criterionforum.org

They commissioned the great artwork for Like Someone in Love and that's what ends up on the cover?

That's a truly embarrassing Kiarostami cover. Yikes.

domino harvey wrote:They commissioned the great artwork for Like Someone in Love and that's what ends up on the cover?

The sheets covering the girl are pull away sheets. You can pull them away.

domino harvey wrote:They commissioned the great artwork for Like Someone in Love and that's what ends up on the cover?

Presumably it will show up on the inside art somewhere. But that lamp picture is going to move some units!

pzadvance wrote:That's a truly embarrassing Kiarostami cover.

More embarrassing than the film itself? It's not as if the cover represents some random moment that, out of context, completely misrepresents the film. Kiarostami himself stakes an awfully lot on this image and the events that may or may not follow from it.

Uhh... didn't the Criterion Cast guy say that art he linked wasn't associated with Criterion? Just something linked to him that he liked? I don't actually mind the cover there that much, though it's pretty uninventive.

Undecided on Red River.

EDIT: Yeah, as said here, it was just a reblog of nice art.

Red River turned out with a great cover, but the Kiarostami is lacking, to say the least.

Shrew wrote:Uhh... didn't the Criterion Cast guy say that art he linked wasn't associated with Criterion? Just something linked to him that he liked? I don't actually mind the cover there that much, though it's pretty uninventive.

If so then Criterion should have written a check

As if the still isn't dull enough, the font, alignment, everything about the way the title and credit is laid out is just horrific. Perhaps my candidate for worst Criterion cover of all time

warren oates wrote:

pzadvance wrote:That's a truly embarrassing Kiarostami cover.

More embarrassing than the film itself? It's not as if the cover represents some random moment that, out of context, completely misrepresents the film. Kiarostami himself stakes an awfully lot on this image and the events that may or may not follow from it.

Almost any still from a film would hardly be misrepresentative, that wasn't my reaction. Regardless of that scene's significance within the context of the film, this cropped screengrab hardly does justice to it compositionally or otherwise, and fails to attract my eye at all in the way that good covers (or even the theatrical poster for Like Someone in Love) typically do.

Shrew wrote:Uhh... didn't the Criterion Cast guy say that art he linked wasn't associated with Criterion? Just something linked to him that he liked? I don't actually mind the cover there that much, though it's pretty uninventive.

And as noted when it was first mentioned, that artwork is unusable as promotional art for the film, for reasons that will be obvious to anybody who has seen Like Someone in Love.

That said, Criterion's cover is singularly uninspired. Nothing wrong with that particular image, but just slapping a blander-than-bland font onto a trimmed still really looks like a two-minute panic job.

pzadvance wrote:That's a truly embarrassing Kiarostami cover. Yikes.

Criterion didn't want to be out-sucked by the recent wave of bland MoC covers: awkwardly crop a screen-grab, add two symmetrical lines of clashing bland fonts, and presto!

I usually read these post-announcement posts and think "those guys are way too hard on most covers". The Kiarostami cover is truly putrid.

"Motel 6. We'll leave the light on for you".

FYI, in case you're trying to figure out what we're talking about:

As of Friday they planned to go with the classy artwork above, but as titles leaked out over the weekend they changed it to the still to spite us.

Seriously, I can't imagine anyone who knows nothing of the film picking that up in a store and deciding to blind buy.

That Kiarostami cover is terrible. It's doubly bad for me because it's one of my very favorite films in recent years. I wasn't planning on getting this anyway since there don't appear to be any new extras and I've got the region B blu anyway, but that cover certainly doesn't help matters.

Whoa! "Red River" is sure one big messy dueling battle of oversized and garishly colored fonts over a pedestrian sepia-toned film still. We waited this long, and this is the best we get? I do hope our protagonists don't hit their heads or stumble on the crazy "v" or the numerous "h's" strewn over this sloppy stew!

See, that one I like; it has a conceptual edge. The type rushes between the two leads like a river, right? A red one. I think that aspect of it is rather clever. The colors seem nicely environmental and emotional, as well--content that you imagine as you watch the film. The lettering is modeled after that on several of the posters for the film.

I also like that, while this is a film full of people hiding their drives and motivations, repressing their deep urges for confrontation, the art here is wailing with underlined emotional quality. So the image is nice for me because it identifies by contrast an aspect of the way the film works and what it's about.

feihong wrote:See, that one I like; it has a conceptual edge. The type rushes between the two leads like a river, right? A red one.

Made of fire. Flowing in mid-air. With credits floating alongside.

The cover for Red River bears some similarities to the original poster for the movie: Link

AfterTheRain wrote:The cover for Red River bears some similarities to the original poster for the movie: Link

That reminds me. The poster says "In 25 years/Only three!"
Only three what?

That is of course a reference to how Red River was the third Western ever made, after The Covered Wagon and Cimarron.

swo17 wrote:That is of course a reference to how Red River was the third Western ever made, after The Covered Wagon and Cimarron.

That's what I was thinking, but Stagecoach was made in 1939. So either they forgot history, they hoped that people forgot about Stagecoach, or it's something else entirely.

The trailer (which isn't going to be on the Criterion, unless that's part of the "more") gives a slight bit more insight into this - "only twice before has there been a production of this magnitude." I assume they meant big budget westerns but even that is laughable. Comparing a movie to Cimarron is exactly what would make me not want to ever see it.

It is just another idiotic nonsense marketing ploy, kind of like the This Island Earth "over two and a half years in the making."