criterionforum.org

We should start a Criterion Office Fanfic forum.

scotty wrote: The piece is very 50s in its graphic look--check out old album covers. It's fine. Expansion of the color palette beyond dorm room colors works too. Much ado . . .

maybe this is why i'm pissed off. it isn't a fucking 50's movie you poor dumbasses. it was made in 61. dammit, somebody remind me to not post on here after drinking. it's still a 50s cover for a 60s movie. jackasses

If Matt had added a part where Johanna Schiller offers this new hire a couple of strong martinis or a few glasses of wine that little scenario could have gone in a completely different direction.

I've been watching way too much Nip/Tuck.

I bet "the new hire" is 17 years old, has blond hair, big boobs, tight ass and is extremely nice to everyone in the office and the most desired at the soon to arrive Christmas Party at Criterion. This should allow her at least 1½ year in the office and another 4-5 mistakes like this one. I tried this in my own company. I just couldn't let go of my secretary despite her doing nothing all day long. A nice friend of mine converted the cost of having her into brothel hours and the number is still printed in my brains. I look forward to see her next piece of art...

Why is everybody assuming it's a woman?

Annie Mall wrote:Why is everybody assuming it's a woman?

Because it is lurid pink.

mmeisner: deep breathing will help. Sit down first, have some water handy, wipe the spittle from your chin, and remember that many cultural arguments have been made that the "sixties" didn't really begin until about 1964. It's just a DVD cover, for crying out loud.

It's fine aside from the awkwardly tilted magenta thing and the out-of-place font. I like the B&W cut-out against the pink though.

Perhaps the title could run vertically down the left side of the box in a more classical font.

EDIT: Actually, looking at the cover again, there wouldn't be room for that unless they shifted the image up and to the right. Hmm.

Gordon McMurphy wrote:It reminds my of the Koch edition of Repulsion for sheer head-scratchability:

with that cover combining in my mind with the viridiana cover, i've finally figured out these covers and their strategy.

they are going for the "soft-porn/here is a pretty blonde actress on the cover" market.

So the possible delay of Viridiana is good news for those wanting a new cover.... oui?

Regarding "fixing" the Viridiana cover, I would quote George Szell's memorable words regarding "fixing" the sound quality of the Avery Fisher Hall. "Tear it down and start all over!" (something close to that - I do not have the actual quote). A Jacket art for a DVD is a powerful advertising vehicle, and its importance is commercial as well as aesthetic. Is a customer who knows nothing about Viridiana likely to pick up the DVD and read the information on the back of the Jacket based on the proposed cover design? I think not. They spend millions of dollars on packaging design of grocery items for this very reason. This should persuade the Criterion management to take another look at the current design. (However, I do not propose firing the recruit who created it; let this episode refine his/her taste in matters artistic)

It's very weird to me that there's so much more intensity and anger over this one mediocre cover than there have been for the error in Jules et Jim or in the lack of an update for the awful print of Seven Samurai, etc.

Priorities, people.

thewind wrote: the lack of an update for the awful print of Seven Samurai

It`s not a great cover, but it`s alright. Certainly better than the movie, which is the absolute worst Bunuel I`ve ever seen, and I`m a big fan of his work in general.

But that drunk 50s comment harkens back to the old populist days of internet forums. Some might say it`s a classic. To imitate: It`s a fuckin` 90s comment in a fucking 00s forum!!!

cafeman wrote:It`s not a great cover, but it`s alright. Certainly better than the movie, which is the absolute worst Bunuel I`ve ever seen, and I`m a big fan of his work in general.

I'm confused at how you can like Bunuel but not like Viridiana?

cafeman wrote:the absolute worst Bunuel I`ve ever seen, and I`m a big fan of his work in general.

Then I take it you've not seen Una Mujer Sin Amor?

JusteLeblanc wrote:

cafeman wrote:It`s not a great cover, but it`s alright. Certainly better than the movie, which is the absolute worst Bunuel I`ve ever seen, and I`m a big fan of his work in general.

I'm confused at how you can like Bunuel but not like Viridiana?

I'm also perplexed by that statement. For me, Viridiana is at or near the top of his output, along with Belle de jour and El. Critically, it's considered one of his best films. Although reasonable people can disagree on artistic merit, to call it the "absolute worst" of his films that you've seen begs the question: What other Buñuel films have you seen?

To answer all of the above posts:

One: I have seen quite a few, Discreet Charm, Object of Desire, Phantom of Liberty, Land Without Bread, Olvidados, Chien Andalou, Simon, Belle du Jour...

Two: Viridiana posseses many of classic Bunuel elements, certainly, however it posseses none of his storytelling or filmmaking savvy. Consider the scene with the cross dagger. The whole movie stops, then we have a scene in which two characters find the dagger, we swoon with excitemet over a 2-D symbol, and then the movie continues. The Bunuel I know from his other films would`ve found a way to use this (rather weak, really) symbol as a part of a scene, or maybe even at some pivotal point, or at least any point in the sotry, rather than as a standalone incident.

Overall, I feel the symbolism here is heavyhanded, obvious, non-substantial and very superficial, almost shoebox at times. To top it all off, the structure is terrible, narrative gives way to all of his indulgences (which is usually welcome in his films, but in this one they`re the least inspired of all his films, and the most finger-in-the-eye direct) and there`s none of his wit on display.

Sure, it`s controversial, but one can`t be expected to like a movie just for that.

I don`t mean to sound (or, better put, read) like an asshole who thinks he knows better than anyone else, but this is my honest opinion of the film. I`ve actually seen it three times through various circumstances, once even in a movie theatre, and my opinion of it has remainde the same on all three viewings.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion! I'd only point out that the overtness of the symbolism of this film is doubtlessly the result of Bunuel's purpose in making it, which had less to do with making a film and more to do with poking Franco and the Church in the eye.

bunuelian wrote:You are certainly entitled to your opinion! I'd only point out that the overtness of the symbolism of this film is doubtlessly the result of Bunuel's purpose in making it, which had less to do with making a film and more to do with poking Franco and the Church in the eye.

I completely understand that, and it`s the main reason why I hate it. I`m much more interested in watching a film than an anti-Franco pamphlet.

I somewhat agree with what is said above. Although I still figure it a very, very good film, I'd say that Viridiana is my least favorite of the eight Bunuel works I've seen.

I thought the Rey scenes were a bit plodding, and that the picture bordered on pedestrian until the near-perfect last twenty minutes. And you can't beat the rockabilly.

....If it helps gauge my tastes, my three favorite Bunuel features are The Exterminating Angel, The Phantom of Liberty, and then Los Olvidados.

I can only recommend repeated viewings.

There is hardly a pre-1970s film in the collection that does not take one political stance or another. Think about it. Shit...most of the 70s and post 70s films do too.

Is your point that we shouldn't consider the political values of Viridiana when evaluating it? Because that's a piss poor point, frankly.