Glen Hansard slags the Once DVD cover

That's a real shame. I wouldn't mind a Criterion edition, myself. :-)

I can't get that image link to open.

When it comes to bad covers, for a recent example, you can't beat the Rescue Dawn DVD. I can't imagine someone looking at it and coming away with any clue what the movie is actually like.

You don't think there will actually be a Criterion edition, do you?

JE: I'm not holding my breath. But once Criterion put out their edition of Michael Bay's "Armageddon," I suppose anything is possible.

For some reason, the Australian version of the DVD cover stays true to the poster.

Apparently we're a region so small, they don't bother condescending to us.

Speaking of bad DVD cover, has everyone seen the cover art for the "No Country for Old Men" DVD? It's the "curse of the big superimposed heads" striking again.

I guess they wanted to get Jones on the cover somehow. The headshots are from left to right: Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, and Tommy Lee Jones. But the names underneath them are ordered: Jones, Bardem, Brolin.

You have the wrong graphic - the original poster has them walking on a street and he is in a hat, as Glen explains. The one on the left here is closer than the DVD cover, but still has them on a guitar, and no hat.

See http://www.nosq.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/once_press.jpg

JE: Thanks, wagonmaker. Above are the US theatrical poster and the US DVD cover. You can see the actual image on which all these are based at my original post, here:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/12/once_revised.html

@ Dan:

That's because the actor who received the highest amount of money for his services (in this case Mr. Jones) gets top billing (from left to right) on the poster (and/or DVD cover) while the central character (here: señor Bardem) is usually pictured in the, er, center.

But it wouldn't make sense for Criterion to put out Once because it's first-generation digital. Do you see? "This new high-definition digital transfer was created from a 35mm low-contrast print made from the original negative. Thousands of instances of dirt, debris, and scratches were removed using the MTI Digital Restoration System. To maintain optimal image quality through the compression process, the picture on this dual-layer DVD-9 has been encoded at the highest-possible bit rate for the quantity of materials included. The new sound mix was mastered at 24-bit from the original 4-track magnetic master, and audio restoration tools were used to reduce clicks, pops, hiss, and crackle. " What the hell would you get with Once? "Once was transfered from the original digital master." That's not what Criterion does!

As for the cover of No Country for Old Men, here it is.

And version 2.

I actually find these kinds of redesigns MORE offensive than stuff like this:

http://blog.mindvalleylabs.com/how-dvd-pirates-in-china-improve-on-hollywood-packaging/58/

The Chinese pirates are at least inventive. Marring the cover design to pander to people who just don't even read the title is another thing entirely, though. I hate all the DVD boxes that replace brilliant poster art with covers designed to evoke the more popular movie next to it. When 300 came out on DVD, there must've been about a dozen classic and straight to DVD movies that were re-released with identical covers to that movie.

Sorry, I have to disagree here. This is another case of biting the hand that feeds you (see also: Katherine Heigl). Based on Hansard's own description of the original art, the new artwork appears to be an improvement (especially the guitar touch). How often did his character even wear a hat in the movie? Hansard won the distribution lottery for ONCE (how mnay other great films slip through the cracks every year), eventually earning him coin, press, and an Academy Award. After all that, he holds a grudge about BOX ART? Maybe if he understood that films do not exist in a vacuum, and that it is a distributor's prerogative to market the film in a way that would actually bring it money (a business, afterall, does need to earn a little change for self-preservation purposes). If Hansard is true to his word (or gripe, rather), let's see if he self-distributes his next film like the "avant garde" artist he falsely fashions himself to be.

SMR: I don't think he's biting the hand that feeds him at all. Fox Searchlight got a very big thank you in his acceptance speech. He just liked his original design, and he was mostly taking issue with the awful dvd cover, not the poster. The poster is on the verge of hokey, but its not bad, and it sells the movie just fine. The dvd cover is atrocious (in ways Jim described much better than I could, in his previous post), and there's no reason Hansard shouldn't be able to say that publicly.

I think it might come off sounding a lot harsher then its meant to because it's in print, and all the f-cks and sh-ts that are part of the natural way he talks about everything, make it sound like he's raving mad about the cover.

Now just a minute! That's a terrible argument for the bastardizing of an artist's creation. First of all, you don't know that he holds a grudge about cover art. You just assumed that because you know he doesn't like what they did with it. This doesn't mean he begrudges the distributor overall. And then you try to paint him as ignorant! And then you say that distributors know how to market things in order to bring them money. I'll tell you the truth: distributors have no idea what they're doing. Today, their interference is harmful to the art almost 100% of the time.

