Criterion & Eclipse Cover Art & Packaging Babble-on Vol.4
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
The font used on 24 Eyes is SAY too effete for Jane Austen (whose works are a lot harder-edged than lots of people seem to notice). The choice makes no sense in the context of the film --whatever the film's faults (in my mind), frilliness is not one of them.
Here's what an early poster (?) looked like
Not sure what the equivalent Western font might be for this.
Here's what an early poster (?) looked like
Not sure what the equivalent Western font might be for this.
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Not corresponding to Austen? (I take it you meant WAY too effete).. check out The landing page for Jane Austen Books Online, just a random search's first result.MK wrote:The font used on 24 Eyes is SAY too effete for Jane Austen
Too funny.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Yeah, but look at her own signature-- not nearly so effete as the screen fonts. I'm talking about the reality of Austen, not the way her work has often been appropriated....
Just because her books are marketed in a certain way doesn't make them that in reality.
And what did you think of the poster's font. ;~}
Just because her books are marketed in a certain way doesn't make them that in reality.
And what did you think of the poster's font. ;~}
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Very true, we shouldn't judge a book (or DVD!) by its cover!Michael Kerpan wrote:Just because her books are marketed in a certain way doesn't make them that in reality.
For example see this article in which Austen is marketed towards a 'chick-lit' crowd. (By the way Richard and Judy are like the UK's version of Oprah, even to the extent of running their own version of a book club, except they are possibly even more insufferable).
And if that wasn't indignity enough, publishers even change Austen's appearance to make her fit our 'perception' of her:
According to Wordsworth Editions, which sells millions of cut-price classic novels, the only authentic portrait of Jane Austen is too unattractive.
Helen Trayler, its managing director, said: “The poor old thing didn’t have anything going for her in the way of looks. Her original portrait is very, very dowdy. It wouldn’t be appealing to readers, so I took it upon myself to commission a new picture of her.
“We’ve given her a bit of a makeover, with make-up and some hair extensions and removed her nightcap. Now she looks great — as if she’s just walked out of a salon.”
Last edited by colinr0380 on Fri May 16, 2008 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
- Gregory
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm
- TheGodfather
- Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:39 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
- Matango
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:19 am
- Location: Hong Kong
Speaking of David Farrar's eyes on that SBR cover, Michael Powell mentions that they were violet in his commentary on Black Narcissus...a couple of times, if I remember correctly. Nice to see Mr Farrar and Kathleen Byron sharing a cover, too, but the man of the match for me in this film has got to be Sid James. Nice to see him finally in the Collection!
- godardslave
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:44 pm
- Location: Confusing and open ended = high art.
- hammock
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:52 pm
- Location: www.criteriondungeon.com
- Contact:
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
- keeproductions
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
- Cinephrenic
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:58 pm
- Location: Paris, Texas