Is "mise-en-scène" bullshit?

[MiniJamesW]

Okay haha after reflecting on these things, now I feel more confident about what I've learned.

Mise-en-scene: all visual elements to be placed in front of the frame (however, this inherently affects composition so it does end up having to be linked with cinematography).
Cinematography: all visual elements created by the camera (as mentioned above, mise-en-scene and cinematography are directly related to one another because composition is dictated by both).

I think I was too caught up in the origins of the term, and that I have never liked more general terms which don't really give me the whole picture. I do think that a term like decoupage should catch on because it does emphasize how integrated the filmmaking process is (which is even more relevant today). Mise-en-scene can be useful for many people, but I prefer to be more specific when discussing elements of the film. I still don't like the idea that all visuals can be separated from all sound and form and editing, it's a problematic way of analyzing films for many reasons I have expressed and for many other reasons. Visuals and their meaning are affected by sound, the film's form (which in most cases means narrative and its structure), and editing but if people want to analyze film's by looking at stills or turning off the sound or ignoring the context of the scene, then good for them but I'm not interested in doing this.

 

[KnightsFan]

You said:
"Mise-en-scene is the effort that goes into a film before recording it."
That's why I mentioned this.

Oh, I see. I was a bit vague, because obviously screenwriting is effort before filming, too, and that's not mise-en-scene. I meant stuff that goes into the set. But really, I'm not concerned with the exact definition, I'd be making the same arguments if you were talking about any word (which is why I keep bringing in other examples). I just think each word has unique subtleties.

I just think that the connotation of 'mise-en-scene' is not relevant in any discussion unless it is a historical one because it implies certain industrial forms of filmmaking that pretty much don't exist today.

I see where you're coming from. It is true that most times I hear about mise-en-scene isin the context of analyzing early cinema, like the word "talkies."

I think each component of mise-en-scene has to be explored comprehensively on its own, and then if we want to talk more generally we should talk about how these elements work with all other elements of film, not just other visual elements

I agree completely. But didn't you say this was an Intro class? Surely they're just going over basics with the hope that you'll dive into finer details in more specified classes later on. In one of my intro classes, we talked about sound design and never differentiated Foley from other effects, simply because we only had one week on sound.


From Chimp:

Mise-en-scène is just a general term . And sure, you could get rid what you consider umbrella and blanket terms, but when do you stop? Couldn't you say 'cinematography' is a vague term? Perhaps camerawork and lighting are vague terms, so the many types of camerawork and lighting should be broken down into their own distinct categories and should only be referenced to in those more focused terms?

This is exactly what I was trying to say, phrased much more elegantly.

 

[MiniJamesW]

Oh, I see. I was a bit vague, because obviously screenwriting is effort before filming, too, and that's not mise-en-scene. I meant stuff that goes into the set. But really, I'm not concerned with the exact definition, I'd be making the same arguments if you were talking about any word (which is why I keep bringing in other examples). I just think each word has unique subtleties.


I see where you're coming from. It is true that most times I hear about mise-en-scene isin the context of analyzing early cinema, like the word "talkies."


I agree completely. But didn't you say this was an Intro class? Surely they're just going over basics with the hope that you'll dive into finer details in more specified classes later on. In one of my intro classes, we talked about sound design and never differentiated Foley from other effects, simply because we only had one week on sound.

Yeah I think you're right haha, I actually feel like I was being very dramatic because I'm already used to looking at all of these elements more individually that now that I'm forced to step back and look at 'mise-en-scene' as opposed to analyzing its components right away, I feel weird haha.

I'll always still say though that there's no reason to use the word 'mise-en-scene' when the word 'visuals' will do. I know that it's more specifically the visuals that are in front of the camera, but I think that it's original usage really makes me wish that there were another term for this.

I'm not too concerned about specific definitions either because at the end of the day it's how the word is used that really matters, not the precise definition.

 

[KnightsFan]

Well, you can always use mise-en-scene when you need to throw in fancy words to convince people that film analysis is a legitimate occupation.

 

[MiniJamesW]

Well, you can always use mise-en-scene when you need to throw in fancy words to convince people that film analysis is a legitimate occupation.

Haha, here we could start another argument but I'd rather not.
I don't intend to primarily make a career out of film analysis but I respect some who do.

 

[KnightsFan]

In all seriousness, I love film analysis, and I could care less what people are paid for even if I didn't. It is easy to go for low blows on jobs like that, though.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

It is a broad term by design. When you see a Wes Anderson film you immediately know it's a Wes Anderson film. Just like when you hear an Eddie Van Halen guitar solo you immediately know it's Eddie Van Halen. You can break it down to all the individual components that make it up, but you can also view them in their totality as mise-en-scene.

 

[MiniJamesW]

In all seriousness, I love film analysis, and I could care less what people are paid for even if I didn't. It is easy to go for low blows on jobs like that, though.