Now let's look at the different versions of the image. You'll see that we start out with an image of two vulnerable people who are seeing the promise of healing in one another. They never become intimate, but there's something cathartic in the air. Then on the movie poster, they take the hat off and put the guitar in, and they warm up the palette. They're trying to sensationalize the romance and the music. And when we get to the last image, now it's about a vulnerable woman who meets a sexy guy. They're just lying about what the movie is. Doesn't this make it less likely to reach its intended audience?

Distributors take note. They're artists; you're not. Keep your hands off.

SMR:

That's a surprising counter-argument, since most of the posters here support the artist-end rather than the business-end of the film world. Nevertheless, you offer the practical observation that film is indeed a business and that Hansard should be grateful for finding distribution at all, whatever the sacrifices needed to ensure said distribution. You're also correct when you assert that it's the distributor's prerogative to market the film however they wish, including what goes on the cover of the box, and I don't think anyone would argue with you there.

What rankles me about this kind of box art re-design (which is more the norm than the exception, these days) is the dishonesty inherent in the process. The people behind these re-vamped designs are intentionally misleading the consumer by altering not only the look and feel of the films (the impressions that they make and the associations that they set off, whether genre related or otherwise), but also the very facts of the films themselves (e.g. the way the main characters are "holding hands" here).

Distributors might have a right to advertise however they wish, but actively trying to deceive the consumer, marketing the film as something it's not, is dishonest and insulting. Essentially, they aren't interested in accurately reflecting the film or appealing to the existing fan-base, the people who already know about, and like the film -- they're going to buy the DVD anyway, right? -- they're trying to "reel in" the unsuspecting shopper with a cover that (according to market research, or whatever line of bullshit they use to justify this nonsense) appeals to the average home video viewer.

What a crock.

A film's cover should reflect the film in question, whether its content, its style, its mood, or its attitude (preferably, all of the above), and there are ways to do this that also highlight the film's selling points, whether by including the faces (and names) of its stars, emphasizing a particular aspect of the production (like a scene of action or intrigue), and etc. (but this shouldn't be a necessary requirement). Too often, DVD covers are just bullshit advertisements, totally divorced from the disc's contents, instead of accurate reflections of the films and their features. It'd be nice to hit the stores for once and see a full rack of discs that honestly reflect (and honestly describe, but maybe we shouldn't get into the issue of preening, squealingly hyperbolic box notes) the movie contained on the DVD. Wouldn't that be a sweet change of pace? Instead of leaving the store depressed at all the attempts made to convince you to buy -- or to out-and-out trick you into buying -- this or that product when all you want to know is what the hell you're getting. Just tell me the bloody truth and let me decide for myself, alright.

But hey, if that would crimp sales too much then, by all means, continue to mislead me into buying something that I wouldn't otherwise have wanted, don't much care to own, and am now upset and embittered for having bought, thus re-enforcing my sense of disillusionment with, and resentment towards the whole damned industry.

...

Maybe I could use some fresh air...

Bravo, Kevin. You said it all perfectly. SMR couldn't be more wrong.

Whoever mentioned the "Zodiac" DVD cover is spot-on; the original poster was creepy and fascinating, and reflected the tension and suspense of the film to a remarkable degree. I don't think that superimposing Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr.'s heads above a different image of the Golden Gate bridge does anything to convey those emotions at all.

Jim, are you responsible for letters getting posted on Ebert's page?

If you are, consider this a complaint. Almost every letter posted is either illiterate or really stupid. In order, the last few letters say-

normally I like the Coens, but No Country is just a slasher movie, I wish I'd missed it

The Great Dictator is appalling, the Holocaust was so sad

36 years ago Ebert said A Clockwork Orange was talky and boring, *I* think Juno was talky and boring, Ebert is a hypocrite!

I mean really now. These people are stupid. Stop posting their letters. If there are no intelligent letters, don't post any letters. Please?

I completely agree with Mr. Hansard's assessment of the Criterion DVD covers. They're designed to appeal to one's sense of imagination rather than retrofit to some set of visual cliches. The cover art for Antonioni's "L'Avventura" may just be as lasting a work of art as the film itself:

http://www.criterion.com/asp/release.asp?id=98

Count me in as another person who was perplexed that the No Country letter was posted onto rogerebert.com. I found that letter to be just terrible.

JE: Well that's the idea -- to publish letters that jump-start discussions. I hope will be able to offer reader comments on RogerEbert.com soon, too.

Hey, where did SMR go? Off painting a smiley-face t-shirt onto Munch's screamer, perhaps? That would really broaden its appeal. If only poor artists understood how to reach people.

I agree, those letters are awful. I understand they're there to spark discussion, but to what degree? A person moaning about "The Great Dictator"? Someone calling Ebert a hypocrite for a review he did years ago? Ugh, that's just lame IMDB fodder.

