criterionforum.org

There's something really wrong about Criterion publishing a book patting themselves on the back for their cover art during the worst few months of cover art in memory

I have no idea what's going on- on the previous page (gifs).

Back to covers - Can someone inform me as to what the image on Vernon Florida is? I've seen the movie (about 5 years ago) - but I can't recall what the plaque thing has to do with the film. I do hope there is a "nub" theme w/the packaging though! I assume this is the same artist as Trilogy of Life.

Hoop Dreams is the best cover this month, but only because nobody messed with it. None of the new ones do it for me. More than a few seem to be suffering from the arty Criterion strain of the "feature the actor's face on the poster" syndrome that plagues Hollywood movie marketing. Not really a fan of the Morris covers either. The Thin Blue line is especially bad -- a half-assed rendition of a lame idea (what is it with Criterion designers trying to literalize "line"?). It feels like it ought to be the cover of a mediocre novel about painting. The film itself is so boldly and inventively visual on such a low budget. There are scores of images and numerous visual strategies that might have inspired a better cover, like it did with some of the film's solid original poster art.

Ugh. I don't usually have strong opinions on packaging unless it's really standout or really horrendous, but this is a grim month.

Cries and Whispers is dreadful, but I hated the movie and won't be picking it up anyway. Pink Horse isn't awful but it's way too busy and feels cramped ... maybe lose the border? Soft Skin is the worst: it looks like a cheap fan mockup. The AE cover with the pink slashes is better by far. The Morris' aren't stellar--too spare for my taste--but they ain't terrible either, and at least a little work was put into them.

On the fence about the Cries and Whispers cover but am thinking it's appropriate for a director who is famous for close-up monologues and who pays so much attention to faces... surely that's what they were going for?

I guess I stand apart because I don't dislike it, it's even striking, is the hate because she look severe in that picture?

Cries and Whispers is seriously the worst cover they've ever done. can we all please get that one changed?

For me it's a combination of the precise facial expression, the eyeline, the cropping, the generally flat feel of the whole design (when it should be just as striking as some are wishing it were) and also the fact that, yeah, Bergman is, of course, always about his actors/characters faces. But in this color film in particular he's also very much about the atmosphere. The whole film started out with a vague dream notion that the soul must be red. Shouldn't the cover honor the atmospherics of this film with a little more than a simple solid background color?

Minkin wrote:I have no idea what's going on- on the previous page (gifs).

Back to covers - Can someone inform me as to what the image on Vernon Florida is? I've seen the movie (about 5 years ago) - but I can't recall what the plaque thing has to do with the film. I do hope there is a "nub" theme w/the packaging though! I assume this is the same artist as Trilogy of Life.

Google image search came up with this...



I understand Criterion cover designers may have access to google.

The two things that spring most readily to mind for Cries and Whispers are the color red and an ensemble of women. So, um, they at least got it half right?

Also, that The Thin Blue Line cover is beautiful.

If there was a time to rally together and get a cover changed it was the Petra Von Kant cover, and that time has passed.

Cries and whispers feels spot on to me, I like it. The rest of the month is dreadful.

My god those are some dreadful covers indeed. Can`t remember quite a month like this, cover wise...

The Soft Skin has one of those (no longer so rare) covers that slightly dulls my anticipation for the release.

The previous Cries and Whispers cover is worse, to my eyes. It looked fresher when it came out but now looks like a dated example of late '90s graphic design that catches the eye by cutting up and layering images and creating sort of a jumble of text. Did it really need the cross symbol, a big ampersand, and the word "and"? This also came in an era when Criterion's cover designer's seemed very fond of basing the design on cropping off half the image of a woman's face, a concept that eventually got fairly played out. The image in the upper left wasn't that interesting, and there's little going on in the rest. Not saying it was a horrible cover by any means, but I think the new one is an improvement, though it is pretty plain.

cdnchris wrote:Tootsie

Hey let's make everything red! It's like they're subliminally referring to menstruation, WTF?

The Thin Blue Line cover is egregiously lazy.

How long would you give Criterion to keep releasing sheets of paper as booklets?

Ashirg wrote:How long would you give Criterion to keep releasing sheets of paper as booklets?

Probably until they risk trying Dual Format again to make the economics of producing real bookets feasible.

Because the new cover wasn't already bad enough:

I dunno. I like it. But then, I also liked the previous design so I'm the minority on all this.

Well, now it just looks like a generic demonic possession flick. Also, what's up with he placement of the wacky C? Seriously, did Criterion get hacked by North Korea or ISIS? Furthermore, since when did "Cries" get top billing? Must be in its contract, the one that made "Whispers" wish it had switched agents.

I was never too strongly against the original, but this is terrible.

After "By Christopher Nolan Following A Film", here comes "Cries Ingmar Bergman's and Whispers". \:D/