Oh, That Viridiana Cover!

Message

Napoleon · #26 Post by **Napoleon** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:54 am

Eric wrote:
FilmFanSea wrote:What this lurid purple conception has to do with Viridiana I have no idea.
Um... it's a lurid, twisted movie?

I stand alone. I love this cover more than almost any of '05's mixed bag.

There is always one who has to be different, isn't there? I bet you like sprouts as well.

*Edit. Mein Fuhr! I can see (again)!
**Edit Edit. Mein Fuhrer! I can see (again)!

Eric · #27 Post by **Eric** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 9:01 am

N. W. wrote:I bet you like sprouts as well.

Of course. There's no better sandwich topping than alfalfa sprouts. (I'm not even kidding.)

der_Artur · #28 Post by **der_Artur** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:57 pm

N. W. wrote:*Edit. Mein Fuhr! I can see (again)!

I feel ashamed that it has to be me to correct you, but it's "Führer" or at least "Fuhrer".
Concerning the "Viridiana" cover, i think it is daring. I don't actually like it, but it has a nice controversial touch to it.

#29 Post by **Matt** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 2:39 pm

golgothicon wrote:but it has a nice controversial touch to it.

What's controversial (or very blasphemous in jmj713's estimation) about it other than the fact that 97% of us hate it? What's on the cover that couldn't be on the cover of the March issue of Modern Bride?

I think some of you are deliberately being contrary just to stir us up.

der_Artur · #30 Post by **der_Artur** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:24 pm

matt wrote:What's on the cover that couldn't be on the cover of the March issue of Modern Bride?

Nothing, and that's why it contradicts the fact of being a cover for a Bunuel movie so nicely. Furthermore I did not say that it is beautiful, I only think that it is a daring hodge-podge of crude ideas that make it scream for attention. But on the other hand, I enjoy sites like this.

Gigi M. · #31 Post by **Gigi M.** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:45 pm

Apparently Criterion's art department took our advise and remove both Viridiana and Coronets covers. Thank God!!!

CSM126 · #32 Post by **CSM126** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:54 pm

Uh...They're still there. And, before someone chimes in with this, I did refresh the page. I don't know what you're talking about.

Gigi M. · #33 Post by **Gigi M.** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:00 pm

Apparently they're back up again. My bad.

Jem · #34 Post by **Jem** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:05 am

They had better not remove the Coronets cover! It's so damn good.

Have Criterion ever removed or redesigned a cover due to customer dissatisfaction? I doubt it.

richast2 · #35 Post by **richast2** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:59 am

not due to customer dissatisfaction, but there have been a number of instances where they've put up preliminary covers (featuring misspellings) and later altered them. I don't know if there have been any instances of complete re-workings of cover art, though there was a leaked image of an alternate version of the Hidden Fortress cover...not entirely sure what the story was with that one.

Eurotrash · #36 Post by **Eurotrash** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:07 am

How about My Own private Idaho? I believe there was a lot of discussion on this board regarding the original cover. It didn't take criterion long to change the cover completely (and not for the better, I might add.)

CSM126 · #37 Post by **CSM126** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:26 am

I think that had more to do with capitalizing on Keanu, since the MOPI DVD was released the same month that Constantine hit theaters.

exte · #38 Post by **exte** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:58 am

It looks like Criterion has done that purple text area with the b&w photo bit before, with their release of Lolita on laserdisc, albeit with a more conservative style.

luxetnox · #39 Post by **luxetnox** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 4:11 pm

matt wrote:
golgothicon wrote:but it has a nice controversial touch to it.

What's controversial (or very blasphemous in jmj713's estimation) about it other than the fact that 97% of us hate it? What's on the cover that couldn't be on the cover of the March issue of Modern Bride?

I think some of you are deliberately being contrary just to stir us up.

My sentiments exactly. Although it might start to have a controversial edge to it if they used that purple slash to support the text: "BANNED in Spain. Soon to be BANNED in Kansas!" or "The movie that G. W. Bush fears his daughters will discover" or "Rated 5 inverted crosses by Pat Robertson." But the image conveys absolutely no controversy or blasphemy. Get off your hobby horses.

Eric · #40 Post by **Eric** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 7:23 pm

The cover makes me laugh. The movie makes me laugh. I do not take the cover humorlessly. I do not take Viridiana humorlessly. That is why I like it.

bunuelian · #41 Post by **bunuelian** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:07 pm

Viridiana is a slashing, angry statement against the alliance between the Fascists and the Catholic Church in Spain, a combo that killed a lot of people, including some Bunuel was close to. I think of it as a huge middle finger to the victors of the Spanish Civil War. Bunuel was banned from Spain for making it. It's a virulent political statement, and shouldn't be mocked by the packaging that encloses it. That the French poster art was initially bad doesn't excuse ongoing badness. This cover takes account of none of the film's backstory, and instead reduces it to a funny movie about a nun discovering her clit. It reflects a lack of understanding of the film's context and history. I'm finished.

justeleblanc · #42 Post by **justeleblanc** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:22 pm

bunuelian wrote:This cover takes account of none of the film's backstory, and instead reduces it to a funny movie about a nun discovering her clit. It reflects a lack of understanding of the film's context and history.

Are we looking at the same cover? I'm really looking and I don't see her clit.

FilmFanSea · #43 Post by **FilmFanSea** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:58 pm

JusteLeblanc wrote:
bunuelian wrote:This cover takes account of none of the film's backstory, and instead reduces it to a funny movie about a nun discovering her clit. It reflects a lack of understanding of the film's context and history.
Are we looking at the same cover? I'm really looking and I don't see her clit.

It can sometimes be hard to find ... even with the lights on.

pzman84 · #44 Post by **pzman84** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:56 am

1) I really hate Viridiana's cover. There is no simpler way of putting this. It is just bad. The only way Criterion can make up for this is by releasing that Eisenstein box set we heard about 5 years ago, as well as Rossellini's War and Ingrid Bergman Trilogies and Godard's Breathless in the next three months. If they announced they had just restored The Magnificent Ambersons to Orson Welles's true vision, I might just forgive them.

2) With that ridiculous rant out of the way, I want to ask, is there any way we could get Criterion to change their mind? I know people are probably flooding Mulvaney's e-mail with complaints. Is there another way we could change that horrid cover. Petitions? Boycotts? Those might sound silly, but anyone have any suggestions? If not, just keep venting. It is fun.

bunuelian · #45 Post by **bunuelian** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:08 am

I'd buy Viridiana if they wrapped it in a dirty diaper, so you can count me out of any boycott.

hammock · #46 Post by **hammock** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:24 am

The cover already made history (at least in this forum), so I strongly suggest they keep it. At least run a small print with this cover before they change it and have all the completists buy it twice (and yes, that would include poor old me). CC could make stacks of extra money if they changed the cover and added Second Print (or even third/fourth/fifth) on titles now and then. It would not harm anyone like when a title goes OOP.

Derek Estes · #47 Post by **Derek Estes** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:03 pm

I love the cover. But, I also love the cover to King of Kings and Kind Hearts. Two of the most loathed covers, at least around here.

kblz · #48 Post by **kblz** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:45 pm

The Viridiana cover is bad, so extremely bad that it has to be a joke designed to see how many angry responses it could provoke over the holiday weekend. (I hope.)

Jem · #49 Post by **Jem** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:59 am

It would be better if everyone could clarify WHY they love or hate the cover they are commenting on.

#50 Post by **Matt** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:08 pm

Dear Matt,

We've received a number of complaints about the cover art for VIRIDIANA. I
can assure you that the art department are well aware of these
comments/complaints and will take them under consideration.

All the best,
JM