Is "mise-en-scène" bullshit?

MiniJamesW · Sep 16, 2014

Today during a recitation on my Intro to Cinema Studies course, we started discussing the term "mise-en-scène" and I started to question whether this term was valuable at all to filmmaking or to critical discussion of cinema.

I am making the type of thread which I usually hate, which takes a strong position against commonly accepted "knowledge" but after thinking about it, I feel like this term is really bullshit: it is misleading to film scholars, it is dangerous for filmmakers, and it is such a vague term that it should no longer be employed under any context except a historical one when discussing the Cahiers du cinema polemic.

Firstly, what is "mise-en-scène"? My teacher said that the French term means something like "putting in the scene," in other words everything in the film frame including art direction, set design, shot composition, props, performance, characters, lighting, space, etc. He further claimed that mise-en-scene was basically the result of the director's vision. But if a term is to encompass so many cinematic elements, why stop at what is in the frame and not include what is purposely left out of the frame? Why not include the elements of sound and editing which are just as crucial to creating meaning in film? Why not include the context that the "mise-en-scène" is built on in the first place? Why not just discuss each and every cinematic element individually instead of mixing many (but not all) of them into this strange vague term?

Well I begun thinking that we have to remember the context of the Cahiers du cinema polemic which tried to elevate film directors as the primary artists of the cinema. And I happen to agree that film directors are the primary visionaries behind a film, but their polemic happened in an almost pseudoreligious manner, deifying the 'auteur' and idolizing what they claimed to be his/her work. But what value or shade of meaning does this term have that can't be described by using one or multiple of the elements it encompasses?

For example, when discussing Tsui Hark's "mise-en-scène," why can't we just discuss his use of staging to develop theme, create humor, and add energy to his scenes and analyze how he does this? And why can't we discuss each individual element of how he accomplishes this (because it isn't just staging, his staging really has to be connected to the set design, the performances, and the shot compositions at least)? Well a supporter of this term would say that any deep analysis of "mise-en-scène" would end up analyzing each individual element anyway. But my main problem is that while all of these elements are important, editing and sound play just as much of a role in developing Tsui Hark's "mise-en-scène." And not only that, it is the fact that the director/writer sets up these scenes or situations to give us a context in which to appreciate what is commonly known as "mise-en-scène." You can't praise a director's "mise-en-scène" alone because no one watches "mise-en-scène" alone. Audiences (including cinephiles, critics, filmmakers, etc.) watch movies regardless of whether or not they are aware of the different elements that make up a film. And this implies that they are also enjoying the context of story (or perhaps a certain aesthetic or general mood the filmmaker is going for), the sound, and the editing while watching the movie.

In other words, I feel like "mise-en-scène" seems to be a shorthand for something that really doesn't need to have a shorthand at all. Why simplify critical analysis of the formal and stylistic elements of a film? Critical analysis is for people who already are interested in exploring the way each of these elements inform one another in a film, so why even create an almost pseudoreligious vague term like "mise-en-scène"? In the context of the Cahiers du cinema polemic, this definitely makes sense, but in contemporary film scholarship and common film language it is no longer necessary.

Until I am convinced otherwise, I am going to try to stay away from this term as much as I can. I will discuss costume design, set design, shot composition, staging, etc. but not under the word "mise-en-scène" which is valueless. Instead I'll try to see how these elements are inherently connected to sound, editing, and 'narrative' in different ways according to different filmmakers (generally this is governed by the film director but not always).

So my advice is that film scholars stay away from this term because it leads to a kind of thinking that only values purely visual storytelling when it is common knowledge that generally a film is also made up of sound, editing, and a form/structure. When scholars get too tied to "mise-en-scène" they forget the spirit in which the term was even created in (as flawed as the term is, the spirit behind it is one of great passion for cinema).

And filmmakers should stay away from the term even more as it leads them to only be aware of purely visual storytelling techniques without regard of how they connect with other elements of film. In any case, "mise-en-scène" only serves to confuse scholars and filmmakers about what they are seeing, instead of using such a vague term let's mention cinematic staging, lighting, costume design, set design, performance, etc.

And once again, I do have to re-emphasize, that I understand the views that see "mise-en-scène" as a term that kind of captures the totality of the director's vision, but the problem is that "mise-en-scène" doesn't REALLY encompass the totality of the director's vision as it excludes sound, form/structure, and editing which are just as crucial to any director's vision.

And to end my argument, I will include a quote by one of the people behind this term in the first place.

Cahiers: For ten years Cahiers said that mise en scene existed. Now one has to say the opposite instead.

Godard: Yes, it's true. It doesn't exist. We were wrong.

—"Let's Talk About Pierrot," Cahiers du Cinema 171, October 1965, reprinted in Godard by Godard, edited and translated by Tom Milne, 1972

harmonica44 · Sep 16, 2014

I always thought mise-en-scene was too vague as well, at least by today's standards.

MiniJamesW · Sep 16, 2014

And I think that it's too vague because it essentially was made to support Cahiers du cinema's polemic which in itself was quite vague as academic discussion about cinema wasn't very developed at the time.

harmonica44 · Sep 16, 2014

I think that when it comes to these cinematic terms, that they should invent a lot of new ones, that apply to the specifics of today, especially since all these new types of crafts have been invented.

MiniJamesW · Sep 16, 2014

harmonica44 said:
I think that when it comes to these cinematic terms, that they should invent a lot of new ones, that apply to the specifics of today, especially since all these new types of crafts have been invented.

Yes I agree, especially in the larger scale productions made by Hollywood filmmakers we are starting to see something so different that it is almost changing the nature of the medium which was once primarily photographic, now filmmakers are able to create new worlds, fix mistakes digitally, and create performers and performances with computers. I think that it would be better to create newer more accurate terms for these things rather than try to re-appropriate terms to fit these newer technologies.

In fact, this kind of stuff really pisses me off when something like Life of Pi wins the Oscar for best cinematography when it's really an effects based film where the image is largely determined by other processes and not cinematography. We need to create new terms to discuss these films, it just isn't the same.

Dreadylocks · Sep 16, 2014

MiniJamesW said:
But if a term is to encompass so many cinematic elements, why stop at what is in the frame and not include what is purposely left out of the frame?

Because it doesn't make sense to discuss something that isn't there when analyzing what is.

Why not include the elements of sound and editing which are just as crucial to creating meaning in film?

Because mise en scene is about the visuals.

Why not include the context that the "mise-en-scène" is built on in the first place?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Why not just discuss each and every cinematic element individually instead of mixing many (but not all) of them into this strange vague term?

I don't know about film school, but as far as I've encountered, people do discuss the individual elements as well...

pseudoreligious

Now who's proselytizing?

Until I am convinced otherwise, I am going to try to stay away from this term as much as I can. I will discuss costume design, set design, shot composition, staging, etc. but not under the word "mise-en-scène"

Fair 'nuff. Whatever floats your boat.

ItDonnedOnMe · Sep 16, 2014

I don't see it. There are many perspective you can discuss and analyze a film from. One might be to look at the various elements in isolation, another might be to look at the whole of the production as a single unified work. You might explore just the use of sound, or the way music is used. And yet another might be to look at just what appears before us in the frame... why is that any less appropriate than the others?

MiniJamesW · Sep 16, 2014

Haha first of all I'd like to mention, I was purposely writing in the way the people who made up this term did in the first place.

Dreadylocks said:
Because it doesn't make sense to discuss something that isn't there when analyzing what is.

Umm, well analyzing off-screen space and story is extremely important when analyzing a film! Off-screen space should especially be relevant when discussing the supposed "mise-en-scene" because it is essential to film directing which is what the term was made to discuss in the first place!

Because mise en scene is about the visuals.

