Criterion & Eclipse Cover Art & Packaging Babble-on Vol. 7

[Ribs]

[diamonds]

The struggle with cover art is how to depict the face and the back of the letterman jacket at the same time.

[goblinfootballs]

Curious that there is separate artwork for each film in the Haneke and Zetterling sets if they are a single spine number Scanovo case.

[CSM126]

I probably have bad memory but is the original DVD of Le Corbeau the only time they ever played a bit with the branding on the cover?

Robocop chrome-plated the old-school logo, while Eric Chase Anderson hand-drew the branding on Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums (very tidily).

The C is melting on Sweet Movie. I think that’s the only other example.

[black&huge]

That Cooley High cover would have looked better as an MSpaint job like the Zazie dans le Metro cover.

[swo17]

The struggle with cover art is how to depict the face and the back of the letterman jacket at the same time.

Ha!

Actual Cooley High letterman jacket:

[Matt]

I’m pretty certain the Cooley High cover references the work of a particular Black artist, but I can’t quite place it.

EDIT: The artist I was thinking of is Manassah Johnson and he actually made this cover.

[swo17]

Looks like distorted perspectives are part of his thing. Fair enough.

Spoiler

I see he also did the cover for I Wanna Hold Your Hand

[dwk]

Curious that there is separate artwork for each film in the Haneke and Zetterling sets if they are a single spine number Scanovo case.

They often do that for titles in boxsets that don't come in individual cases (Bergman, Varda, Fellini, Bruce Lee, etc)

[Computer Raheem]

MONTHLY COVER THOUGHTS: December 2022

• Cooley High: Probably the best cover of the bunch; it has a nice naturalism to it that appears fitting for a low-key coming-of-age movie. I do think the placement of the director's name is a bit wonky, though (it would have looked better had it been drawn into the cover rather than being inserted digitally). Still, it's a minor complaint for what is ultimately a quality cover

• The Velvet Underground: I get the idea - it's supposed to resemble traditional screen-printing techniques. I understand the point. It still looks bad (in my opinion). This is an idea that's much better suited for inside the release instead of the front cover. This is an instance where using the original poster art would have probably been a better option, even if it is ultimately a safe one. Even if they wanted to keep with this screen-printed idea, there's already a poster with correctly-oriented text (though it does somewhat defeat the idea's effectiveness)

• Three Films By Mai Zetterling: I seem to be in the minority, but I think these covers look nice. I'm generally very picky when it comes to collage-type covers, but these ones work for me. They remind me of the artwork the Criterion Channel used for it's Czechoslovak New Wave series. It works for me

• Michael Haneke: Trilogy: I hate this. All of the covers look like an 80s science textbook. Minimalism gone wrong

This is a rough slate to end the year on. Here's hoping January starts the year off well.

[Ribs]

I think you’ll find that this is based on the original teaser poster for the Velvet Underground - which for whatever reason was flipped in the image above, but was always presented as backwards. The later theatrical poster is similar but is not “the original” as you claim.

[HinkyDinkyTruesmith]

What would make the VU cover cool is if it was double sided with the 'print' on the other side.

[swo17]

I bet it actually is, with a transparent plastic insert like The Celebration

[cdnchris]

I probably have bad memory but is the original DVD of Le Corbeau the only time they ever played a bit with the branding on the cover?

Robocop chrome-plated the old-school logo, while Eric Chase Anderson hand-drew the branding on Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums (very tidily).

Stillman's Barcelona has the hand drawn look, too.

[Kracker]

I bet it actually is, with a transparent plastic insert like The Celebration

Ho man, I’d buy it just for that.

[Computer Raheem]

I think you’ll find that this is based on the original teaser poster for the Velvet Underground - which for whatever reason was flipped in the image above, but was always presented as backwards. The later theatrical poster is similar but is not “the original” as you claim.

Got it. I'm still not too fond of it as a finished product, but I guess that knowing it was part of the original marketing makes it a little bit less egregious.

What would make the VU cover cool is if it was double sided with the 'print' on the other side.

That would make the most sense (and would actually be quite neat). Fingers crossed that this is the intention. [-o<

[Zot!]

The Cooley High one looks more odd the longer you look at it.

This breaks every rule of perspective, anatomy, and good taste. It's like he's an owl.

[Quote Perf Unquote]

You guys sound like a bunch of ignorant racists re the "Cooley High" cover art. Whatever effects are present (distortion, flatness, caricature) are obviously intentional, though thankfully to a markedly lesser degree than the artist's other work (as image quoted by Swole 17 above).

I don't like his style in general, it looks like the gross exaggeration of late-90s illustrators from Rolling Stone Magazine: Philp Burke, Matt Mahurin, Anita Kunz, or modern guys like Steve Brodner, that kind of stuff, but with more deceptive use of computer alterations (in the preparatory work, at least, clearly the finished product is analog). His subject matter for the most part (celeb assholes) is tedious, shallow and passé, but he is skilled and knows what he's doing.

Poster and book cover art has a long history flattening all or part of the image, both for ease of reproduction and to accommodate text (which he has done here) as well as violating perspective and proportion to fit within the frame.

[RIP Film]

Seriously? The painting is basically a direct lift from the image Domino posted, with the exception of one shoulder. You can’t claim stylistic liberties if the style only applies to one small part.

[Quote Perf Unquote]

Seriously? The painting is basically a direct lift from the image Domino posted, with the exception of one shoulder. You can’t claim stylistic liberties if the style only applies to one small part.

That one part is where the text is, first of all, as I specifically pointed out, and secondly, that's the part everyone here is bellyaching about. It's not about percentage of picture affected, it's about the intentions of the stylistic choices, however miniscule. Why know-nothing non-artists here, just like the other forum, get hung on on shit like this, I'll never understand. At least I applied historical knowledge and concrete aesthetic reasoning to my reaction.

[CSM126]

Someone needs to go touch grass

[ryannichols7]

What would make the VU cover cool is if it was double sided with the 'print' on the other side.

this would rival Festen for my "best packaging" vote in the year end poll - by all means! they did dip into slipcovers a little with Pink Flamingos so that is a possibility too

as for the above posts...fun to see a classic forum meltdown happen in real time

[zedz]

The Cooley High one looks more odd the longer you look at it.

This breaks every rule of perspective, anatomy, and good taste. It's like he's an owl.

Spoiler Alert!

[Zot!]

You guys sound like a bunch of ignorant racists re the "Cooley High" cover art.

Absolutely right, the problem with the Cooley High cover is when applying my studies in phrenology, it ranks low on the ol’ craniometer.

[Quote Perf Unquote]

Someone needs to go touch grass

No idea what that means