mise en scène: pretentious or what?

[cinesexual]

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?

[Spanks]

I would have to agree that the phrase should be retired. During my short stint at film school "mise en scène" was a term that was loosely thrown around by freshman who thought they knew what they were talking about when in reality they simply thought it was cool they knew a French phrase that related to film. The only other time I have heard it used is when I've been among Indie/DIY "filmmakers" who want to talk down to everyone. In the end it really is highly pretentious, never adds anything to a conversation, and tends to make me roll my eyes every time I see someone using it.

[jeff_v]

Some French words aren't really translatable (which is I guess why they are adopted in their original language). I think what most people mean is just the composition or framing of a shot.

[Ununnilium]

I have to agree; in my experience, it's been used to mean pretty much anything in a shot in a movie.

[astrakhan]

I've seen it in two or three reviews this week and you're right, it's vague. I didn't know what the writers were referring to.

For me mise-en-scène can mean composition but also encompasses the set, decor, lighting... everything that contributes to the "scene" in the camera before actors are added.

The term should be abolished; or at least, any serious writer shouldn't be using it.

[MmzHrrdb]

I suppose it may be good for introducing people to the terms of cinema, but in a review you should really narrow it down to particulars instead of the general area.

[afx237vi]

It's a useful catch-all term for when you only have 500 characters to play with, though. Shorthand for "this film has nice shot composition, lighting, sets and costumes".

[ayall]

i agree it seems pretentious and is generally vague...

i've taken a handful of film courses, and though the term looked/sounded familiar; i had to look it up to simply discover it's a rather general term when referencing cinema. the only caveat i would give it is that it carry's a technology "pre-CGI" stigma.

[ShogunRua]

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

Yes, that was ultimately my problem with it in the topic, and why I called it "pretentious".

A term is "pretentious" when the use of it is meant to impress the one reading it, but does not convey any useful information. Namely, "mise en scene" is too vague, as you noted; I still have no idea what exactly it refers to, except that it's a catch-all for "visual presentation".

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

What does anyone else think?

I'm all for it, but you might have a hard time convincing frederic_g54...

[KGB]

I'm not completely against it but not very fond of it either. Some people seem to have the misconception though (I might be wrong) that mise en scène refers to the body of elements present in a scene (light, camera, costumes, decorations, sound, etc. etc.) while it really stands for the interaction of those elements, that is, how those elements together work according to the filmmaker's intentions. So I wouldn't say it is vague but rather quite specific; it's not a term for the sum of all elements so that a lazy critic can use the word and still seem bright but a term to reflect the esthetical result of teamwork in a film production, how the reality that the filmmaker attempts to represent is constructed by an entire crew of creative people.

Is it pretentious? Well, it depends on who's using it and how. But it's not vague, although a bit pointless in my opinion.