Black Narcissus (1947/2020) side-by-side comparison

A side-by-side, shot-for-shot comparison between Black Narcissus (1947) and Black Narcissus (2020), both adapted from the book by Rumer Godden. This side-by-side comparison in intended to show the variety of choices made by two different groups of filmmakers when adapting the same written work over 70 years apart.

edited by Matt Skuta

[evesapple]

Thought the 2020 one was beautifully shot, but they were never going to improve on that shot of sister Ruth when she comes out onto the roof. One of the best shots in cinema

[juliandavidac]

20 seconds and the original kills the 2020 version, how they use shadow to tell the story, it's just a masterpiece

[danielcombs]

The beauty of the Technicolor original is unparalleled. The team that created the visual effects were incredible. CGI can’t capture the realistic look of the Himalayas like the great artists Michael Powell assembled were able to achieve. A true masterpiece in every way.

[SL-zesu]

It looks good but the old version has such elegance, it's atemporal and has beautiful work of combining painting into the cinematography

[antoinemozart]

The 1947 movie is lightyears ahead on all domains.

[willthomas]

Never seen either film in my life.They are both beautifully shot. While alot of the scenes in the 2020 version looks great. Every scene in the 40's version looks like a timeless art painting

[chrisjenkins]

I didn’t even know there was a remake. Thank God we still have the original!!!

[chriscann]

Whilst the Powell and Pressburger is an unassailable masterpiece, I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised at just how good the 2020 version was. I particularly enjoyed the fact that the director chose to pay homage to the P&P film with some of her shot choices, which this ideo really highlights.

[michaelbruns]

Wow, thanx for this, the 1947 version easily and definitely remains one of the ten most beautiful color movies ever made.

[EugeniaLoli]

The original is much better looking. It doesn't have this ugly yellowness or blue-ness to it. Film also makes it look like a painting. Only very few of the new shots were framed better than the original too. Overall, the original looks way better, both in framing and color/light.

[boboboy]

There's some scene remake did better but overall original is slightly better because of the feels really nailed the atmoshpere of foreign place

[henrybyrd]

Only needs one comment: No comparison: One is a masterpiece, the other is just dreary.

[denisefreitas]

Great video, as always. I like the 1947 version very much. I think it's a masterpiece!

[christiangaden]

The old movie is much more expressiv. Every turn and every cut tells something. It reminds to the early movies of Fritz Lang. And the sights shown, that are often models of the place or drawn prospects add a lot more fantasy to it and like in a fairytale of stange places and strange people there is a lot more room for your own mind. Although the old movie reminds me to a play in the theatre and the knew one more to a travelogue. The characters are more intense and different to each other and a bit over the top and that makes people relax while enjoying. Today it can be a bit demanding to go to the movies, because there often is to much in any way.

[susanmorano]

Nothing beats Deborah Kerr and Kathleen Byron. Also David Ferrar gives a good performance. And Sabu has real presence as the Prince that the remake actor simply doesn't have.

[unknownfilmmaker]

I haven't seen the 2020 version but, based on this, 6:56, it seems like they skipped remaking one of two of the most iconic shots in film history, the first being the lipstick scene and the second Sister Ruth emerging from the door before trying to push her off the cliff.

[dragonfire]

Pete’s Dragon (1977-2016 Side by Side)

[AndreNitroX]

While both have their own merits. The classic is visually stunning, atmospheric, and the actresses are so expressive.

[Bow]

The original can´t be surpassed. From my observation multiple factors were achieved in the original successfully that made the audiences gaze a satisfactory event most of the movie if not all.
The costumes in the original are elegant and symmetrical just pleasing to look at. The dramatics in the shapes of their crust - thin head pieces put the human face immediately in a highly constructive frame. It becomes a picture within a picture. Whereas the new version looks awful, cheap and regular, washed out clothes don´t set up the complementary frame for emotions display.

Light and shadow is unmatchable with the original work . Also the real life paintings combined in the film, make the movie a surreal and magical charm. The shot with the valley and bell on a cliff is just iconic picture. Simply by seeing that single shot, you are intrigued to must watch it.

Acting is better. Also the original script invokes more questions with somewhat shameless innuendos. There is an anticipation trough out the story, whereas the new one relies to much on a shock value of vulgarity and it takes the very stiff mentality of the nun.

The architecture is simply satisfying in its composition and shape . Far far better. Without being offensive to my eye the newer building is just not beautiful. It is not evoking wonder and it doesn´t sit with me.

Technique colour is unmatched with the quality and vividness. The colour, shadow are the actors.

[Keenakeen]

Can you do a comparison between the two Animal Farm films? (1954 and 1999 side-by-side)