Defining cinema and its uniqueness
On the surface the construct of Mise en scene may seem a flat truism - a simple statement of less-than-complex fact - that "what is inside the frame is, ‘The Film’, what is outside of it is not." (Soma, 2001). And yet the simplicity of the term defies the complexity of it’s process of application to cinema. In order to dig at those complexities of process undertaken by a filmmaker it is necessary to pose a certain framing question in order to separate cinema from other arts and identify its unique qualities. The term Mise en Scene, despite its theatrical origins is undoubtedly a term exploited for, and most readily applied to, the cinema. But is this application one born of tradition and habit, or is the idea of Mise en Scene, as a descriptor of directorial process, cinema-specific? Most definitions of Mise en Scene seem deliberately vague; Pam Cook in her well established work on cinematic language defines Mise en Scene in remarkably banal terms as “whatever appears in the film frame” (1985. p151) but this curtails Mise en Scene to the simplistic act of populating the frame with ‘things’ and seems to connect forcefully with either notion of Mise en scene as either noun or verb. To distil a functional understanding of Mise en Scene for the Director of cinema we need to work out what those ‘things’ that fill the frame are; obviously not in specifics to the objects – which, of course, could be anything, but in conceptual and taxonomical groupings connected to the process of depicting them. Bordwell and Thompson isolate the elements of Mise en Scene according to the historical roots of the term:
“As you would expect from the term’s theatrical origins, mise en scene includes those aspects of film that overlap with the art of the theatre: setting, lighting, costume, and the behaviour of the figures.” (2001, p156)
However, such a breakdown fails to indicate or explore what might be unique to cinema in terms of Mise en Scene, what separates it from theatre and what may make the term cinema-specific? Certainly Set, Light and Costume are tangible contents of the cinema frame but they indicate nothing of how the cinema-making process behaves and interacts with those contents?
The arts of Photography, Theatre and Architecture may be viewed as the three visually dominant parents of cinema and from all three cinema has inherited distinct traits connected to the process of creative assembly. From photography cinema garners framed-composition and the two-dimensional arrangement and positioning of subjects within a defined border. But cinema is distinctly not photography not least of all because the subjects may, and most often do, move. Thus from theatre cinema inherits the movement of subjects around a framed space and, simultaneously, a temporal progression rather than a static nature. But despite the dual abilities to compose objects in frame and stage subjects in a presented space-time, cinema transcends both theatre and photography by allowing the vantage point of observation itself to move – camera movement. This is decidedly a trait neither painting nor theatre can viably possess. By virtue of this cinema can be seen to possess a macro attribute derived distinctly from architecture; a spatial construction that exists both in space and time and which allows for the vantage point of observation to change and indeed to be compelled to change by the space itself.
At a surface level, if we position Mise en Scene firmly as a descriptor of process, the obvious elements are those that may be seen within the cinematic frame – light, set, costume, performance, objects. But at a deeper level, the consideration of the process undertaken by filmmakers must consider the choices constructed around more macro-level concerns; those of staging Space and Movement in Time. For example, a film that requires the construction of a set which incorporates a tall wire fence is not merely a choice of what material to use – wire over wood – but more fundamentally a set of questions and choices about Where is that fence? How will the performers engage with the fence? How will the fence change the movement of the performers? How will the viewer see the fence? Will they see through it or over it? How much space will there be between the fence and the subjects and the viewer’s vantage point? How will the positions of both subject and viewer change over time? How will the nature of the fence itself change over time; will it be knocked over, cut through, circumvented…? How will the lighting change during the course of the scene; will the sun rise or the street-lights turn off, will the fence cast a shadow and if so, in which direction? How will the costumes be altered by time and action; will they be torn by the fence or become muddied? Will the colour and tone of the costumes change with the light and shadow from the fence…?
All these questions go beyond the populating of the frame with ‘things’ as the ‘thing’ itself cannot be considered outside of the contexts of how it will be ‘staged’ in space, motion, time and the actions that take place over the duration of the scene. Thus Mise en Scene as a verb describing the filmmaker’s process is much more than the selection of the objects and subjects, or even of where they are placed (as it would be with photography, theatre and architecture unto themselves). It is a descriptor of a temporal and kinetic spatiality, one where the position of a thing in the frame cannot be reconciled, understood or composed without a knowledge of how the position of that thing will progress over time, how the position of perspective will change over time, and how the effects of both space and time will be manifested on the ‘thing’ itself. It is this hybrid nature of cinema process, one where discreet compositional elements cannot exist in isolation but rely heavily on the influence of the others, that presents Mise en Scene as a uniquely cinematic paradigm. This in turn brings us back to a fundamental of cinema as both an experience and a process; that the making of cinema and the watching of cinema cannot be separated from the mechanics and technology of cinema. Where each of the three parent arts to cinema present hereditary traits of staging, space and movement it is the technical apparatus of cinema that provides the means to engage with unique traits that transcend photography, theatre and architecture. The ability to prescribe a variable viewer’s vantage point in space is unique to cinema because such a variable positioning is only capable through the construct of the camera (be it physical or virtual) that can move the viewer through, or instantly shift their position in, space. Aside from the pragmatic fact that cinema cannot be ‘captured’ or experienced without a technological apparatus, at a conceptual level, it is technology - and technology alone - that facilitates the spatial navigation and positional prescription that is fundamental to the Director’s choices.
