MovieChat Forums > Onibaba (1965) Discussion > Cover Art: Criterion vs. Eureka

Cover Art: Criterion vs. Eureka


I am going to now play the part of the artsy-fartsy picky guy here, but I must say that I prefer Eureka's cover for the film over the illustrated cover from Criterion (see both samples in the links below below).

Onibaba, Criterion: http://www.criterion.com/films/665

Onibaba, Eureka: http://eurekavideo.co.uk/moc/catalogue/onibaba/

I love how Eureka uses the original typography from the movie posters... combine that with the duotone flood of the ominous susuki grass, and the gorgeous-yet-unsettling glare from Jitsuko Yoshimura, and IMO you have yourself a fine representation of the film's mood.

reply

I'm really not sure which I prefer. I agree that the Eureka poster is beautiful, I love the way the grass effect almost blends into her hair, and the font is better suited, but most of all it doesn't spoilt the movie, the mask doesn't turn up until very late into the movie, in fact I prepared to watch a horror and then 2 thirds in, decided I had incorrectly assumed it was a horror and enjoyed it for what it was.

However the simplistic beauty of the hands holding on to the side of the mask in the Critereon cover is exceptional. When I first got the movie I assumed it was a demon using it's hands to increase the scare factor, but after watching the film and looking back on the cover now it is obviously trying to remove the mask. The same exact image having such a double meaning is gorgeous.

The Eureka cover does suit the slow-nature of the movie though, so I'm torn between which I prefer.

reply

damn i only have the *beep* filmax version, well at least i have it, i think i prefer the criterion collection version


sorry for my bad english :(

reply

Yeah, I agree, OP. I prefer Eureka's cover, but that's not to say I dislike Criterion's cover. Both are fantastic.

reply

Eureka's cover art is beautiful and by far the best cover art of this film around. Criterion's artwork, on the other hand, looks really ugly.

reply