criterionforum.org

> But who decided to give her a red nose

How often have you stood on the top of a hill/mountain in the sun for any length of time (assuming you have a fair complexion -- as does the film's heroine).

;~}

Don't the British have red noses.

"Don't the British Have red noses"

Usually after a couple of pints.

Jeff wrote:I shall now forever think of A Canterbury Tale as Nancy Drew and the Case of the Glue Man.

For those who have seen the film this comment is (A) hilarious and (B) exactly sums up all that is (still) wrong with the cover, (since all the unnecessary logo circle-jerking is no longer part of the discussion.) And actually, if they changed the title of the film to this, then I would no longer have a problem with the cover and would consider the whole affair quite funny!

As I said up somewhere earlier, this cover does not evoke the themes, images, moods, emotions or anything much really from this film which is very rich in a broad range of themes, history, scenery and fine images.

Spoiler

Who's for an alternate "Glue Man" in the act of "gluing" someone cover instead in the style of a sensationalistic pulp dime novel cover!?!

Looks pretty much like the cover from a pre-adolescent girl novel.
"Are You There God, It's Me, Margaret?"

Will we have to right a book report on it after?

It would work better without the ray of light...

That seems to be zapping down on a fuzzy cathedral like spot!

Which is actually what I want so see more of - the bells or the spires...

The only thing that could improve that would be to find a way to work in the talking gorilla.

Is this going to be on of those things in the history of the criterionforum that everyone refers back to at some point... or will it possibly keep going, as in the next time a crappy cover is released someone fixes that one up then put this one under whoever's arm is there...?

And is that a Spitfire above the C & A?

Looking at that black and white still that the painting may be based on, I spot on this cover the oldest bad artist trick in the book: putting the subject's hands in their pockets or hidden in some way so that you can conceal the fact that you haven't the talent to draw them.

Good eye, Matt. Looking at the still, I'm shocked by how beautiful this woman is, and how this painting just doesn't reveal ANY of it!

They could have at least more clearly defined the pockets. Right now it looks like she's either an amputee, or her hands are ending some sort of alternate dimension within her hip.

LightBulbFilm wrote:Is this going to be on of those things in the history of the criterionforum that everyone refers back to at some point... or will it possibly keep going, as in the next time a crappy cover is released someone fixes that one up then put this one under whoever's arm is there...?

I'll go as far as you guys request me too...

Does anyone have the original poster art for A Canterbury Tale? All I found was this from DVD Beaver:



Here are some paintings that appeared in Chaucer's manuscripts:





The edit I did was because my previous post had the back-seat driving Matt hates. Sorry, I'm trying to get better at that...

Thanks PZMan84! Would have loved to see the cover based on this one.

This cover made me think something I never thought I'd think...

"I hope Criterion delays this title." Please, delay this title and refashion the cover art. It's sooo crappy.

those chaucer pictures would be beautiful, but probably too obscure to put as the front cover.

I don't like this Anne of Green Gables cover one bit. They must have taken the idea from this U.K. cover (I'm not sure what it's for), but even the dress pattern is different in the film and looks like they cut off her hands...

This gets the idea across a little better, especially as this is a studio set.


While here are the three leads/pilgrims in front of the real thing (or so it seems) is in fact a composite.

Ashirg wrote:I don't like this Anne of Green Gables cover one bit. They must have taken the idea from this U.K. cover (I'm not sure what it's for), but even the dress pattern is different in the film and looks like they cut off her hands...

Ah, so it wasn't the inept painter who chopped off her hands - it was in a different still originally. Well, apologies to the inept painter, then.

SncDthMnky wrote:I'll go as far as you guys request me too...

Could you add a cigarette to her mouth? Uncle Hulot style, at an angle.

I don't know what to make of that cover. 'Twee' is the only word that comes to mind and the film isn't twee at all. The film is teeming with exquisite shots that could be used as the basis for the cover. An odd one, indeed, but nothing could stop me from acquiring this.

Has there been a barrage of emails on Mulvaney's inbox, a la Viridiana, or has everyone pretty much come to terms?

I still hate it.

I sent my email.

Hey, I go away for a few days and it's Viridiana all over again. I don't think we should forget how ugly and lazy that original Viridiana cover was, but this monstrosity is about as bad. It's appallingly ugly, not to mention grossly misrepresenting the film. It makes me wonder if one of the unannounced extras with the set is the paint-by-numbers set they used. (Or maybe there's going to be a colouring-in competition for kids? Yay!)

Not to change the topic. Does JM reply anymore? I haven't received a reply in months. I'll send my email anyhow.