True lol.

@Gonzo
Yeah, I kinda just felt like complaining about the fact that this pretentious French term should really just be replaced by the word "visuals" which means basically the exact same thing except it isn't tied up to a historical context that suggests certain industrial types of filmmaking that no longer exist, and which supports a specific ideology. I don't know why it's become a commonly used word when the word "visuals" would be even more helpful. But I pretty much admit that I just felt like complaining about something that doesn't matter too much.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

Yes, but it should always be the look in motion, I don't know why people analyze mise-en-scene with stills if they are implying that it's the most cinematic element. But even ignoring this fact, why don't we just call it visuals instead of having such a pretentious (and vague) term for it?

Mis-en-scène is a bit broad and somewhat open to interpretation. It generally covers space, costume, makeup, etc., which may not be included when analyzing visuals. Some people limit it to camera work. Some people limit it to choreography. Some people extend it to cover every aspect of a film. It's a very broad term and has just been adopted into the filmmaking vernacular that's often used in analysis and criticism. I can completely see how you find it pretentious & vague, but I personally don't see the harm or negative impact the word has.

The thing is that unlike "cinematography" or "lighting" or "camerawork" the word mise-en-scene is actually pretty vague, something that has been acknowledged even by many who originally came up with the term. Praising a film's mise-en-scene always need to lead to discussion of what particular elements of the mise-en-scene and how they interplay in order to create something interesting. I say we just bypass this useless term and just analyze the film. And if we aren't analyzing a film and just giving a quick summary of what we liked, why don't we just say that we enjoyed the film's direction or the film's visuals?

I wouldn't say praising a film's mise-en-scene always must lead to thoughtful analysis. But for those who use the term correctly in detailed criticism seem to go into those more specific aspects, generally. And you could say you liked the direction or visuals (that's generally what I do actually, can't think of many times I've thrown the mise-en-scene around), but mise-en-scene is more abstract and is simply another word that people can use when discussing the wide variety of topics the world covers, or want variety within the terms they use.

The words "visuals" and "direction" help here, and are clearer than the word mise-en-scene.

... and that's fine. But I don't believe that should limit others in the words they want to use.

I used to have this belief until I realized that I can't separate one from the other. People attempt to do this by turning off the sound while watching a film or turning off the picture while listening to the film, but people don't view films this way. We can try to analyze individual elements but ultimately we'll never have a perspective to really analyze individual elements because our experience is linked with the other elements which are connected with the element we are trying to analyze. In other words, the same visuals can have very different meaning with different editing styles, stories/structures, and sound/music. I mean Kuleshov already proved this with his editing experiment. I would argue that we can't truly get an accurate pure analysis of any individual element of the film because we can only experience that element as it is connected with others in the film.

I agree... somewhat. You can examine individual elements in some circumstances. The battle sequences in Saving Private Ryan are a great example. Watching those scenes is overwhelming in their entirely, no elements separated. But turning the sound off, or the visuals off, freezing frames, watching in slow-mo, etc. can help you recognize techniques & audio/visual nuances.

Mise-en-scene is an even less valuable term to use now that films can be manipulated digitally and special effects that are generated by computer imagery during post-production. You could argue that these special effects are still in the frame, but they are not based on the photographic principle in which the term mise-en-scene was invented in the first place.

I think only time will tell about the statement above. The word could keep the meaning it currently has, and a contradiction will exist. Or the meaning of the word will be modified. I think I could apply that to almost your whole post, and I don't want to start getting repetitive, so that will be one of my last statements on the comments I've excluded.

Haha no, I didn't get genuinely pissed off, I rarely ever get genuinely pissed off haha. It's not so much that Life Of Pi didn't LOOK good, it's more that it didn't rely on the element of cinematography enough to warrant an award for it! If we re-define cinematography to just mean visuals in general (hey if we did that then we have 'cinematography,' 'visuals,' and 'mise-en-scene' meaning the same thing), then definitely Life Of Pi deserved it, but it wouldn't fit under the category of traditional cinematography. Haha you got me there though, I don't watch enough popular mainstream American films to know, but I do know that I would pick any other film that looked good that achieved its effect primarily through cinematography and not through other processes.

I think I can pretty much agree on what was said above. But unfortunately, the Academy can't quite function that way. I mean, they couldn't have given it to Argo because it won Best Picture. They couldn't pick Les Mis, Skyfall, or Django Unchained, because then the Academy Awards wouldn't be taken seriously *giggles*. Silver Linings Playbook got it's one Academy Award, Zero Dark Thirty was too controversial, and the rest weren't well known enough. People thought Life of Pi had cool visuals, so they gave it the award for best cinematography. I don't agree with those tactics, but they're aiming for popularity over all else.

