Talk:Mise en scène

Missing

The article seems to completely miss the purpose of mise en scène, and that is to convey information outside of the framework of spoken dialogue. I will include the paragraph: We see mise en scène used when the director wishes to give an impression of the characters or situation without vocally articulating it through the framework of spoken dialogue, and typically does not represent a reallistic setting. The common example is that of a cluttered, disorganized apartment being used to reflect the disorganization in a character's life in general, or a spartanly decorated apartment to convey a character with an "empty soul", in both cases specifically and intentionally ignoring any practicallity in the setting. capnmidnight 19:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I must strongly object to the article's first suggesting that the term is used in the legitimate theatre, and then saying it has few uses outside the cinema. Mise en scene has been used in theatre and theatre education for years, and even metaphorically in such areas as architecture and sculpture. It is the arrangement of objects in the frame of what is viewed (originally, the proscaenium in theatre, and then, by learned borrowing, the frame in film) to evoke memory and emotion.

Gone

I've removed this:

"is one of the currently-dominant theories of conveying information in the cinema. It maintains that long takes and frequent camera moves are preferred over chopping up a scene through editing."

- because as it stood it was inaccurate. It seemed to refer to Bazin's views on the integrity of compositional fields, but mise en scene wasn't the name of Bazin's "theory" per se, but rather a concept named by that "theory". It's like saying "Steam Power" was the name of the first locomotive train, IMHO. The information isn't incorrect in itself, but misplaced. If someone can find a way to rework it in a more appropriate relation to the entry as-is, that'd be great. --Chips Critic 21:51, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Term

I thought "metteur en scène" was a non-disparaging term for "director" in french. --Hfs 20:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For auteurists, a metteur en scène was the oppositive of an auteur and was seen to be an uncreative hack.--JButler 12:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Hyphens, Please

I think this term is most commonly hyphenated--a la "mise-en-scene." Perhaps the main article should be the hyphenated version and this article should redirect to it?--JButler 12:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving slowly on this front. You may well be right, but my initial poking around on Google suggests to me that both uses are very common. If both hyphenated and not hyphenated are common, I'd suggest going with whatever is more "correct"...I'm not great with French, but I suspect not hyphenated is the way a French speaker would write it. If hyphenated is really the most common usage, maybe you can track down some statistics on that front? This looks like a tough question to answer. Jwrosenzweig 12:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It's funny, but the reading cited at the end of the article — the textbook in the Intro to Film course I took last year — uses the hyphenated, non-accented form. At the very least, this should be consistent. It seems a literal French to English translation of the phrase "setting in scene" would be written as in the article, but the reappropriation of the term to its current meaning in Western film studies coincides with the addition of the hyphens and the dropping of the accent to recast it as a single term rather than a phrase. I guess it boils down to whether the article should make that distinction or not. Perhaps an additional section in the article could explain this for other puzzles minds such as ours. DDarland 06:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to renew my call for hyphens in mise-en-scene. Even the external links cited here use 'em! --Jeremy Butler 12:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd second the hyphen version. Borisblue 04:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm going to add hyphens. At the very least, the article should be consistent throughout. If not, there should be an explanation addressed as to why it is not. Hendo1769 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Undefined?

Mise en scène [mizA~sEn] has been called film criticism's "grand undefined term"......

Every film book I read has defined mise-en-scene more or less the same, the decor or visual look of a film within a single shot, owing to the set-up, which derives itself differently from cinematography. Why is it that Wikipedia fails to recognize this? Mandel 15:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Movie magazine in the 1960s thought of mise-en-scene as ALL aspects of visual style -- both cinematogrphy & set elements -- and its authors were known as "mise-en-scene auteurist" critics. Andrew Sarris has called mise-en-scene the "elan of the soul." And so on... The term is "undefined" because there is such varied use of it. One might actually say it's OVER-defined! --Jeremy Butler 13:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Either way there is a basic definition of it that I think this article could do a better job of conveying. If you walk into any film class and the teacher asks you directly what it means and you can't say "it is an undefined term," no you have to, and can, give an answer. It's broad as it has to deal with most everything in the visual composition of a shot, but it can be defined. People come to wikipedia to fill holes in the knowledge (or expand to complexity new areas) we shouldn't have to make them wade through all of films dense pretension. It should definitely be mentioned that the term is used in broader or narrower ways by different people, but a standard prevailing definition should be given.140.232.144.129 (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

MISE-EN-SCENE Defined by Robert Kolker, Film Form and Culture

Mise-en-scène is a French term and originates in the theater. It means, literally, "put in the scene." For film, it has a broader meaning, and refers to almost everything that goes into the composition of the shot, including the composition itself: framing, movement of the camera and characters, lighting, set design and gen eral visual environment, even sound as it helps elaborate the composition. Mise-en-scène can be defined as the articulation of cinematic space, and it is precisely space that it is about. Cutting is about time; the shot is about what occurs in a defined area of space, bordered by the frame of the movie screen and determined by what the camera has been made to record. That space, the mise-en-scène, can be unique, closed off by the frame, or open, providing the illusion of more space around it. --Eyoung4 15:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible Plagiarism?

The vast majority of this article is a straight lift, word for word, of the book used in some Film Studies courses in the US and UK. Just a head's up. The article even uses the same picture example as presented in the book. I can't remember the name of the textbook but it's not the one presented under the "further reading" section.

It came with a DVD of short films displaying certain techniques and lots of in-depth analysis of the industry and techniques of film by an American professor. I'll get back on that one when the guy I l know who owns the book can confirm the title.

Anyway, this is a lift from a textbook and is definitely copyrighted, except the nerdfest at the end about comics and video games.

The book is called "Looking at Movies: An introduction to film" by Richard Barsam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.125.143 (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

88.109.54.157 (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC) i love you

Calgary

I'm told what is said here is actually not true. Mise-en-scène has nothing to do with the expressionist style of the movie. Unless someone can cite something, all references should be removed. Vegfarandi (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)