But why even use a vague term called "mise-en-scene" in the first place? Why not just call it visuals? And the main problem I have is that "mise-en-scene" is generally applied as being essentially being the director's vision, and the problem with that is that it has a huge bias towards only visuals in cinema, and it completely ignores the role of film form in dictating the "mise-en-scene." My bigger problem is the implications of the words and the fact that it tries to encompass a lot (yet not all) elements of film which make it vague, valueless, and ultimately a confusing term.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

A film's form usually dictates its visual style and contextualizes it in a way that works to engage the viewer. There are many instances of "mise-en-scene" that simply wouldn't work if they were in another film, or if they were placed in another moment of the same film. So I would argue that viewer expectations, what happened before, and what happens after the scene we are analyzing is just as important to the viewer's perception of the "mise-en-scene." So if the term is to have its value it should take this into account, or at least the term should be employed to just mean "visuals" and not the other nonsense it is associated with, and in that case I say why don't we just abandon this idea of "mise-en-scene" in favor of a more concrete word such as "visuals."

I don't know about film school, but as far as I've encountered, people do discuss the individual elements as well...

Well I know very few people who discuss cinematic staging unless it is a martial arts choreography or dance choreography when it is a very important part of cinema. And many people tend to lump it in with mise-en-scene without really knowing what each individual element of this category of mise-en-scene is actually doing to achieve the overall effect.

Now who's proselytizing?

Haha yes, as I mentioned above, it is my turn

Fair 'nuff. Whatever floats your boat.

LOL true, at the end of the day it may not matter much. But I see that the mindset created by this term and the theories behind it have had terrible effects on filmmaking and film scholarship.

MiniJamesW · Sep 16, 2014

ItDonnedOnMe said:
I don't see it. There are many perspective you can discuss and analyze a film from. One might be to look at the various elements in isolation, another might be to look at the whole of the production as a single unified work. You might explore just the use of sound, or the way music is used. And yet another might be to look at just what appears before us in the frame... why is that any less appropriate than the others?

Yes there are many different perspectives, but the problem with "mise-en-scene" for me is that it tries to look at a "whole" that isn't really a whole. It's possible that there may be a medium range in which one doesn't analyze the whole picture with everything behind it or each individual element, but I find that medium range to not have much value. For example, what "mise-en-scene" analysis suggests is that we should separate the visual, the aural, and the temporal aspects of film. And I used to think this way a lot, but I feel like this way of looking at film does more bad than good, especially in the way that it oversimplifies the process of making compelling visuals and in the way that it tends to place less emphasis on the aural and temporal aspects of film.

Dreadylocks · Sep 16, 2014

I don't know, man. That academic double talk is making my head hurt. Is that what I missed by not going to film school?

When it comes down to it, I think that the term only matters as much as it matters to you. No one is going to call you out for not using it, or think you're less professional, or refuse to work with you.
And then there's people like me who simply use it as a way to convey that I'm talking about the visual elements, and know that other people will know what I mean. I've never heard people include blocking in the term, and wasn't aware it's defined as being a key way to analyse a "director's vision." For me, mise en scene is a descriptor meaning the analysis of the construction of a single frame, like a painting.

As to why people still use it? Convention? Tradition? I dunno, but in my mind it's as good a term as any as long as it gets my point across.

edit:

But I see that the mindset created by this term and the theories behind it have had terrible effects on filmmaking and film scholarship.

How so? Do you really think it's the term's fault that many (most?) directors focus more on the visual side of filmmaking? Perhaps the convention of using 'mise en scene' to analyze someone's work was the product of said focus, and not the cause of it.

sfoster · Sep 16, 2014

i thought mise en scene was when the actors moved around and reframed themselves for the camera, rather than using an edit with a different camera position

harmonica44 · Sep 16, 2014

I agree that Life of Pi should have one best a best VFX oscar, rather than cinematography cause most of the movie looked like CGI.

I wish they invented more modern terms other than mise en scene, cause it would perhaps make it easier to communicate what I want, for one thing. But I guess it's not a real problem though, just so long as everyone can be on the same page.

KnightsFan · Sep 16, 2014

sfoster said:
i thought mise en scene was when the actors moved around and reframed themselves for the camera, rather than using an edit with a different camera position

That's called blocking.

MiniJamesW:
Mise-en-scene is the effort that goes into a film before recording it. Like you said in your OP, it's the setting of the stage, and encompasses things like costumes and lights. It's like the world building that is done before the camera is there. Different people give slightly different definitions, but some people I've talked to don't consider camera angles to be part of mise-en-scene. You don't have to use the word, but it has a meaning, even if it is a little ambiguous. I consider it to include off-screen space--it's basically the artistic vision of the set as a whole.

Why not just call it visuals?

Because visuals would include post production coloring, editing, and visual effects.

My bigger problem is the implications of the words and the fact that it tries to encompass a lot (yet not all) elements of film which make it vague, valueless, and ultimately a confusing term.

Well, every word has a certain specificity, eg "Mammal" vs. "Animal." Mise-en-scene is more specific than "film techniques" and less specific than "lighting." I don't find it confusing.

MiniJamesW · Sep 16, 2014

Dreadylocks said:
I don't know, man. That academic double talk is making my head hurt. Is that what I missed by not going to film school?

When it comes down to it, I think that the term only matters as much as it matters to you. No one is going to call you out for not using it, or think you're less professional, or refuse to work with you.
And then there's people like me who simply use it as a way to convey that I'm talking about the visual elements, and know that other people will know what I mean. I've never heard people include blocking in the term, and wasn't aware it's defined as being a key way to analyse a "director's vision." For me, mise en scene is a descriptor meaning the analysis of the construction of a single frame, like a painting.

Haha I'm not a film school student though haha, and I only recently started taking more academic film courses but I've been thinking about this for a while since I always found the word to be vague, insufficient, and confusing.

Well I can agree that it matters only as much as it matters to the individual, but within an academic context I think we should try to re-evaluate whether the tools we can/should be replaced or not. It's been done before, such as the auteur theory which has changed a lot since its inception. I am also talking as a newbie in the field, but in any case, I do think that the term confuses a lot of people trying to get into the field and is just too vague of a term. Why do we even have to resort to using a French word to discuss simple concepts?

And actually yes blocking/staging is included in the meaning of the word, so is acting performance style. And well it isn't defined as a key way of analyzing a director's vision but it is implied that a director with a "strong mise-en-scene" (whatever that means) is one that is more of an auteur, and is usually regarded as a greater director. One of the main purposes of the introduction of this term into film language was precisely to elevate the director's vision and his/her authorial voice, so I'm not sure how this aspect isn't clear.

I think if we just want to talk about "visuals" there's no need for the term "mise-en-scene" though because it is such a vague term that most people don't even know its full meaning (including myself haha).

As to why people still use it? Convention? Tradition? I dunno, but in my mind it's as good a term as any as long as it gets my point across.

Why wouldn't a term like "visuals" be much better and clearer than a French word that was originally utilized by French critics within a specific context? But if it gets your point across among people you discuss with then that's fine, and I don't even think that's what I'm complaining about haha. I'm complaining about its usage within critical contexts and when people take this term to be the most important one when discussing cinema as an art (or when making films), and many people do this unconsciously.

How so? Do you really think it's the term's fault that many (most?) directors focus more on the visual side of filmmaking? Perhaps the convention of using 'mise en scene' to analyze someone's work was the product of said focus, and not the cause of it.

I do admit that I think it's more of a problem within film scholarship than with filmmakers, many of whom don't even care about the term. But when many aspiring directors already neglect other aspects of cinema, I think the term definitely doesn't help! Especially when it usually isn't expressed or read thoroughly.

MiniJamesW · Sep 16, 2014

harmonica44 said:
I agree that Life of Pi should have one best a best VFX oscar, rather than cinematography cause most of the movie looked like CGI.

I wish they invented more modern terms other than mise en scene, cause it would perhaps make it easier to communicate what I want, for one thing. But I guess it's not a real problem though, just so long as everyone can be on the same page.

Yeah it isn't a huge problem, but the term was never really useful as Godard himself suggested!

MiniJamesW · Sep 16, 2014

KnightsFan said:
That's called blocking.

MiniJamesW:
Mise-en-scene is the effort that goes into a film before recording it. Like you said in your OP, it's the setting of the stage, and encompasses things like costumes and lights. It's like the world building that is done before the camera is there. Different people give slightly different definitions, but some people I've talked to don't consider camera angles to be part of mise-en-scene. You don't have to use the word, but it has a meaning, even if it is a little ambiguous. I consider it to include off-screen space--it's basically the artistic vision of the set as a whole.

Because visuals would include post production coloring, editing, and visual effects.

Well, every word has a certain specificity, eg "Mammal" vs. "Animal." Mise-en-scene is more specific than "film techniques" and less specific than "lighting." I don't find it confusing.

But filmmakers do make conscious decisions about how they want the film to sound or the story they are telling before they are recording it. Many also take editing into account as well. And camera angles are most definitely part of mise-en-scene in almost any standard definition because it mise-en-scene refers to everything in the frame and how everything in the frame is organized. I suppose that off-screen space could be included in a traditional definition of mise-en-scene. At the end of the day though, I find the term to just be unnecessary when a word like "visuals" is sufficient to talk about whatever mise-en-scene encompasses. And I guess the biggest problem for me is that so much of film scholarship is mostly based on mise-en-scene.

KnightsFan · Sep 16, 2014

But filmmakers do make conscious decisions about how they want the film to sound or the story they are telling before they are recording it. Many also take editing into account as well.

Yes, so what does that have to do with the definition of the term mise-en-scene?

I find the term to just be unnecessary when a word like "visuals" is sufficient to talk about whatever mise-en-scene encompasses

Yes, and as I said, visuals includes aspects that mise-en-scene doesn't. I wouldn't really consider choreography part of visuals, either.

And I guess the biggest problem for me is that so much of film scholarship is mostly based on mise-en-scene.

I don't know about your program, but we talk about sound a lot, and editing. Actually, I think that I've spent more time in class talking about editing than anything else. Not trying to argue or anything because I have no idea what you do in your classes, but I guess it's pretty subjective per professor what you focus on.

It all comes down to what you're trying to say. There are hundreds of synonyms to "big," and each has a slightly different connotation, and the same with mise-en-scene. It seems to me (forgive me if I'm wrong) that you just don't like the word because you don't think you'll use it, and that's just a personal choice, right? I sympathize if you're forced to use it in class, but every class has a vocabulary that the professor requires you to use.

ChimpPhobiaFilms · Sep 16, 2014

MiniJamesW said:
Firstly, what is "mise-en-scène"?

In it's most broad sense, it means the design aspect of a film. The look of a film.

Why not include the elements of sound and editing which are just as crucial to creating meaning in film? Why not include the context that the "mise-en-scène" is built on in the first place? Why not just discuss each and every cinematic element individually instead of mixing many (but not all) of them into this strange vague term?

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?

And why can't we discuss each individual element of how he accomplishes this (because it isn't just staging, his staging really has to be connected to the set design, the performances, and the shot compositions at least)?

Maybe because people don't always want to go into the specific elements of film. Perhaps they just want to identify the general style of the film. Like most people in the "Last Movie You Watched!" thread do.

But my main problem is that while all of these elements are important, editing and sound play just as much of a role in developing Tsui Hark's "mise-en-scène."

Sure. Then don't use the term unless you're analyzing the visual theme.

You can't praise a director's "mise-en-scène" alone because no one watches "mise-en-scène" alone.

Someone can direct their attention to the visual style if they please. But anyway, I disagree with the statement above. You can go back and analyze the visual theme of the film, just like you can analyze the individual elements of the film. Unless you're saying you can't analyze individual elements, or are you?