 

[MiniJamesW]

Mis-en-scène is a bit broad and somewhat open to interpretation. It generally covers space, costume, makeup, etc., which may not be included when analyzing visuals. Some people limit it to camera work. Some people limit it to choreography. Some people extend it to cover every aspect of a film. It's a very broad term and has just been adopted into the filmmaking vernacular that's often used in analysis and criticism. I can completely see how you find it pretentious & vague, but I personally don't see the harm or negative impact the word has.

That was actually something that led me to think about this, that almost everyone has their own interpretation of the vague word "mise-en-scene" and this has a lot to do with the way the term was even invented for the cinematic medium. I do admit that I was exaggerating, the word isn't so dangerous or have any negative impact, the thinking that is generally associated with the word's implication does have negative impact though IMO.

I wouldn't say praising a film's mise-en-scene always must lead to thoughtful analysis. But for those who use the term correctly in detailed criticism seem to go into those more specific aspects, generally. And you could say you liked the direction or visuals (that's generally what I do actually, can't think of many times I've thrown the mise-en-scene around), but mise-en-scene is more abstract and is simply another word that people can use when discussing the wide variety of topics the world covers, or want variety within the terms they use.

I feel like anyone throwing around a word as vague as "mise-en-scene" should probably explain a little bit more. It's not too difficult for me to say, "I like the mise-en-scene in Tsui Hark's film Shanghai Blues, particularly the way in which the staging is used to develop the plot and add comedic effect." If I just say "I like the mise-en-scene in Tsui Hark's film" it would be difficult to grasp what makes Hark's film stand out. Both usages of the word are admittedly kind of vague, but anyone who has some knowledge of popular Hong Kong cinema would get what I meant with the first statement, but the second one would still leave too many questions even for someone somewhat knowledgeable of the cinematic tradition. In detailed criticism/analysis we should always aim for precision, but even in short form criticism I think that 'mise-en-scene' would be too vague of a term to just throw around without at least mentioning one component the term encompasses that particularly stood out.

... and that's fine. But I don't believe that should limit others in the words they want to use.

I suppose so, but let's just say that someone who throws around the word "mise-en-scene" without explanation will just confuse me, and it won't be helpful for me as a reader.

I agree... somewhat. You can examine individual elements in some circumstances. The battle sequences in Saving Private Ryan are a great example. Watching those scenes is overwhelming in their entirely, no elements separated. But turning the sound off, or the visuals off, freezing frames, watching in slow-mo, etc. can help you recognize techniques & audio/visual nuances.

Oh no definitely, I think we can examine these techniques ESPECIALLY if we are filmmakers trying to learn each element, but I think we should never do one without the other. We can analyze sound, but then we should analyze the visuals alone, but then most importantly we should analyze how these are combined. If we do one without the other (even if we only work on visuals or only work on audio) we are not actually learning how the element works within the whole film. And even in academic discourse, I think any analysis of any film without mentioning every element in the film is incomplete and not entirely useful. You can dedicate a section to analyzing the sound alone, or the visuals alone, but if you don't have a section connecting these together as well, you aren't really aren't shedding light on what we experience as viewers, instead you are analyzing something that viewers don't experience when watching the film. Of course, in a basic short evaluation we can just mention what stood out to us, which is generally what I do (although I also try to place the film within the context of its film genre, mode, or national cinema).

I think only time will tell about the statement above. The word could keep the meaning it currently has, and a contradiction will exist. Or the meaning of the word will be modified. I think I could apply that to almost your whole post, and I don't want to start getting repetitive, so that will be one of my last statements on the comments I've excluded.

That's true, the meaning can be modified or contradiction may even exist, in any case I think when analyzing films (at least at a deep level) one should aim at using precise language. If the meaning of the term is modified, then I have no problem

I think I can pretty much agree on what was said above. But unfortunately, the Academy can't quite function that way. I mean, they couldn't have given it to Argo because it won Best Picture. They couldn't pick Les Mis, Skyfall, or Django Unchained, because then the Academy Awards wouldn't be taken seriously *giggles*. Silver Linings Playbook got it's one Academy Award, Zero Dark Thirty was too controversial, and the rest weren't well known enough. People thought Life of Pi had cool visuals, so they gave it the award for best cinematography. I don't agree with those tactics, but they're aiming for popularity over all else.

Haha this raises another discussion about the value of the Academy Awards. What you've said here is true, but unfortunate. I wish the Academy would not deny genre films just because they lack the 'prestige' of more middlebrow drama type films (the HK Film Awards does a much better job at placing equal value on 'lowbrow' genre films, 'middlebrow' dramas, and 'highbrow' art films). And I wish they'd just give awards to films that deserve it, not based on how many awards they have won! I wish that the (American) Academy Awards would change a lot, but as it is I just don't care for them.