Essay by A-Soma

MISE-EN-SCÈNE AND THE OFF-SCREEN SPACE

____________________________________________

Cinema, like life itself, offers an experience, which is open to unlimited interpretation. It has since its invention, been a locus for thought and debate which, ultimately, is concerned with the nature of our own consciousness and impulse to find meaning. Everything that can be thought about, can also exist within the specific orbit of cinema. Perhaps this value as an existential mirror stems from its particular four-sided circumscription ­ the film frame. 'Life' cannot be encompassed, but a two-dimensional film image can be. It dictates that we all share the same physical point of view. Like the philosopher's pencil, it is where we agree our point of departure ­ what is inside the frame is, The Film ­ what is outside of it is not.

The moving image suggests a spacial and temporal simulacrum, which we observe from a state of physical suspension. Seated before the screen in secure abandoment of rational pretexts, we leave our corporeality behind. There, in a sublimated notional world, although our limbs may occasionally jerk with involuntary response to screen action, their relevance is paralysed. We don't even require hands to turn a page. Whether we become interpellated into the film or remain critically conscious, our involvement is purely a mental one. From the dark void outside the frame, our role is to watch. Observing a parallel universe unfold simulations of deceptively familiar realities: Shapes move around, there is sound. And, perhaps most significant, there is duration. A major component of cinema's corollary of life.

The process of making and viewing movies might be a remanant of lost ritual: 'Disused mechanisms of thought with nowhere else to exercise themselves ­ no longer employable in the mapping of magical correspondences'.(1) For extended moments we are out of our body and ex-mortal. Like psychotropically transported Yanomani Indians, looking down upon the dream of life. Recognising it for the shadowplay it is. Who knows, perhaps this is like what being dead will be? We are in a state of grace preparing to return to earth with renewed gravitas. Hungry to penetrate the world's persona with a sharpened insight. Or, perhaps not. Isn't there usually something missing at the movies? Some dark fin, to, momentarily slice through the gossamer of fantasy. A spanner in the works which breaks the spell. An overlong stare, back into the camera lens, reminding us of our selves. After all, it's our own life that is awesome, not the movies.

Taking a reductionist's gimlet to mise-en-scène opens up a revealing ontological seam. In cinema the word 'film' has dual meanings. Not only as a projection of moving images. But also their material photographic location. And, it is interesting to note re. mise-en-scène, that the word, scène, means location. The actual location of a film's visual source, is in its emulsion. This is cinema's opaque persona. From here, a flickering code of light is generated. Meaningful, only to the presence of a mind willing to oblige its optical trick, and pursue its illusion of allusive phantoms.

What is a film's mise-en-scène? Quote: 'Strictly speaking mise-en-scène refers to the practice of stage direction in the theatre in which things are 'put into the scene', i.e. arranged on the stage'. When applied to film, it refers to whatever appears in the film frameÉ'(2) A more concise definition might be: Everything you see and hear. Obviously this inclusive definition can be separated into component attributes, in the manner of taking a scalpel to a flower. Setting, costume and makeup, lighting and the expression and movement of actors. I would also include editing and of course sound. So what purpose does the term mise-en-scène serve? After all, if by simple definition a film's mise-en-scène is what is shown within its frame. Is this not like saying: a film's film, is the film? Isn't there a tautology occurring here? Might we simply speak of: The Film. Am I being bamboozled by an over-determination of theory? Could the term be offering something a little more edifying than identifying signs of authorial style ­ and to what end?

If we return to the fundamental meaning of the phrase mise-en-scène, which is, 'put into the scene' (or location), we notice a transitive verb and preposition have been added ­ 'put into'. The phrase is alerting us to an intentionality. We are being invited to consider what we are seeing in terms of motive. The creator/s of a film have made choices according to a system of values. What are these values? What is being required from us other than our scopic desire? Through mise-en-scène we can examine a film's ideological subtext. It prompts questioning of suture and hegemony. Offering a sceptical perspective, which exercises our autonomy ­ we don't have to swallow the sugared pill, we can ask, why? Thus another channel for appreciation is opened. One where we can negotiate both pleasure and, unpleasure, within the satisfaction of conscious thought. From this we benefit by a broadening of our vocabulary. We can enjoy aberrant fusion of form and content in cinema art. Its potential to confound, while evoking something of the aleatoric asymmetry of our real lives in the off-screen-space.

© A-Soma 2001

(1) Geoffrey O'Brien, The Phantom Empire p. 188

(2) Pam Cook, The Cinema Book p. 151

Other Sources:

David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson, Film Art

Jill Nelmes, An Introduction To Film Studies

Susan Hayward, Cinema Studies, The Key Concepts

Karel Reisz and Gavin Millar, The Technique of Film Editing