The terms ‘mise en scene’ and ‘montage’ have been provided primarily westernized definitions in my mind over the past few years of my secondary and tertiary education. Basically, to me, ‘mise en scene’ was everything visible within a shot, and the term ‘montage’ was usually applied to a series of shots that were cut together in order to show some type of progression or growth within the subject of a film. In regards to mise en scene, Bordwell and Thompson (2013) state that filmmakers and scholars “use the term to signify the director’s control over what appears in the film frame”. With origins in the theatre, the terms usually applies to those aspects that were also associated with ‘mise en scene’ in stage performances, such as “setting, lighting, costume and makeup, and staging and performance”. Relatively similar to my own, I do find this definition quite broad, although it does seem to be an important element in relation to coverage. The contents of the frame would make an important element to the way in which we cover a scene. Certain gestures or props may be integral to the story line, and require specific coverage like a close up or zoom in order to highlight their significance to the audience. Contrarily, mise en scene may also rely equally upon the intended coverage. The desired shot may require a certain lighting set up or blocking, in order to complete the decoupage effectively. It is for this reason that I believe these two aspects of film-making can be reliant on one another.

Bordwell and Thompson provide two different definitions for montage. The first, a rather broad perspective, simply states that it is “a synonym for editing”. I find this definition troublesome, as although it allows for far more leeway that the definition I had conjured up, it seems to lack an insight into the relationship between shots. The second definition provided by Bordwell and Thompson is that it “emphasizes dynamic, often discontinuous relationships between shots and the juxtaposition of images to create ideas not present in either shot by itself”. This second definition highlights the ability to conjure meaning through the simple association of two shots. Although the definition I had brainstormed myself focused primarily on a montage sequence, I do not think it is exempt from Bordwell and Thompson’s definition, rather a small facet of it. The focus of a montage sequence is to show progression whilst condensing time, which would not be possible without the process of editing or ordering these shots to create the “idea” of growth.

Perhaps a better example of the montage that Bordwell and Thompson describe in their second definition is the iconic match cut of a bone and satellite from 2001: A Space Odyssey. The two shots alone, shown seperately from one another, would not imply the themes of human evolution and the passing of time which are more obvious when the two images are cut together. Although much shorter than the traditional montage sequence, this cut, which certainly adheres to both of the broader versions of montage, still communicates the progression of time and increased knowledge of the human race.

It seems we often lean towards broader definitions of terms in film studies in order to cover the most eclectic examples. Although the terms mise en scene, decoupage and montage all seem to have relatively vague descriptions, it seems that they also rely upon and fuel one another. If we have a preconcieved idea of decoupage before filming, it is likely to consist of elements of mise en scene and montage, as when we envisage a final product, we usually imagine the contents and editing of the frame within the film, not simply the coverage of the elements alone.

REFERENCES:

Bordwell, D, Thompson, K 2013, Film Art: An Introduction, 10th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York.