Audiences (including cinephiles, critics, filmmakers, etc.) watch movies regardless of whether or not they are aware of the different elements that make up a film. And this implies that they are also enjoying the context of story (or perhaps a certain aesthetic or general mood the filmmaker is going for), the sound, and the editing while watching the movie.

Sure, though if you enjoyed the visual aesthetic, you could describe those visuals using the term mise-en-scène.

In other words, I feel like "mise-en-scène" seems to be a shorthand for something that really doesn't need to have a shorthand at all. Why simplify critical analysis of the formal and stylistic elements of a film?

Generally all critical analysis is simplified, it's just that when describing general Mise-en-scène, you're simplifying at a larger scale.

harmonica44 said:
I think that when it comes to these cinematic terms, that they should invent a lot of new ones, that apply to the specifics of today, especially since all these new types of crafts have been invented.

Why, exactly? I understand labeling new techniques or technology, but constant creation of new terms could make dialogue between directors and their units and between units and units difficult. There's a certain lingo or code that people are comfortable with, and sudden development of new ones seems counter-productive.

MiniJamesW said:
In fact, this kind of stuff really pisses me off when something like Life of Pi wins the Oscar for best cinematography when it's really an effects based film where the image is largely determined by other processes and not cinematography. We need to create new terms to discuss these films, it just isn't the same.

You got genuinely pissed off when Life of Pi won the Oscar for cinematography? Actual anger & annoyance? I mean, I'm biased. I thought the brilliance in the cinematography lied in the fact that it worked so well with the other elements of the film (VFX, etc.). Just out of curiosity, what popular mainstream American film would you have preferred to have won?

MiniJamesW said:
Yes there are many different perspectives, but the problem with "mise-en-scene" for me is that it tries to look at a "whole" that isn't really a whole.

It looks at whole of the images on the screen alone. Now you could dissect the translation of the word and make statements like "but audio and many other components make up a scene!", but many terms are like that.

For example, what "mise-en-scene" analysis suggests is that we should separate the visual, the aural, and the temporal aspects of film.

Sure, it suggests separation of the visuals and design aspects from the rest. But it's not like the exclusion of the other elements when examining Mise-en-scene means that you only glorify or examine the visuals when looking at the film as a whole.

MiniJamesW · Sep 16, 2014

Haha finally you've responded, I always love hearing from you man!

ChimpPhobiaFilms said:
In it's most broad sense, it means the design aspect of a film. The look of a film.

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?

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?

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?

Maybe because people don't always want to go into the specific elements of film. Perhaps they just want to identify the general style of the film. Like most people in the "Last Movie You Watched!" thread do.

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

Sure. Then don't use the term unless you're analyzing the visual theme.

The problem with the term is that it is most commonly associated with director's style, and is often substituted with most of the director's artistic contribution so it often leads to people ignoring the fact that many directors also contribute a lot to the editing, the sound, and the narrative of the film. In 'art' films this isn't as big of a problem, but it definitely is with genre films where discussion of filmmaking artistry tends to mostly focus on the mise-en-scene rather than cinematic form and the aural and temporal elements of the films.

Someone can direct their attention to the visual style if they please. But anyway, I disagree with the statement above. You can go back and analyze the visual theme of the film, just like you can analyze the individual elements of the film. Unless you're saying you can't analyze individual elements, or are you?

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.

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.

Sure, though if you enjoyed the visual aesthetic, you could describe those visuals using the term mise-en-scène.

Well if I just wanted to mentioned how much I loved visuals, I would say "I loved the visuals in X film." And if I wanted to go into more detail I'd mention what elements in particular stood out to me: costume design, composition, color scheme, camera movement, set design, staging/blocking, performance style, etc.

Generally all critical analysis is simplified, it's just that when describing general Mise-en-scène, you're simplifying at a larger scale.

