Search found 3 matches: Jean-Luc Godard

Searched query: jean-luc godard

by sebby
Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:04 pm
Forum: General Discussion
Topic: mise en scène: pretentious or what?
Replies: 37
Views: 18139

Re: mise en scène: pretentious or what?

homosuperior wrote:There's a discussion here http://www.criticker.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2862 that gets sidetracked when the topic creator uses the phrase "mise en scène" and someone responds that's it's pretentious and that no one knows what it means.

The problem with the phrase is not that it's pretentious but that it's vague. It can mean anything and everything.

As an editor of an arts criticism blog in Argentina, I won't allow the word. It usually signals lazy writing. There is nothing in the phrase, mise en scène, that can't be conveyed with clear English words without any baggage. Precisely because the phrase is shorthand for something complex, any criticism would benefit from actually exploring those complexities in detail, rather than relying on a phrase that wikipedia describes as "film criticism's "grand undefined term.'"

Perhaps more relevantly, Jean Luc Godard and several critics from Cahiers (the film journal that originated the use of the phrase in the first place) declared the term dead. "We were wrong," Godard says. In 1965!

(I wish film fetishist David Bordwell had gotten the memo.)

Film critic Richard Brody helpfully puts Godard's declaration in context here: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2011/08/mise-en-scene.html. The primary criticisms against use of the term is that encourages a dry academicism and that cinema is as much about what is out of the frame as is what is in it. Both perils are illustrated in the framing of the topic itself in the forum post mentioned up top.

So, let's kill the use of the phrase, mise en scène.

What does anyone else think?


I find this post exactly 11 times more pretentious than the term in question. ;)

Look, mise en scene can be useful in a a pinch when describing a film. Of course a longer treatise on, say, the works of Kurosawa would be best served if each aspect of mise en scene was analyzed separately and thoroughly, but in the case of a mini-review or message board post, I don't see why it should be banished. Not every worthwhile comment on a film must be perfectly constructed, especially in a setting like the Criticker general message board. This is not Cahiers du cinema; it's a place where, yes, film is discussed fervently -- but it's also discussed casually. I suppose the longer review forum might be the one place where longer analytical reviews are the norm, but to call for the complete banishment of the term would be like scoffing at and dismissing a meal prepared with the aid of a store-bought spice mix. Sometimes I just want to throw some panch phoron in with my potatoes and be done with it, damnit.
by ShogunRua
Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:50 am
Forum: General Discussion
Topic: mise en scène: pretentious or what?
Replies: 37
Views: 18139

Re: mise en scène: pretentious or what?

frederic_g54 wrote:First of all, I'd appreciate it if the OP, or anyone for that matter, would refrain from using such dictatorial terms as "I WON'T ALLOW the word" and "let's KILL the use of", for the sake of constructive criticism.


homosuperior used "I won't allow" in the context of "I won't allow the writers I employ to use the word "mise en scene"."

There's nothing wrong with writing that; it's a statement of fact, no different than saying "the company will not allow its employees to relay their corporate plans to rival companies" Are they being "dictatorial", too, Freddy G?

What you're doing is taking that statement completely out of context to demonize your opponent, before even talking about the subject at hand. Typical.

Freddy wrote:Mise en scène, from the French term "Mettre en scène", literally putting/placing (mettre) on stage (scène), refers to the setting up of sets, props, actors, etc on a stage and ultimate collaboration of those many elements which fuels the dynamic realism of a scene. From the set desinger to the cinematographer, many professionals (i.e. an entire crew of creative people as KBG puts it) take part in that collaborative effort. Usually, there's one person who coordinates all that work, namely, the director. Even to this day, when any director in France is bestowed the honor of best director (such as in Cannes for example: http://www.festival-cannes.fr/fr/theDailyArticle/58690.html), he is still referred to as the "Metteur en Scène" :o


Amazing, isn't it? You spent an entire paragraph of this reply, and still can't explain precisely what the hell "mise en scene" means.

According to you, it's (roughly) the way the director sets up film shots. Great.

I think the term "cinemaphotography" is a lot clearer, more direct, and simpler. As it stands, "mise en scene" can mean almost anything, and thus, means precisely nothing.

fredericg54 wrote:Personally, I feel some disapprove of the term because they can't seem grasp or accept the fact that a French, and frequently used term for that matter has become associated with this great medium of ours.


Oh yes, it's all because of some evil anti-French conspiracy. That's exactly it, Freddy.

I love how you ignore that Jean-Luc Godard and many others of the French New Wave, who invented that term, also eventually dropped it because of how useless it was. (Go ahead and actually read the link homosuperior provided in the first post)

But we can't let little details like that get in the way of your little story, can we?
by cinesexual
Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:54 pm
Forum: General Discussion
Topic: mise en scène: pretentious or what?
Replies: 37
Views: 18139

mise en scène: pretentious or what?

There's a discussion here http://www.criticker.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2862 that gets sidetracked when the topic creator uses the phrase "mise en scène" and someone responds that's it's pretentious and that no one knows what it means.

The problem with the phrase is not that it's pretentious but that it's vague. It can mean anything and everything.

As an editor of an arts criticism blog in Argentina, I won't allow the word. It usually signals lazy writing. There is nothing in the phrase, mise en scène, that can't be conveyed with clear English words without any baggage. Precisely because the phrase is shorthand for something complex, any criticism would benefit from actually exploring those complexities in detail, rather than relying on a phrase that wikipedia describes as "film criticism's "grand undefined term.'"

Perhaps more relevantly, Jean Luc Godard and several critics from Cahiers (the film journal that originated the use of the phrase in the first place) declared the term dead. "We were wrong," Godard says. In 1965!

(I wish film fetishist David Bordwell had gotten the memo.)

Film critic Richard Brody helpfully puts Godard's declaration in context here: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2011/08/mise-en-scene.html. The primary criticisms against use of the term is that encourages a dry academicism and that cinema is as much about what is out of the frame as is what is in it. Both perils are illustrated in the framing of the topic itself in the forum post mentioned up top.

So, let's kill the use of the phrase, mise en scène.

What does anyone else think?