Paths of Glory Criterion cover
I like it. Image from the film. Title of the film. Name of director. Criterion logo.
They get different people to do the covers.
Some are better than others. This one is certainly not overproduced, as it has almost no production value at all.
All I know is that yesterday I was looking through the forum thread on Fake Criterion Covers and I saw this:
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4465/pathsofglory.png
…and I responded to it immediately. I don’t think its perfect, but I like where it’s going. You may not agree. I just know my gut reaction to the official cover was considerably less enthusiastic. The film is incredible (says me!). The official cover does not convey that. It makes it look depressing, and while the film is certainly pessimistic, I find it invigorating.
You know, maybe the problem is with the text and the placement. Having it over on the side makes the film appear marginal. I think it’s a masterpiece, and on par with Kubrick’s best work. The title should be centered, with a COMMANDING font – even if that font is curvise, delicate, whatever.
I realize I’m overanalyzing this, and that it isn’t truly important. I’m just sorting this out as it comes to mind.
I haven’t seen the movie but the pain on his face alone makes me want to check it out. I like this cover a lot!
You’re not saying this one is overproduced, are you? And for the record, I actually prefer overproduced to underproduced.
Yeah, Miasma, that one’s actually based on one of the theatrical posters:
I think the official cover is a good representation of what the film is, both visually and thematically, though.
@Matt – I know it’s the theatrical poster. And after my comments, I can’t deny that the official cover may be a cogent representation. But. I now stick to my observation about the font. I think it misrepresents the tone of the film. This cover is equivocal to Von Sternberg set – like [1 of 3]. But – - I would not at all be surprised if Criterion very soon announced The Killing, and had a cover that thematically matched Paths of Glory. In fact I would venture that’s even likely…
And another thing I should mention is that the cover looks EXACTLY like a photograph Stanley Kubrick would’ve taken in his photography days. So I’m not sure if I agree with you when you say “Kubrick would’ve never gone for that”
@Ryan – well, I mean that picture assuredly came from Kubrick, so yeah. I also have some books of Stan’s photography, which I only mention to make it sound like I know what I’m talking about.
But perhaps it was premature of me to make a silly statement like that.
I stand by my 2nd opinion – the font! Unless this is part of a set with The Killing… I can take it or leave it!
I think it’s dynamite…for some other movie.
It doesn’t capture what the movie is about. My fake cover focused on Kirk Douglas too and I was wrong. Someone did a cover focusing on the three unlucky souls selected for execution and that was the right way to go. The movie is about the madness of war and obedience to authority ….not about Kirk Douglas being put into a REALLY BAD position. If they wanted to use Douglas’s image, they should have used the shot of his face at the time of the execution.
What’s the deal with Douglas’ name being on the cover? That’s pretty rare, no?
THAT is rare…good catch Mike. Douglas is fine in the film (perhaps even great), but I don’t imagine people buying the Criterion version would be buying it as a “Kirk Douglas” film…as a Kubrick film, yes.
I agree Jaspar, I was going to make that comment myself. It’s about Douglas insofar as he is the protagonist we follow, but on a whole I feel he is simply the main member of an ensemble that we spend time with. I think the three soldiers may have been more welcome on the cover.
YES, PRECISELY: Douglas’s face at the execution. As soon as I first heard that this would approach Criterion – that image was the first thing that came to mind. Absolutely!
It always bothered me when people would put the actor’s name on their fake covers in that thread but now i suppose they were psychic, unfortunately:) Nothing against actors but i’m not a fan of that decision for Criterion.
I’m not a fan of his name there, either. But – - given Douglas’s notable involvement with Kubrick, his championing of projects, his star status and the way he was advertised with this film… perhaps it is quite relevant. EVEN SO, once again… the titles should be larger and/or more prominent!
