mise en scène: pretentious or what?

[MmzHrrdb]

i have more of a problem with the word "pretentious" than mise en scene.

fucking this. also "The Emperor's Clothes," epic, sheep, over rated, under rated, etc.,


I'd rather have any of these words wiped out of criticism before mise en scène

My sentiments exactly. "Mise en scene" is kind of lazy, but 99% of the time if you use "pretentious" unironically, I'm going to take you a lot less seriously.

[cinesexual]

"Mise en scene" is kind of lazy, but 99% of the time if you use "pretentious" unironically, I'm going to take you a lot less seriously.

The argument is the same against using all these words, including mise en scène: They're imprecise and don't generally lead to detailed or interesting discussions. They are, in fact, substitutes for the beginnings of detailed and interesting discussions.

But, boy, people sure like to hold on to them despite the fact that's it's easy to demonstrate that they don't understand the terms they're using anyway or don't understand their implications.

All of the responses defending the phrase, mise en scène, have illustrated that the people who claim to know what the phrase means (except for the guy who mentioned its applicability to photography) nevertheless are completely ignorant of its history and usage and its origins in film studies. Usage of the phrase does, however, ironically provide cover for that ignorance. Which is why, at root, it's a pretentious word in a way that "over-rated" is not.

[Ununnilium]

"Mise en scene" is kind of lazy, but 99% of the time if you use "pretentious" unironically, I'm going to take you a lot less seriously.

Can I say that if you use "use <blank> unironically" unironically, you're being pretentious? `-`

[MmzHrrdb]

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.

Jesus. Finally.

[MmzHrrdb]

this is the dumbest thread on criticker forums probably. let it die

[Dorkovsky]

this is the dumbest thread on criticker forums probably. let it die

The first correct post. It wouldn't be as bad if everyone here knew what 'pretentious' actually means, but that knowledge is severely lacking.

[mwgerb]

this is the dumbest thread on criticker forums probably. let it die

The first correct post. It wouldn't be as bad if everyone here knew what 'pretentious' actually means, but that knowledge is severely lacking.

I find your post to be pretentious.

[tef]

The term can mean anything on the scene, but that's not bad. Many terms are broad but useful.