“The relation between form and content are not the same as those between a container and its contents, a bottle and a liquid, but more like those between a shell and a shellfish. The former is in no way a superfluous, interchangeable form but a specific architecture secreted by a shapeless flesh whose death would otherwise leave no trace.” ~Andre Bazin

Andre Bazin is a writer and thinker of cinema, and has quite an impact on critics, theorists and filmmakers. As part of the Research and Reflection, I will be investigating Bazin and his writings, and it will be broken up into three sections, Mise-en-scene, montage and decoupage, this will go over multiple bog posts. I will be considering:

-The precision/vagueness of their definitions;

-The various meanings accorded them by different thinkers, and at different points in  cinema history;

-The notion that one may have supremacy over the other;

– and their actual relevance to filmmaking practice, or to an individual filmmaker.

Mise-en-scene:

-Looking at other writers of cinema, I have made this blog post in reference to ‘Film Art: An Introduction’, by David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson.

The filmmaker shapes the viewers perceptions of the film by the creative decisions of mise-en-scene, and it all comes together to engage the audience to specific scenes and shots. Mise-en-scene is used to create realism, and allowing the performance to look as naturally possible. The components of Mise-en-scene are Setting, Costume and Makeup, Lighting, Staging, Space and Time. I just want to focus in on Staging, Space and Time, that ties in the class activities that have been completed, compared with this research.

1.Staging: The director controls everything that the audience sees onscreen, where the cinema allows for the freedom and creativity, through expression and movement that director wants to convey. A main point within staging is the actors and their movements. Bordwell and Thompson go on to say how the scene is put together through the actor’s performance and it is crucial in creating the overall targeted outcome; however just from the activities done in class I would have to disagree. Yes, the actors make the shot/scene/film more effective, however I like delving into the direction of coverage that Paul has sent us on. We haven’t looked at actors as such, we have looked at the coverage of a scene, the staging of the actors, the camera shots and movements, and the framing. A great shot can be made without the perfect appearance, gestures and facial expression from the actors, and this is seen by what we have made in class.

2. Space: Mise-en-scene offers the audience cues for guiding our attention through the frame, emphasising certain elements. Balanced shots are normally the standard shot, however unbalanced shots can sometimes create a greater effect, and this can work in the filmmakers advantage, as it creates expectation for the audience, as we prepare ourselves for something else to come into the frame. Bordwell and Thompson suggest that mise-en-scene structures space in ways that guide the audiences’ eyes.

3. Time: Through mise-en-scene, the director has control over not only what we see, but they determine when we see it, and how long for. The director determines the speed and direction of a shot, which creates cues for the audience to follow. Mise-en-scene arouses expectations in the audience, and creates impressions of a scene that is created from the formal expectations. These expectations then change as the viewer’s eyes explore the frame.