As for this cover issue, it's ridiculous, it's always been ridiculous, it will always be ridiculous, but they're not stopping it. From "30 Days of Night," to "No Country," it's all hideous garbage meant to appeal to general movie store customers.

It's a wonder my favorite movie "Hard Candy" retained its original cover's flavor.

What a riot.

You guys are acting like the distribution company snuck in the back door in the middle of the night and hastily recut the film.

All Hansard did was simply use publishing software on a computer (more than likely) to push around and resize a few images. You all are treating a DVD cover like fine art (even Munch's name has been thrown around!) Give me a break.

I worked in magazine publishing and had my work touched up many times. Was it annoying? Sure. Did I get in the editor's face, curse, and throw around wild accusations? No. For one, I was appreciative to have the job. Secondly, she was working from a place that was in the best interest of the magazine, which only existed as long as the public parted money for it.

Resizing and reshaping of the actors on the DVD cover was silly. I don't see cause for such a rant, though (and, to be sure, Hansard most definitely was ranting), however.

By the way, answer these questions for me: did Hansard create his own font for the cover, or did he manipulate a pre-created font? Was that his photograph, or was it the cinematographer, director, or still photographer's? Did the director of ONCE color correct the images shot by the camera man/cinematographer in the movie? Did the editor alter time and space during postproduction? Did the director and/or editor alter the writer's storyline or dialogue during the shoot? Did Hansard manipulate his vocals or music during the recording process?

If so, then I guess that wiley Hansard has duped us all by a product that most definitely does not reflect reality.

Jim, re: the letters:

Those letters aren't really very good for jump-starting discussions, as they seem to be objectively (as much as something can be in movie criticism) stupid. There's no discussion beyond "boy, that's dumb. Moving on..."

This is especially evident when compared against the frankly fantastic letter from Nicholas Rizzo about NCFOM. That letter slid a few jigsaw puzzles into place for me, and gave that movie a whole new depth to appreciate.

On a more upbeat movie poster note, for those interested in such things I love the website of the Australia-based designer Jeremy Saunders. As well as images of his "key art" (not movie posters!), the site contains some "case studies" with rejected options; the section on the film "Little Fish" is exceptional.

SMR, I'm the one that threw Munch's name around and to clarify, I was not comparing artistic merit but rather talking about the creative process. Everyone here understands the layers of commerce entrenched between the producer of art, fine or otherwise, and the consumer. What bugged me was your phrase "biting the hand that feeds you." I think there may be a disagreement about who is feeding whom.

SMR makes a very valid point. I don't agree with it, but it's sound, albeit incomplete. Of course, studios have to think about making money out of their product. But artistic integrity and an acute business sense are not mutually exclusive - of all people, it is the studio's marketing department (and the PR firms working for them) that should heed to that caveat.

Re: Letters

Paul (Oh, man, huge fan – I love Maybe I'm Amazed) wrote:

Jim, are you responsible for letters getting posted on Ebert's page?

If you are, consider this a complaint. Almost every letter posted is either illiterate or really stupid.

As a longtime Ebert and Scanners correspondent, and one whose letters and/or comments have been published in the past, I would just like to put my hands up and admit to my stupidity. Why? Because my mother used to drop me on the head as punishment. But also because opinions are tantamount to IQ tests. In fact, these feeble comments of mine on the site should be regarded as short cautionary tales. "Only respect your own opinions, and your own opinions only, otherwise you might end up like Ali, that open-minded twit."

Reading the three letters that some commenters find egregious, I see:

- An interesting take on violence not just in NCFOM, but also in movies. As a person outside of the US, this viewpoint is fascinating considering the previous letter that Jim has also reprinted on Scanners, which fashions an incredibly well-crafted and sound argument with regards to the way the film relates to America. Hmmm. Actually, that’s pretty fricking dumb.
- A letter, which, at first glance, is quite bizarre, yet, when considered more thoughtfully, presents a fascinating question: How is The Great Dictator different from, say, Life is Beautiful (well, one was made in 1940; the extent of the Nazi persecution of the Jews [and other minorities] was not as well known; the former is a great film, the latter, I’ll be nice, isn’t)? Knowing what we know about the Nazi atrocities, and the Holocaust, and all the evils that plagued Europe (and the world) in the wake of that most destructive war, can we still enjoy The Great Dictator? Is it morally right? I don’t know the answers, but it is a provocative line of argument, no? Of course not. The guy who asked it is stupid. Look at his name: HE IS ONLY A FRICKING MEDICAL DOCTOR!
- A letter, not the first of its kind on the site (the other was an Answerman query a few weeks ago regarding Roger’s Raising Arizona review), questioning how Roger Ebert can reconcile his dismissive views of the recherché dialogue in A Clockwork Orange with his high praise for Juno’s. Again, an intriguing argument about how a certain cinematic element can grate in one movie, yet has the opposite effect in another. But who wants to think about that when we can sustain our collective intellectual penury by miring ourselves in opinionated uniformity, right?

