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.
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
Last edited: