  Drama
This week: Edited by: Elisa the Bunny Stik  
More Newsletters By This Editor 
1. About this Newsletter
2. A Word from our Sponsor
3. Letter from the Editor
4. Editor's Picks
5. A Word from Writing.Com
6. Ask & Answer
7. Removal instructions
| Love it or loathe is, the term mise-en-scène is a concept that gets its share of focus from film critics and film directors alike. Mise-en-scène has evolved into a catch-all term that creates a lot of confusion whenever it's used. I'll be looking at this term from its many connotations to its flaws. I'll also discuss its relationship to literature and why it can wreak havoc on film adaptations. |
| ASIN: 1945043032 |
|
Amazon's Price: Price N/A
|
|
I admit I can't stand the term mise-en-scène. So why am I writing about it? Well, there are a lot of misconceptions surrounding the term. When I get past the misconceptions, mise-en-scène is actually an interesting concept that is narrow enough for people outside of the film world to understand. Their understanding of mise-en-scène may not be as in-depth as those involved in filmmaking. On the other hand, it is something that can extend outside that realm, and that includes playing a role in written works.
With a term such as mise-en-scène, it's important to start off with a dictionary definition.
1 a: the arrangement of actors and scenery on a stage for a theatrical production b: stage setting
2 a: the physical setting of an action (as of a narrative or a motion picture) : context b: environment, milieu
The definition looks pretty simple, and if you're not wont to exaggerate the connotations of the term, it's straightforward. When professors elaborate on what exactly entails mise-en-scène, they stay pretty true to the dictionary definitions. Things go awry when the discussion shifts to the effects of mise-en-scène on a work. Because of this overanalyzation, mise-en-scène has gathered many meanings, but they all come back to setting and staging.
Since mise-en-scène is based on placement, let's take a look at some of the specifics. Developing a setting, especially in performance arts, relies on details. Everything from lighting to where a desk is placed contributes to the overall setting and how the setting can move the viewer. A cluttered room can intentionally provoke discomfort, and certain clothing items can stir of feelings of joy. Here is a list of components that might be used when the term mise-en-scène is used in a discussion.
 decor- Basically any feature of the setting that is a physical object. This can include furniture, artwork, the color a room is painted, flora and much more. How they are constructed arranged can make a strong impact. For example, in Tom Stoppard's Arcadia, the garden's condition goes through massive changes during the course of the play. In one epoch, the garden is characterized by precisely placed plant life and detailed pruning of the flora. This is contrasted with the garden's shift to a more haphazard arrangement of the vegetation and less pruning. Such drastic changes in the garden highlight the shift in aesthetics from the Classical desire for order to the more whimsical Romantic era characteristics. Of all the elements, that translates the most easily into literature.
lighting- In cinema, there are three major components of three point lighting
| The most effective lighting scheme in narrative films. |
costume- Anything a character wears (or doesn't, even) can speak volumes about the setting, especially in terms of the era in which the action takes place. Costume can make a character conform to or stand out in a crowd. This is a fun one to play with in all forms of literature and performance arts. When writing about costume, don't hesitate to mention very specific shades of a color, adornments and even what the people surrounding a particular character are wearing. That said, be sure there are other ways in which you are describing the setting, as the story could develop a fashion-obsessed voice that is not appropriate for the characters or plot. (Unless, of course, the story is about fashion-obsessed people with all the personality of a Howie Mandell bobblehead. In that case, go for it!)
space- Of the major components of mise-en-scène, this one is truly intended for the screen or stage. That's not to say it's impossible to convey in literature. It's just a lot more difficult because space relies so much of physically seeing something. Leaving space solely up to the reader's imagination is a bit of a gamble. If you're going to tackle this component in writing, here's an approach to try. Consider the space in which the character is placed. Is it expansive or cramped? If it's somewhere in the middle, are there any objects that clutter the area? How about colors that make a space seem larger than it is? Once the character takes it all in, have him or her physically react to it. Large spaces provide characters with an opportunity to roam, while more compact areas may lead to a character pacing only to run into walls all the time. Once this reaction is established, consider repeating it if the character ever revisits that particular setting.
characters- This one is a bit tricky, as character relates strictly to one's physical appearance. The concept is rooted in filmmakers selecting actors (and non-actors) for particular roles based almost entirely on looks. Nowadays, this screams stereotyping, but for the longest time, it was common practice. I'm almost inclined to discourage you from incorporating it into your writing. However, it does have some merit. If the people of a particular setting share certain physical characteristics, it can highlight the protagonist (or antagonist) in the context of the setting. Thus, it can be used for a point of contrast. The trick is to avoid stereotyping at all costs. It really annoys readers and viewers of all stripes. 
Now that you've seen some components of mise-en-scène, here comes the fun. Mise-en-scène is often used to develop the mood of a work, especially when it comes to reflecting a character's state of mind. This has led some people to assume mise-en-scène is about mood and not setting, which has unfortunately bled over into the academic aspect of film study. In fact, hearing this term misused in my World Cinema class is what made me come to hate it as much as I do these days. Another result of this is it has sapped many print-to-screen adaptations of work of emotional intrigue and vigor. The set designers and cinematographers are so caught up in trying to recreate every detail seen in the source material they often forget to use those components as a way to express a lot of aspects of the original work that don't make it into the sceenplay.Some forethought about mise-en-scène would have helped the Harry Potter movies (at least from what I've heard; I've never watched them). It also would make them seem a little less formulaic, as contemplation about using setting to control the mood of the movie would entrance viewers and provide a little distance from potentially hackneyed plots. On the other hand, there is the possibility of making the setting too loaded with symbolism, or the lighting could create a totally opposite mood from what was intended. It is a fine line to walk, and it takes time to learn that tightrope well enough to make mise-en-scène work the way it should.
I hope this little primer-rant on mise-en-scène has helped you understand an often misunderstood term. The independent research I did on this enlightened me in ways my film studies didn't even try. Mise-en-scène can be useful in writing, but even if you don't apply it to your writing you can use the term in move discussions and come across as someone who geniunely knows what it means.
Until next time,
(sig by Feywriter  ) |
Have an opinion on what you've read here today? Then send the Editor feedback! Find an item that you think would be perfect for showcasing here? Submit it for consideration in the newsletter!
https://www.Writing.Com/go/nl_form
Don't forget to support our sponsor!
| ASIN: B01CJ2TNQI |
Product Type: Kindle Store
|
Amazon's Price: $ 5.99
|
|
Time to dig into this week's feedback. Remember, feedback makes us editors happy, inspires ideas among readers and editors and gets you free portfolio exposure. While I would love to see some more feedback, here's what was sent my way last week.
From spidey  : Great newsletter! I definitely agree that antagonists don't have to be people, and "nature" and "society" are good examples!
I think most people don't think of nature and society as antagonist because they're rather broad concepts. If you think about it, though, people are, too. I think once a writer can pinpoint what social group or aspect of nature is causing trouble for the protagonist, then thinking of it as an antagonist is not so much of a stretch. Indeed, though, they are good examples.
From flex: Thank you for another good read, Stik.
You're welcome, Felix. Good to see you here! 
From Jaye P. Marshall  : Thank you for another very helpful newsletter on antagonists - a subject where I can use a lot of help.
Thank you also for featuring one of my stories.
You're welcome on both accounts. Antagonists do make writers think differently in terms of developing the characters, and sometimes it's hard to know what exactly needs to be developed. Sure, motivations, strengths and weaknesses deserve thorough exploration. They require more focus psychologically, and they aren't necessarily evil (which is a direction a lot of writers take to some degree). However, they're also rife with potential, and I hope my newsletters discussing antagonists help you and other writers see that spark.
From fleckgirl: Good NL ... very true how many overlook nature as an antagonist, but I LOVE that & disease as antag... Great job!
Yeah, disease actually gave me the idea for this particular newsletter on antagonists. Likewise, it's unique in that it can't be completely controlled, which is always a fun conflict to depict. After all, control is a driving force on both sides of an issue. And disease can be personified without coming across as contrived or outright senseless. While I've yet to make disease an antagonist in one of my own works (I know. Bad me.), I think it's a refreshing way to approach an antagonizing force and develop other characters in the story as well.
I have a couple topics I'd like to cover for May, but I only have the opportunity to cover one of them. The first is taking a look at the play-within-a-play concept. The other is sharing lessons I've learned about crafting drama from either Greg Beeman or Andrew Stanton. What would you rather see? I'd really like to hear from the readers on this one.
And if you happen to miss or misplace a newsletter, feel free to stop by "The Drama Box" [13+]. |
| ASIN: 1945043032 |
|
Amazon's Price: Price N/A
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, click here for your newsletter subscription list. Simply uncheck the box next to any newsletter(s) you wish to cancel and then click to "Submit Changes". You can edit your subscriptions at any time.
|
Drama: April 15, 2009 Issue [#2997]
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
