mise en scène: pretentious or what?

[MmzHrrdb]

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

Shorthand for "this film has nice shot composition, lighting, sets and costumes"

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

And now the definition from my film textbook:

Each element of the mise en scene- the setting, the human figure, lighting, and composition- influences the viewer's experience of the story, characters, space, and time.

So first we have the setting which all three of the definitions given by members mentioned: astrakhan mentioned sets and decor, afx237vi mentioned sets, and frederic_g54 mentioned sets and props. All of these things refer to the setting of a scene. Next we have the human figure/s . Included in this area are their postion on the set (as frederic_g54 stated), costumes (which afx237vi mentioned), and makeup. I think this area is where the most obvious variation in definition occurs.Then we have lighting which both astrakhan and afx237vi mentioned. Finally we have the scene composition which is mentioned in all of the above definitons and includes symmetry, framing, foreground vs. background, and color.

To recap: I'd say these 4 definitions are actually pretty close. I mean the only obvious discrepancy is in the actor placement category and even 2 of the above 4 definitions mention that. So I fail to understand how these definitions are "very different". And in reference to the writer from the new yorker he makes references to these things in his "definition" or lack of one:

The term is a theatrical one—“putting on stage”—and refers to all that relates to stage direction, from décor to blocking. In movie criticism, it suggests what a director does with images—framings, posing of actors, tempo of editing

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/m ... z1X3HKk0QC

Well decor refers to set design and blocking is the positioning of the actors on set (which he refers to twice for some reason), and framings is part of shot composition. So it looks to me like a writer who is arguing against the phrase was even able to identify 3 of the 4 parts of mise en scene according to my textbook. I don't think I'll say much more on this topic, I doubt it will matter.

From now on, instead of listing the individual things I enjoyed about a film (the acting, the comedic beats, the premise, etc.), I'll just write my mini-reviews with "I liked this movie!"

This was not what I meant, and I think you know that. The things you listed (the acting, comedic beats, the premise) are NOT parts of mise en scene. I was only referring to the different parts of the mise en scene. Having said that, I don't mind further explanation, but as others have already said with only 500 characters it is hard to elaborate on everything that encompasses mise en scene.

Now having said all this, personally, I do not use the phrase in my reviews. Why? Because most of the films I rate are after my first time seeing them, at which point I am mainly focused on the story and plot. I find that great examples of mise en scene, as it is somewhat an art, are easier to spot on repeat viewings of the film, when I am less focused on the story and more on the imagery. Mise en scene is also changed on a shot to shot basis, and so some still shots are better than others,but you would be surprised how much you can analyze a single shot from a film on the basis of mise en scene.

Anyways, I don't think I'll be able to explain myself any better than this, and I'm not one to pick fights on a forum. I've added my 2 cents, and at the end of the day I suppose my thoughts will change no one's mind, but they are my thoughts on the topic, and I don't think the phrase mise en scene should be killed.

[cinesexual]

That said, I don't know - does "mise en scene" itself have applications beyond that? When would you use it?

Although I'm sure I used it in writing about film after I left school, I doubt I used it beyond my 20s. Now that I edit other people's writing and have to think about a specific audience and require writers to justify their word choice, I have very little tolerance for it and other jargon.

I hate to repeat myself, but there is no concept contained within the phrase mise en scène that a good writer can't convey, explain and describe more effectively using plain English.

Further, any professional film critic that employs the phrase now without putting it in context is professing a certain ignorance about the history of film scholarship. That's just an opinion, of course, but it's an informed one.

[frederic_g54]

There's nothing wrong with writing that...

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. I think the term "cinemaphotography" is a lot clearer, more direct, and simpler.

What's amazing is your reluctance to agree but I didn't expect any less coming from you. That's because you've become such a cliché. See what I did there ?

While once again encompassing, I did explain what it means, as did many others, all summarized is dougied89's previous post. Cinematography refers only to the lighting and camera placement (and you know that), not the interraction of most elements associated with stage setting. Any further scrutiny will do no one favours.

[ShogunRua]

From now on, instead of listing the individual things I enjoyed about a film (the acting, the comedic beats, the premise, etc.), I'll just write my mini-reviews with "I liked this movie!"

This was not what I meant, and I think you know that.

Obviously it's not what you meant, but it is the logical conclusion one draws from your words.

If, instead of discussing specific elements like lighting, camera angle, etc. it suffices to merely write "I liked the mise en scene", then why not write "I liked the movie" instead of "the acting/premise were good because..."?

Because it's lazy and conveys no real information, that's why.

Having said that, I don't mind further explanation, but as others have already said with only 500 characters it is hard to elaborate on everything that encompasses mise en scene.

