What would you most like to review or discuss in film theory?

Following our review and practice the past two weeks, what are you left wanting to discuss more in terms of mise-en-scene and film theory?

Comments

[Anna Markee]

So far, we have covered Mise-en-scene very well. I feel like I understand the different concepts and can differentiate between them. If I do have problems, I can look back to my notes or the website provided at the beginning of the term that explains each aspect of m-e-s. On the first day of class we covered expressionism vs. realism. Is it appropriate to label a movie as either expressionistic or realistic? Or are they just aspects within a film? So far in class I would label all the films we watched as realistic because they show us the world in a way that we experience it. However, Wong's films have been labeled as expressionistic, even though I wouldn't consider them abstract or unrealistic.

[Josh Noble]

I feel like I have a good grasp of m-e-s too, I liked how this week's film analysis we related aspects of m-e-s to the narrative. I think it would be helpful to spend more time on this in the coming weeks.

[Lauren Hiland]

I feel like I've got a pretty good grip on mise-en-scene so far. I was struggling alot more with it at the beginning of the term, but I feel like i'm doing alot better now. If we could cover density, and tight v.s. loose framing again I think that would be helpful for me. Also if we could discuss in class more throughly what sort of things we are expected to do/analyze in our papers that would also be very helpful.

[Amy Elder]

It would be helpful for me for us to go over how to be more specific in our film analyses. Maybe go over some of the language that is expected of us to use in our film analyses.

[RobElmer]

I agree with Amy that a little more help understanding how the analysis should be structured would be helpful.

[Karl Amspacher]

In class we have deconstructed images from some of the films that have been screened, focusing strictly on the m-e-s. What I would like to go over is how structuring the shot compares to the quality of a film. So far assessing the quality of a film has been outside of our discussions, but I feel like m-e-s is an essential part of exceptional films, even if it's not the only part. Directors like Wes Anderson have heavily structured shots, and high quality movies.

[Karl Amspacher]

Going over m-e-s every week, I think that the class is starting to develop familiarity with the concept. Is it possible that we could do an exercise where we go over a shot of poor use of m-e-s and discuss what could be improved to the structuring?

[Lucas Ashland]

The hardest concept for me to grasp is the aspect of composition and how one can tell if a shot has a vertical, horizontal or other type of composition. I think we mentioned something called a binary composition and I'm not really sure what that is either.

[Lisa King]

I agree with what Lucas said; the composition types are still a little confusing for me. I have a hard time differentiating between the types of composition and I think going over them again in class would be really helpful.

[Melissa Werner]

I also agree with Lauren and Amy, and like Lucas, I'd also like to learn more about the composition aspects of mise-en-scene...