Criterion Cover Art & Packaging Babble-on Vol.1

Message

#151 Post by **zedz** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:21 am

cinephrenic wrote:I'm not sure if I like the Jules and Jim cover. Looks like the woman has whiskers.

She does. A nice touch, and I like the cover.

Mr Pixies · #152 Post by **Mr Pixies** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:21 am

Jules and Jim better be a good movie, because I'm getting it based on that cover, it's really nice!

Narshty · #153 Post by **Narshty** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:22 am

Christ, Jules et Jim's cover is absolutely ghastly. The colours, the painting - it's just 100% pure shite. Fucking hideous. Booooo!

godardslave · #154 Post by **godardslave** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:49 am

christ, jules et jim's cover is absolutely brilliant. The colors, the painting - it's just 100% pure art. Fucking beautiful. Hoooray!!

feihong · #155 Post by **feihong** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:38 am

I liked the former My Own Private Idaho cover, and as for Jules et Jim...geez. I can't wait to get a high-quality DVD of Jules et Jim, but that cover is just I don't know but it's really fucking hideous! I dunno, it's hard to even put it into words...

I think the black line at the top of the graphic distracts far too much from the piece. The nice thing about many successful Criterion covers is that the design looks organic. On a piece like the In the Mood for Love boxset, the 8 1/2 box, the A Woman is a Woman case, the Fassbinder set, the Battle of Algiers and Fanny and Alexander sets, the L'avventura box--all of these boxes looked as if they had real texture, making them seem very tactile. The boxes felt like something special because they created an illusion of texture, of being made out of a combination of organic and manufactured products. The designs themselves looked as if they had reinvented an image from the film, highlighting some hidden aspect of the film's meaning that, upon inspection of the box, became very prevalent in one's mind. The Jules et Jim cover doesn't carry that kind of weight. It's fashion-design illustration, classically framed and hollow. It seems superficial. When I think of Jules et Jim, or of the Catherine character, "superficial" is the last thing that comes to mind. Plus the black line renders whatever texture the off-white background might have had inert. And then the painted title feels hurried and too florid. Jules and Jim is a movie that feels fresh and direct even today. An image of Catherine with her mustache might be a good idea, but the precisely-rendered visage on the box gives us none of the immediacy of the film. Rather, it represents the film inside as hollow, classical, and stuffy--a big mistake.

mbalson · #156 Post by **mbalson** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:04 pm

I couldn't agree more with the Jules and Jim cover bashing. It's not as bad as Kagemusha, but it's still crap. The illustration itself is fine, but from a graphic design standpoint the layout is a bit sketchy.

Lemdog · #157 Post by **Lemdog** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:28 pm

DVD of Jules et Jim, but that cover is just I don't know but it's really fucking hideous!

Agreed. God it is ... what he said.

Narshty · #158 Post by **Narshty** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:42 pm

Is this sudden rash of digipaks a yearning on the part of Criterion to return to the lavish gatefold laserdisc packaging of old?

Lino · #159 Post by **Lino** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:59 pm

I actually am in love with the Jules and Jim cover! Beautiful picture and maybe the whiskers are there to alert people like us who care about these sort of things that the portrait is not solely about Jeanne Moreau - there are also one or two men in there if you look closely.

Of course, the casual observer misses out on these little things that make all the difference.

Narshty · #160 Post by **Narshty** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:43 pm

Whatever helps you get through the day, Annie.

Steven H · #161 Post by **Steven H** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 6:23 pm

Annie Mall wrote:Of course, the casual observer misses out on these little things that make all the difference.

As a casual observer I'd say you're right, I did miss that. I would have also preferred if Criterion had used an attractive cover instead. I checked out the artist's site, I was expecting better contrasting color and graceful human figures... instead of some high school goth chick's mood piece from second period Art I.

With the black bar at the top, it reminds me of the covers from the first fifty or so Criterions.

Hrossa · #162 Post by **Hrossa** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 6:51 pm

Oh, I thought I should point out that the whiskers are there because it's depicting Catherine when she dresses up as a boy with a drawn-on mustache.

I do think it would be great if criterion could branch out and print their logo on the cover in the same rose color as the title on the same background as the rest of the cover. I don't understand why they couldn't have done that. The Kagemusha Criterion logo isn't black or white.

luxetnox · #163 Post by **luxetnox** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 12:06 am

Annie Mall wrote:... maybe the whiskers are there to alert people like us who care about these sort of things that the portrait is not solely about Jeanne Moreau ...