They can probably use Douglas involvement as their reasoning but it just seems like a marketing ploy to me. I have some sympathy for all their decisions, including the notorious Armageddon, Rock, Buttons decisions, as long as they bring the Pedro Costa’s and Akerman’s and possibly Guitry to the table. I just thought it was nice to have an American label that strictly celebrated the filmmakers on their covers. Oh well.
-I think it misrepresents the tone of the film.-
How so? The film is not simply about Dax’s unsuccessful defense of the soldiers and their subsequent execution? It’s about the larger horrors and absurdities of trench warfare, of which the execution is just a part. People tend to latch on to the singing of “The Faithful Hussar” near the end as a sort of happy ending, but even this is immediately undercut by Dax receiving the news that the regiment has been ordered back to the front, so . . .
@ Mike
I’m sure recognition potential of Douglas’s face was a factor, but don’t forget that dehumanization was an important theme for Kubrick, and facial close-ups were an important motif:
Eh, now I just feel guilty for having started this. Naturally I’m quite grateful to Criterion for their ceaseless efforts and agreeable tastes. The cover will do fine.
No, I think it’s a interesting subject.
My own concept from last year:
I like yours better, Josh.
@Matt
I was referring to Douglas’ name, or the combination of the two.
The Cover is quite good, and certainly fits the gritty tone of the film, although I like the above cover from House of Leaves even better. That’s one of the film’s best shots, perfect Kubrick symmetry. I do think the prominent “Kirk Douglas” on the cover is a bit strange, as I would think these days, the name Stanley Kubrick is more widely recognized than Kirk Douglas anymore; but I think they’re just going along with the film’s original marketing, which certainly emphasized it as a Kirk Douglas-starred film.
I certainly like House of Leaves general idea, but that actual shot I think, for a cover, would be a strange choice. It’s just too difficult to tell what film, exactly, we’re talking about. When I think Paths of Glory, I think (1) Kirk Douglas, (2) WWI, (3) French Army and (4) unjust execution, pretty much in that order. The original movie poster, or some kind of a derivative, would be my choice.
My copy of MGM’s dvd has KIRK DOUGLAS larger than the new Criterion art.
I like the new design. Sorry to say, but some of those homemade user’s covers are really bad. (not yours, HOUSE OF LEAVES, I like that one.)
-I was referring to Douglas’ name, or the combination of the two-
There are actually quite a few of the Criterion releases of relatively recent films that have actors names on the cover. Silence of the Lambs was the first that I recall (I wonder if some stars don’t have contract stipulations that their names appear on the home video packinging a certain way). I think in Douglas’s case, it was probably done as much as anything as a gesture of respect since Douglas is still with us at the ripe old age of 93.
@Matt,
I figured i probably missed some here or there. I suppose I could have looked through the catalog but checking through 500 covers wasn’t as easy as bitching. It’s not really all that important what’s on the cover as much as what’s inside, but it still irks me.
It seems to me that Criterion has been using a lot more stills from films on their covers than original artwork. Just a trend I guess.
Also, it looks like someone accidently used the “Spartacus” font on this cover.
Kudos House of Leaves!!! That is the cover that should have been used!
nice cover!
lovely film!
wonderful actor!
superb filmmaker!
I think the new cover is totally boring and amateurish. Looks like about 30 seconds of creativity went into it.
Miasma
Criterion just released the cover art for Paths of Glory.
This is what I wrote as a response on Criterion’s Facebook page, concomitant to this announcement:
“Hm. Don’t know if I agree with this cover, or it doesn’t agree with me. Paths of Glory is my film, has been for a long time… This is not a cover I’d have chosen. It looks… chic. Kubrick would’ve never gone for that.
I think Criterion’s covers have been evolving in a strange direction. They look “overproduced”… the champion works of graphic designers. I never minded the old Criterion designs which were clearly thrown together… I’ve rather have something underproduced than over."
It’s something of a letdown, but not very much. It’s just a fucking DVD. Still. It’s Stan. Stan my Man. I wanted something better. This is like… I dunno, modern sophomore level photography… the sort of thing that accompanies an article in a magazine.