In counter to this one might point to cinematic works and examples that do not move or re-position the viewer - films that employ those traits of photography, theatre and architecture in the Mise en Scene - but which do not leverage the unique properties of space/motion/time. That the work appears on a screen and is/was recorded as moving images presents it as cinema but it is none the less void of the qualities that may make Mise en Scene a cinema-specific construct. In order to answer that question we must consider what a functional definition of cinema is? This may seem, on the surface, a easy endeavour but even within common usage of the term (let alone academic and scholarly discourses) there is great variation.
It is arguable that the word ‘cinema’ is most commonly used to refer to a physical place and location; the venue where films are shown – the ‘cinema theatre’. The ramifications for the use of Cinema as a specific, locative, noun position and frame other uses of the word into particular contexts both technical and cultural. By defining Cinema specifically as a place where films are shown then any broader application of the word is potentially consigned also to that specific location. Hence a definition of ‘cinema’ may be popularly accepted as ‘movies shown in a cinema’ and this might be an easy enabler of common discussion, employing broadly accepted terms, it is none the less highly problematic as it ties moving image works to a particular mode of viewing (and indeed a particular technical apparatus). When, in real terms, the proportion of ‘movies’ viewed by the populous in a cinema-theatre is but a tiny fraction of the total ‘movies’ they will view via other mechanisms (namely TV in the home or on-line) then the definition of cinema as a ‘place where movies are seen’ is a dysfunctional and an inaccurate descriptor. Also, in defining cinema by the apparatus of its delivery we also constrain it to particular forms of technology connected to that delivery. Hence, despite five decades of video technology, the term cinema still has a popular association with celluloid and projected 35mm film; a further small distinction used to separate a definition of cinema from other screen-based media such as TV.
To this we can add other variations of definition; in particular cultural constructs around cinema. Tied with the idea of cinema as a ‘place’ is the notion that cinema, as a term, has particular cultural connotations. That ‘going to the cinema’ is not just an act of visiting a particular venue but involves a deeper consciousness of occasion and spectacle. The implications for movie works viewed under the umbrella of such cultural constructs is to invest them with certain expectations which are beyond the content of the film itself. This gives rise to a common understanding of Cinema as an experience; a manner of experiencing a moving image beyond the movie itself. Popcorn, dark theatre, loud sound, big-screen, communal environment, Saturday night date, and so on are the hall-marks of a ‘cinema experience’ and a popular cultural association of the word ‘cinema’.
The third major association of the word ‘cinema’ is with a perceived notion of ‘quality’ and aesthetic. This perception gives rise to the common usage of the word ‘Cinematic’. In theory cinematic is simply an adjective derived from cinema; a means of describing something that is ‘of the cinema’ or connected to the cinema. But in more popular usage and understanding ‘cinematic’ is used to describe a particular quality of the work that lends itself to spectacle, scale and traits of the cinema theatre (ie large-screen, big sound, public crowd) as well as connotations of the works ability to generate immersion in the cinema experience. Here we may see a similar pattern to that established by the New Wave critics in their desire to identify Mise en Scene as not a mode or paradigm for making a film but rather a particular quality that a film may or may not be in possession of. With this idea of ‘the cinematic’ as a quality we have a circumstance where a work of ‘cinema’ may play in a cinema-theatre but be judged as being a film that is not ‘cinematic’.
Certainly there are numerous other permutations but all three of these key variations on how the term ‘cinema’ may be interpreted, used and exploited are flawed. Whilst all three may find themselves accepted as given in a common discourse they do not present a viable means of comprehension or of definition for cinema studies. Such definitions based on cultural constructs and specific technologies have no scope to evolve. It is possible, even easy, to imagine a future where the cinema-theatre has vanished (much as the Drive-In) and projected celluloid film has been totally replaced by digital technologies. In such a scenario the currently common defining elements of cinema as a ‘place’, a ‘cultural construct’ and a ‘means’ would be rendered defunct. Yet there would, no doubt, still be movies, still be ‘cinema’, just not as a location or a particular apparatus.
So, what this drives us to consider is what might be a viable and functional definition of ‘cinema’ that can account not only for current and past contexts, but which is not so tied to contemporary means and modes that it has no future functionality as cinema evolves? When considered in this manner the possibilities for a definition of cinema contract significantly to a distilled essence. Cinema is ‘the art of the moving image’. This acutely simple definition takes the two particular traits that are irrefutable for all cinema, both past and present, without tying it to any particular apparatus, institution or cultural context. Cinema is an Art because it is something wrought and constructed by a person (or group of people) that has no specific practical function; only to explore, engage, inform, entertain and edify. Likewise, cinema is a ‘moving image’ because this simple phrase alone sets cinema apart from its parents – theatre, photography and architecture. Whilst the means by which we watch cinema and the technology by which we display it may change and vary enormously, the fact that the image is moving will not.
----
- A Soma, “Essay 2 / Off Screen Space,” 2001, http://www.soma.org.uk/Essay%202%20%20Off%20Screen%20Space/essay2offscreens.html.
- Pam Cook, The Cinema Book, 1st ed. (London: BFI, 1985).
- D. Bordwell and K. Thompson, Film Art an introduction, 6th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001).
