criterionforum.org

To Be or Not to Be is great at least

eerik wrote:

Wow. To Be or Not to Be is as great as Seconds is horrendous.

Oh, and this is up now:

Yeah, just because it's Saul Bass doesn't mean it's any good.

I haven't seen To Be or Not To Be, but that cover is so good that it makes be want to go out and blind buy the film immediately.

That's a fantastic cover on the Lubitsch. Big contrast from the Studio Canal!

Fantastic movies. Horrible covers.

The phrasing of "The John Frankenheimer Film" is a bit odd.

captveg wrote:The phrasing of "The John Frankenheimer Film" is a bit odd.

It would be if it was actually italicized.

I guess I'm the only one who hates the To Be or Not To Be one. Charulata is nice though

med wrote:

captveg wrote:The phrasing of "The John Frankenheimer Film" is a bit odd.

It would be if it was actually italicized.

The Big City looks like it was drawn on an etch-a-sketch.

Here these are bigger:

mfunk9786 wrote:

Murdoch wrote:The Big City looks like it was drawn on an etch-a-sketch.

Speaking as somebody who's never seen the film, is there any sort of logic behind this cover art, aside from the fact that it sort of looks like someone lost in a city? Compared to The Music Room and Charulata, the style doesn't seem to fit what I'd expect the film to be.

Big City's cover is influenced by Mondrian's paintings, which were meant to convey utopian messages in a machine-logic era (therefore: lines!). I think they're worthless works, but the style might have some relevance for this film. There's also the visual pun of the red polygon stuck in the city (which also references the Hindu forehead mark).

I don't know if I'm the only one here who appreciates Seconds' cover (it's also rather comic) in addition to the Lubitsch.

The cover art for The Big City also seems to reference the blocky title treatment on the film's original posters. Not very successfully, mind you.

I actually don't mind the Seconds cover but it looks like a 70s film as opposed to a 60s one. In fact it reminds me a lot of the Dog Day Afternoon cover.

Absolutely love the rest of the covers. Must say Criterion has had a banner year on all fronts thus far in 2013.

Can someone who has actually seen the film explain why you think that the cover for "To be or not to be" is great? I simply don't get it. Please remember that this is a 1942 film made by Lubitsch. And given the reaction to the Chaplin covers (which I share) I simply can't see why you guys seem to like it...

The Ray's aren't great either, but in this case I'd forgive them everything.

Tommaso wrote:Can someone who has actually seen the film explain why you think that the cover for "To be or not to be" is great? I simply don't get it. Please remember that this is a 1942 film made by Lubitsch. And given the reaction to the Chaplin covers (which I share) I simply can't see why you guys seem to like it...

I absolutely hate this cover art for To Be or Not To Be. That skull was not needed at all, there is not a single scene in the film, where Tura is holding a skull. I have seen this film at least 12 times and I am afraid to say that the cover doesn't really represent the film. For someone, who hasn't seen the film, that cover might be interesting and would probably increase sell.

Do you guys really not get the Shakespeare reference? It's brilliant

Tommaso wrote:Can someone who has actually seen the film explain why you think that the cover for "To be or not to be" is great? I simply don't get it. Please remember that this is a 1942 film made by Lubitsch. And given the reaction to the Chaplin covers (which I share) I simply can't see why you guys seem to like it...

I've seen the film numerous times and own the French SC Blu) and share your disdain for the cover. It's simply not evocative of the film in any way to me. The style reminds me of Art Spiegelman's Maus but lacks the gravity. Frankly, any cover for this film that doesn't have Carole Lombard on it misses the mark and by a wide margin.

domino harvey wrote:Do you guys really not get the Shakespeare reference? It's brilliant

Yes, I get it but no, it's not brilliant. Outside bestowing the title on the film, Shakespeare isn't central to the plot.

I think To Be is one of the best Criterion covers of all time, it totally captures the film and makes a point visually, as well as being well designed. But I suppose we all have different tastes.

I suppose it comes down to literal vs. representational. If you feel that something with Benny and Lombard's faces on it would "literally" represent the film better, then in that view you might be correct.

But when you step back and look at this as a film that was made at the beginning of the war, that would deal with a subject that would have more meaning than they could have possibly have known at the time, it gives the film a depth that only enriches it.

Using the skull prop from Hamlet (which IS the play in the film) to cover the face of the Nazi officer comments perfectly on the dual identities aspect of the film. At the same time it both references the Nazis as bringers of death and that before long they themselves would be "dead",

Another way you can look at it is "art" represented by the skull, the theater troupe and this film itself, is holding up the mirror to evil, and showing it (the Nazi's) for what they are - evil.

What other cover has this much interest, depth and possibility of interpretation, and on top of that is a wonderful illustration with well designed and balanced typography. It's the complete package.

triodelover wrote:

domino harvey wrote:Do you guys really not get the Shakespeare reference? It's brilliant

Yes, I get it but no, it's not brilliant. Outside bestowing the title on the film, Shakespeare isn't central to the plot.

But the film is about a troupe of theatre players, and the Yorick scene is widely symbolic/representative for acting in general. I think that cover's pretty clever and appropriate: thematically relevant and tongue-in-cheek, without completely forgetting the grim reality of Nazism.

karmajuice wrote:I think that cover's pretty clever and appropriate: thematically relevant and tongue-in-cheek, without completely forgetting the grim reality of Nazism.

We'll agree to disagree.

The Charulata cover appears to be (closely) based on original poster artwork. So I guess it's a banner month as far as original poster artwork goes.