All I get out of it is "mmmm milk."

Michael · #164 Post by **Michael** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 12:17 am

All I get out of it is "mmmm milk."

Thanks. I needed a good laugh.

Not a fan of the cover also. I like the artist's portofolio but this Jules et Jim cover feels too weird. The posters that Matt posted earlier would serve much better I think...

criterionsnob · #165 Post by **criterionsnob** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:04 am

I think Jules and Jim is easily a candidate for cover of the year (so far)!

And Matt, I like the new tag line...

Mr Pixies · #166 Post by **Mr Pixies** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:49 am

I still like the Jules and Jim cover, but I really hope they lose the black part at the top, I like when the Criterion banner don't call to much attention to themselves.

criterionsnob · #167 Post by **criterionsnob** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 4:02 am

The black banner matches exactly the black banner on Criterion's website. The cover is perfect! End of discussion.

Let's bitch about that awful Kagemusha cover for awhile. Now that they've changed My Own Private Idaho, hopefully they'll come to their senses on that one too. Surely they can do better than that awful ink blot Rorschach weirdness.

Andre Jurieu · #168 Post by **Andre Jurieu** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:03 am

cinephrenic wrote:I bet if an artist slapped a picture of shit on the cover, there will be people who'd love that as well.

I am intrigued by your ideas concerning cover-art and wish to use the $39.99 I would have spent on the Jules and Jim Criterion DVD to purchase said cover you speak of.

I appreciate the idea behind the Jules and Jim cover, but I agree the execution leaves something to be desired, especially when Matt provided the link to the artist's previous, more captivating efforts. I think a different colour scheme might have helped. Not that big a deal to me though...

Theodore R. Stockton · Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:09 am

I'm just glad on the new ...Idaho cover they didn't get rid of all the wierd fun going on inside the "D".

neuro · #170 Post by **neuro** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:50 am

Anyone ever hear of Piero Manzoni?

Lino · #171 Post by **Lino** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 9:25 am

I'm sorry to say this but you guys don't know good artwork from the get-go. This talk about the Jules et Jim cover reminds how much fun I had when I read some member's comments about how the Le Corbeau cover (easily Criterion's best cover EVER!) seemed like a sketch! Geez...! Next thing you'll start saying that your kid at home makes better drawings than that man from Spain they call Picasso...

#172 Post by **cdnchris** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 1:09 pm

I don't know, I actually like the Jules and Jim cover. Except for maybe the black bar at the top I think it looks very nice.

godardslave · #173 Post by **godardslave** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:01 pm

Annie Mall wrote:I'm sorry to say this but you guys don't know good artwork from the get-go. This talk about the Jules et Jim cover reminds how much fun I had when I read some member's comments about how the Le Corbeau cover (easily Criterion's best cover EVER!) seemed like a sketch! Geez...! Next thing you'll start saying that your kid at home makes better drawings than that man from Spain they call Picasso...

I'm with you Annie, you might want to check my original comment [at the top of page 9].

By the way, to all the "black bar haters", i see the darkness at the top as merely a framing device on the lighter background main picture below. Or to put it another way, i dont regard the black header as part of the main cover picture, which is the face.

Gregory · #174 Post by **Gregory** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:41 pm

The new cover for My Own Private Idaho is awful. The previous one was thought-provoking, I'd imagine, for those who haven't seen the film: Who is that character? How did he end up in the middle of that highway? Where is he going? What is he going to do when he gets there?
The new cover seems to have no thought behind it other than, "Let's put some big movie-star heads on there so people will buy it." I'd hate to think Criterion is aiming their releases at people who are attracted to the film not because of the story and how it's told but because mainly they just want to look at young Keanu and River for a couple of hours.

I agree with all the bad reactions to Jules and Jim, and I liked Downton's portfolio. Maybe he submitted multiple cover designs and they could go with a different one, please?

These two covers are making me ask myself: do I really, really need to own these DVDs? I still respect the films, of course, but Criterion is not making it easy to want them on my shelf.

P.S. I really like the Kagemusha cover. The silouetted images with the streak of red -- very pleasing.

Hrossa · #175 Post by **Hrossa** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 8:09 pm

Hey, c'mon, has anyone seen the covers that Kino puts out? Like this one:

http://www.kino.com/video/item.php?film_id=630

We should rejoice in the riches.

Internal Resources

External Sites

Specialty Labels

Site Menu

Criterion Cover Art & Packaging Babble-on Vol.1