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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