While I initially hated having a 500 character limit, I eventually learned to appreciate it.

It forces you to write very clearly and concisely, and summarize the main points of why you liked or didn't like the work. Believe me, it's amazing how much you're able to convey in those 500 characters sometimes, even down to lighting and camera angel.

I mention this because "mise en scene" is pretty much the opposite of clear, concise, and intelligent writing.

What's amazing is your reluctance to agree but I didn't expect any less coming from you. That's because you've become such a cliché. See what I did there ?

My reluctance to agree with your laughable ad hominem attack on homosuperior, or your utter inability to write clearly on the subject? Apparently, in Freddy G's twisted world, either constitutes a "cliche".

Your use of that word is as clumsy and misguided as your use of "mise en scene", but I guess that's par for the course.

Cinematography refers only to the lighting and camera placement (and you know that), not the interraction of most elements associated with stage setting. Any further scrutiny will do no one favours.

Oh, neat!

Now we learn "mise en scene" means a film's "visual presentation".

"Visual presentation" is a clumsy and overly vague term too, but it's marginally better, since the topic of discussion is more evident.

homosuperior Edit-

It's pretty clear through your posts that you really know your shit, and write quite well.

Does the publication you edit come out in English too, or just Spanish? (Granted, I know a decent amount of Spanish, but not enough to enjoyably read essays)

[Spunkie]

I don't have much knowledge about the history of the term, just wanted to drop a few pointers. The term made way into my language as -mizansen- and is in common use. However it's used mainly in context of photography (where composing every single detail into the still image frame is very common) and theater (where an accurate control of space is quite possible). It's vaguer in context of film, imho mainly as a result of different approaches and practices of film. I'm not bothered by the term, except that it assumes absolute control of the scene and use of camera which doesn't hold well with the majority of cinema.

[cinesexual]

[
It's pretty clear through your posts that you really know your shit, and write quite well.

Does the publication you edit come out in English too, or just Spanish? (Granted, I know a decent amount of Spanish, but not enough to enjoyably read essays)

Thanks for the props. I do take care to try to write clear and well even on forums like these.

The blog I edit is here: http://juanelear.com/

I'd like to say I've managed to remove all instances of bullshit arts criticism but it's not true yet. I have a limited pool of writers to publish from and they're still learning. And we don't do much film crit yet even though Argentina has a rich film history. We're still young and I'm still learning as well.

It's bilingual with more English than Spanish.

[paulofilmo]

My film was too old for Fred's thread, so I'll just put it here.





1. Swollen clouds; dour, authoritative, binding and grey.



2. A Caravaggio. Our wan-skinned androgynous protagonist (Jack), with long hair and a woolen jumper.
A well patinaed cushion harks back to the clouds, placing his head among them.
But low and specious light--dreamlike and incongruous--draws a line upon his cheek, yet fragments the face.



3. Shockingly Dionysian. A close-up, yet composed.



4. The house and fencing. Like a prison, an asylum. Or fortress. Even the chimneys of the terraced houses in background appear an aggressive deterrent.
The required length of shot personifies the building and dwarfs the young man as he traipse the untamed scrub.
Now half undressed in an arid landscape, any remaining semblance of England is fast fading.




5 & 6. The camera slinks downwards to reveal Jack's similarly immodest sister, Julie. In image 5, an umbilical path connects Julie to the house, symbolising her role as the surrogate materfamilias. Depth of focus allows the shift to shallow space (6), making the image appear as if a collage, rendering Jack inferior by scale; when he fit so proportionately in his own hide (2).

Julie's accoutrements, meager though they may be, are the colour of skin or flora. She emerges, statuesque, out from the rocks on a plinth.
The sunglasses: I have no idea. It wouldn't be right without them. The way the light plays on a curved surface provides body (see the chair at 1:06, or the TV screen in the What It Feels Like For a Girl video).

Here's a rough golden rectangle overlay, you perverts!:


24 seconds. Not bad. Anyway, it's a cool film. More people should see it. The characters are put in this bizarre Dali landscape, and we get to watch the weird unfold. Lighting, at times, out of Renaissance Italy, and gorgeous shapes and curves in negative space are created by the characters' movements.
Just remembered. The brother and sister are at each others throats sporadically, but a simple bit of costume design at 1:16 stood out for me. Just a uniform.

[sebby]

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.

[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

[frederic_g54]

My film was too old for Fred's thread, so I'll just put it here.

Thank you anyway for your generous, insightful input, as usual. I especially enjoyed the umbilical cord reference.

I've liked Gainsbourg's work as an actress so far, regardless of the quality of her film and those picturesque images spark my interest even more. Will give it a watch someday.