True, but it's so general that it's useless in critical discourse, and yet it's also too vague for the common movie goer that it doesn't mean anything to them if it is brought up in more journalistic film reviews. I suppose mise-en-scene could be a word used as a starting point into further analysis of the actual individual elements, but it's not a very useful word otherwise.

You got genuinely pissed off when Life of Pi won the Oscar for cinematography? Actual anger & annoyance? I mean, I'm biased. I thought the brilliance in the cinematography lied in the fact that it worked so well with the other elements of the film (VFX, etc.). Just out of curiosity, what popular mainstream American film would you have preferred to have won?

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.

It looks at whole of the images on the screen alone. Now you could dissect the translation of the word and make statements like "but audio and many other components make up a scene!", but many terms are like that.

I see your point. I suppose I just don't think we need another word for visuals, I think that we need a word that analyzes the scene. And mise-en-scene is so close to doing this but it misses the mark by leaving out certain elements. I suppose the lesser known French term decoupage does a better job at showing us how integrated the whole filmmaking process is. And we have to take into account that these terms do imply other things. Mise-en-scene implies the director as artist within a studio setting (and this director usually doesn't write scripts or participate in post-production) and decoupage implies the director as the artist that goes through the whole process. And I think a big part of why I don't like the term 'mise-en-scene' is because it brings to mind a way of making films that is irrelevant today, even in studio filmmaking.

The problem with mise-en-scene is that it was made in defense of the director as artist. But it is no longer sufficient (well it never truly was) to describe what the director does so it is irrelevant today and now it has become purely visuals when the director does more.

Sure, it suggests separation of the visuals and design aspects from the rest. But it's not like the exclusion of the other elements when examining Mise-en-scene means that you only glorify or examine the visuals when looking at the film as a whole.

But it doesn't take into account that the effect that the mise-en-scene has on the viewer is informed by other elements all of the time.

MiniJamesW · Sep 16, 2014

KnightsFan said:
Yes, so what does that have to do with the definition of the term mise-en-scene?

You said:
"Mise-en-scene is the effort that goes into a film before recording it."

That's why I mentioned this.

Yes, and as I said, visuals includes aspects that mise-en-scene doesn't. I wouldn't really consider choreography part of visuals, either.

That is definitely arguable, and good arguments can be made on both sides. For me choreography is a form of cinematic staging, and cinematic staging is inherently visual because it needs to be in the frame. Furthermore, cinema gives us only one point of view in which to look at the choreography or staging, unlike watching something on a stage where different audience members have different perspectives. So since we only have one point of view (which is the film's composition) of something in motion, I do think that the staging is part of the visuals, and even an actor's performance style as well (this is easier to detect in silent cinema).

I don't know about your program, but we talk about sound a lot, and editing. Actually, I think that I've spent more time in class talking about editing than anything else. Not trying to argue or anything because I have no idea what you do in your classes, but I guess it's pretty subjective per professor what you focus on.

Oh no, we talk about a lot of other things as well. But it seems like most critical discourse focuses on the components of mise-en-scene rather than on other film elements and especially how they are connected, at least from the many books I have read.

It all comes down to what you're trying to say. There are hundreds of synonyms to "big," and each has a slightly different connotation, and the same with mise-en-scene. It seems to me (forgive me if I'm wrong) that you just don't like the word because you don't think you'll use it, and that's just a personal choice, right? I sympathize if you're forced to use it in class, but every class has a vocabulary that the professor requires you to use.

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. And it was originally coined as a term to refer to basically what the director does in order to elevate the 'auteur' over the 'metteur en scene' director. And obviously the director does much more than just 'mise-en-scene' so it doesn't even do a good job at fitting this role.

But actually, I suppose my main beef with mise-en-scene started when I discovered we wouldn't be studying cinematic staging on its own, when it was going to be part of this thing called mise-en-scene (which I did know about before of course). 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 (but admittedly this is a bias, as I no longer believe that we can separate the visual, aural, formal, and temporal aspects of cinema to achieve any meaningful analysis of a film).