated—

such as in Oz which ultimately identifies the color footage as Dorothy’s dream.” (Belton 60)

What if Pleasantville were produced in the same way? What would happen to

Pleasantville if the world that David and Jennifer actually lived in was black-and-white and
 8

David’s dream life (Pleasantville) were all in color? Maybe the town would have the same type

of fantastical qualities that Oz has for Dorothy. It would provide David with a plausible escape

from reality which is why he watches Pleasantville, to begin with. If the fictional town were to

already be in color when the children arrived, it would most likely present itself with less

abstract and interpretive formalistic qualities. The characters could still go through this journey

of self-discovery but it wouldn’t be accompanied by the color transition as well. If this were to

occur I do not believe Pleasantville could be a film that could claim a title of “art film.”

Having said that, Pleasantville is a film that was produced for commercial purposes this

starts to raise theoretical questions. If this film is something that is considered commercial

entertainment can it be considered art? I would say Pleasantville is art because of the way that

color is used in it. “In Pleasantville, Ross narrativizes his unique use of color… the colored

objects in Pleasantville are realistically motivated. The film’s violation of the wholeness of the

black-and-white image has narrative justification. Nonetheless, through this violation, the film

does raise the questions about what Bazin refers to as “the psychology of the image. This term

refers to how we, as subjects, perceive and understand the image.” (Belton 61) “The psychology

of the cinematographic image offers a natural incline leading towards a sociology of the hero

characterized by a passive identification.” (Bazin 113)

Dulac argues that “Cinema is an art that must remain itself and develop proudly next to

the six others [arts] since it can, if it wishes, borrow nothing from them.” (Dulac 313) He goes on

to explain that “The other arts can only do cinema a disservice to the extent that they express the

pretension of imposing on it their rules and visions, which, moreover, they will not try to fuse

with those of cinema when they are called upon to collaborate.” (Dulac 313) I find it interesting

that he feels cinema is its own respective art and shouldn’t have any outside influence as it would
 9

overpower the original intention of cinema. Though I believe there is some truth to this statement

I think that cinema being able to overlap and invite other types of art into the medium only make

it stronger. In terms of Pleasantville without having other elements of art, it simply would not be

able to be the film that it is.

Color being used in Pleasantville would not have the same effect if it weren’t realistically

motivated. A large reason that the film has the flow it does is that the color has a reason for

coming into existence. It does not just randomly appear one day, it is driven by the characters’

interactions and circumstances. It guides the story by creating a bigger emphasis on when the

characters break out of their comfort zone by showing the scene start to bloom in color. The

beauty of this film is that it seems to have a fluidity between realist and formalist qualities. If the

storyline didn’t drive the change to color then this film would be primarily formalist. The colors

being used this way to help us to better understand the story. “Just as musical hearing and

musical understanding develop under the influence of music, so the development of the material

richness of film art leads to a parallel development of film vision and film appreciation.” (Balázs

80)
 10

A more formalist example of black-and-white and color coming together on the same

screen would be Todrick Hall's’ music video Color. This video initially begins entirely black-and-

white as does Pleasantville. The colors begin to appear partially with the lyrics of the song. For

example, when Todrick sings “there’s somethin’ ‘bout you, that makes my skies blue…” the sky

turns blue and the field below remains gray, as do the actors. But as the song continues the colors

aren’t as honest to reality as they should be, making this video more on the formalist side while

using the same technique.

With color being specifically the most important element of this film, I think it is equally

important to make note of the colors that make an appearance first. After Jennifer gets home

from her date with Skip Martin (Paul Walker) the camera pans to a bush with a single rose and it

appears bright red and freshly watered. It seems fitting this is one of the first objects to change

color. Roses are commonly seen as a symbol of love, as is the color red. Skip looks astonished

and perplexed when he sees it and pauses for a moment and then drives away. This being one of

the most pivotal moments in the film this specific color is important to note. It affirms the

fluidity of the film having realist and formalist qualities because of the symbolism that is

represented in this scene.

One of the most profound scenes in this film is when Betty has turned to color and is

afraid to face her husband. David (Bud) comes into the kitchen and tries to help her with the

situation. Her skin is the only thing to change color so far so David suggests she grab her

makeup. This scene is very intimate as David begins to apply her makeup for her which happens

to just be foundation and lipstick, both are still shades of grey/ black. The makeup works and

begins to cover up her color. This shows Betty being one of the first characters (especially being

an adult) to struggle with the new person she is becoming. She is using her muted color makeup
 12

as a mask to help her fit back in with the “correctness” of society. Instead of embracing her new

colors she is choosing to hide behind her old ones because she is not ready to accept herself and

show the world.

In terms of an overarching visual culture, Balázs sees objective reality as “independent of

the subject and his subjective consciousness, beauty is not merely objective reality, not an

attribute of the object entirely independent of the spectator, not something that would be there

objectively even without a corresponding subject, even if there were no human beings on earth.

For beauty is what we like - we know of no other beauty - and this human experience is not

something independent, but a function changing with races, epochs and cultures.” (Balázs 83) I

like how he discusses the fact that beauty is neither objective or subjective, it is elements of both.

I think this a great example to emulate what Pleasantville as a whole represents. It isn’t

definitively in either direction formalist or realist, it has elements of both. Simply to claim that it

was just one or the other would be an inaccurate representation of the film.

The slogan for the film captures the essence well, “nothing is as simple as black and

white.” My original interpretation of the film was that it was entirely realist. I didn’t take into

consideration that color itself is a distinct formalist quality. It sometimes can be hard to

differentiate when color in film is being used in a formalistic way because especially with

movies in today’s time, they are all color. Therefore, having the film in color itself often times

isn’t a thought it’s usually a given. Probably in today’s film society, you would find that it would

be considered more artistic to have a film in black and white instead of in color because it is so

common. For example, The Artist (Hazanavicius 2011) was shot only 8 years ago, but because it

is a silent film that is black and white, in our society, it is considered an art film. I think because
 13

film is constantly changing and evolving technologically as the years progress, what society

considers to be “art” will change with time.

Bibliography

Belton, John. “Painting by the Numbers: The Digital Intermediate.” Film Quarterly, vol.

61, no. 3, 2008, pp. 58–65. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/fq.2008.61.3.58.

Dulac, Germaine. “The Expressive Techniques of the Cinema.” French Film Theory and

Criticism: 1907-1939, edited by Richard Abel, vol. 1, Princeton University Press, 1988, pp. 304–

315.

Balázs, Béla. “Theory of the Film.” The Continental Philosophy of Film Reader,

Translated by Edith Bone, pp. 79-90.

.Kastan, David S, and Stephen Farthing. On Color. Yale University Press, 22 May 2018.

Bazin, André. "What is Cinema? vol. I." Trans. Hugh Gray. Berkeley: U of California P

(1967)

Ross, Gary, director. Pleasantville. New Line Cinema, 1998.

Hall, Todrick, director. Color. YouTube, YouTube, 2 July 2016,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WBAinat0pA.
 14

Fleming, Victor, director. The Wizard of Oz. Metro Goldwyn-Mayers and Technicolor

Triumph., 1939.