tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post5962748719920614611..comments2024-03-26T15:33:47.822+05:00Comments on THESE VIOLENT DELIGHTS: The state of internet film criticism: part 2Tom Shonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06938779517705582285noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-22249230573390355712010-12-24T00:45:37.436+05:002010-12-24T00:45:37.436+05:00So you object to the use of mise-en-scene because ...So you object to the use of mise-en-scene because it's a) too general, and b) not employed by the multitudes (not general enough)?<br /><br />I would suggest the concept's porous membrane not be equated with complete amorphousness."Direction" itself is notoriously shape-shifting (inclusive) in its reference. Ought one eschew it for that reason?<br /><br />How would it be possible for a concept like mise-en-scene, which denotes the use of space, not to bleed into and involve the elements that contribute to visual presentation (set-design, focal-lengths, aperture, lighting, camera movement, editing technique, etc.)? There needs to be a way to refer to that conglomorate of influences in contradistinction to script-writing or directing actors. <br /><br />Some people do throw the term around uncritically. But it seems one should give the benefit of the doubt that they are, at some level (and not inadvertently), aware of the concept's metonymy (ambi-valence). The concept just announces a point-of-view to be elaborated, not an end-point of analysis. What it is gets spelled out by descriptions of the setting and space as chosen and exploited by the director in particular scenes. "Mise-en-scene" is a paragraph heading, so to speak. <br /><br />I suspect your real issue is with the quasi elititist sound of the term. And that using it in a parking-lot would probably make you feel rather pedantic. The term presupposes a level of abstraction (thinking back from the actual film to its outline in a script) that is perhaps best left to the academic appropriation of film as art. <br /><br />But that leads to the question: should reviewers just entertain and not seek to educate? Are glib populists the best reviewers, or just the most readable? Given the trend to sound-bites and the diversionary in the media, I welcome in-depth analysis as the rare and difficult thing it is. <br /><br />If you're looking for sparky and unvarnished check out Ruthless Reviews. Though I can't guarantee they never commit the sins you censure.C Rothlindnoreply@blogger.com