I meant to include the URL for Jeremy Saunders's site: http://www.1970.com.au/.

SMR:

Straw-man much?

The issue is misrepresentation of the film. If it were just a matter of tweaking the art a little bit for the home release, no one would care. The distributors (or whoever) trying to give consumers a false impression of the film by altering the picture to show hand-holding, less scruff, more stylish clothes and a smaller height difference is clearly not the same thing.

I think Ali did a fine job making the case for stupidity but I'm just stupid enough to want to jump on that bandwagon. I would hope if SMR was running this blog he would be willing to put up with my opinions even though he clearly finds them lacking in intelligence or, at least, a grasp of reality, and others deserve the same--especially if the alternative is nothing. More specifically, I'm one of those people who, like Ms. Thompson, finds little to love in slasher pics no matter how artistic they might be--I just happen to think that No Country is a lot more than a slasher pic. And I shared Ali's opinion that, perhaps, Dr. Kirzner was unaware of the chronology of The Great Dictator's release. I'm not saying that would change his opinion, but it does seem interesting that he makes no mention of it. I wonder if he's seen To Be or Not to Be? Or, like me, grew up on Hogan's Heroes? I *do* think this leads to an interesting dialogue. Not completely removed from the Stepin Fetchit posts, really. As for the Juno/Clockwork Orange thing...it seems a weird coupling, almost worthy of political spin doctors, but that's just my stupid opinion. As always, feel free to pile on, but please let me be free to be stupid.

Regarding the hand holding and guitar images that seem to be ruffling so many feathers out there...

...are there two themes which sum up the picture MORE than music and romance? Do the two main characters NOT entertain the notion of a relationship? How is this misrepresentation?

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the difference between manipulating a box image in contrast to manipulating the cinematography, musical recording (would LOVE to hear Hansard's take on this), and editing of a motion picture.

By the way, are you SURE that's the correct color tone of the Irish sky and cityscape in Hansard's original poster art? Or has a camera, computer, or process altered it in any way?

And I also think too many of you are quick to exclude distribution and marketing from the general cinematic process (guess post production isn't as chic as the production process).

Aside from Criterion and a select few companies from Europe, there is a special place in hell for all the bad DVD covers out there. Think of Casino Royale, then look at that DVD cover - looks like it was half-finished while the designer was dozing off.
Someone ought to shame the studios into hiring competent graphic design firms for these packages.

As a longtime Ebert and Scanners correspondent, and one whose letters and/or comments have been published in the past...

Wait a minute, Ali's letters have been published? Hey, I want a letter published too now. I'm going to write one tonight about, uh... ah hell, I don't know, I'll think of something. And I expect to see it published according to the equal time rule for Scanners commenters.

Hey, Jim, just out of curiosity, does Roger ever read this blog? If so does he say, "Jim, you keep those guys away from me okay" or is he more like, "Jim, great commenters you got there." Just curious.

Jonathan: I don't recall Roger ever bringing up the topic of Scanners comments -- but I love 'em and I quote things I learn from you guys & gals to my friends all the time.

What I find ironic is that, in this thread, people have commented on the quality of the letters published over at RogerEbert.com! OK, OK -- the commenters here are generally better! There. I said it.

OK, OK -- the commenters here are generally better! There. I said it.

That's because we're all nervous, anxious, fidgety self-aware bloggers, consumed with film and the internet and surviving on coffee and snack foods. Well, at least I am.

I know he seems to at least find some humor in the situation...but all and all it is pretty whiney if you ask me. How many other performers design the DVD covers they appear on? And the overall image is pretty similar in composition, I prefer the DVD colored background as well, the faint blank and white from his design is pretty unappealing

I'm extremely confused by Pitchfork's comment that the movie industry is worse than the music industry. How many filmmakers are in debt to their studios because their last movie didn't make enough?

I guess no-one's entirely immune to the temptations of a little airbrushing. When Glen Hansard accepted his Oscar, he spoke very briefly in Irish (Gaelic) and made a grammatical error - one made by many if not most Irish people, given that most of us only have a smattering of the language - which was cleaned up in the transcript that appears on The Frames' website! (For those interested in such linguistic minutiae, he confused singular and plural, thanking just one person rather than the entire academy).