Recent Posts

5 Ekim 2010 Salı

I got the power!!

When I read the article on mise-en-scéne criticism, I suddenly thought that I is not that hard to read a movie. It is not always easy to understand what the director depicts through his work. Every one of us can name several successful directors but how do we know that they are successful? For me, I guess it was kind of an instinct. However, even after one article I feel like I have the power, now I can give more specific reasons for why I like those directors.

Ok let’s skip my personal issues and come to mise-en-scéne crticism.

While I was reading the article I was trying to visualize what I have read by the help of movies that I have watched so far. When I came to the mise-en-scéne method in the readings, I came across with the term expressivist and commentative heuristics. What is heuristic? I think it is the most enjoyable toy that you can play while you are watching a movie. It will give you the feeling of finding a track of a rabbit in the forest, or revealing a crime or mystery. It enables us or lets say film critic to identify patterns of coherence in a film. In the expressivist heuristic meaning is taken from core to periphery. As I understood, setting and act of the characters should reflect the filmic discourse and vice versa. On the other hand, in expressivist heuristic director or lets say an outside force do something and create a meaning. By the help of those information, I suddenly realize that the film “Sleuth (2007)” can be read by using expressivist heuristics. In setting of the film, we see a house with 2 floors. Bedroom is on the second floor and there is an elevator. Of course it is not all about the setting however these element would help me to explain my point. I realized that when 2 characters talk in a calmer way, they are on the first floor. Then tension goes up, they take the elevator and when they are upstairs, boom!! climax. In the movie characters both literally and metaphorically go up and down. Physical act is kind of a symbol of psychological state of the characters.

After I realized that Sleuth has expressivist heuristics, and since text suggest that expressivist heuristic is more suitable for classical mise-en-scéne, I tried to look from that point of view and analyse the film even better. Sleuth is a movie based on Anthony Shaffer’s award winning play. Therefore, it is a very theatrical movie I can say. Movie is based on characters’ dialogues and dramatic developments. According to the article, I can also say that Sleuth is a classical mise-en-scene movie. Narrating and the showing is in balance, stylistic devices in the film are keyed closely to its dramatic shifts and thematic developments.

I think we should also look at the first movie that had been shot in 1972. I haven’t watched that version however when I look at the reviews I get that 2 versions are really different. Critics say that new Sleuth is not the remake of the 1972 version. At that point I was a bit confused. I thought that play is the same play so director should add something to it in order to make it that different. However I find out that sceenwriter Harold Pinter creates his own type of Sleuth. I should admit that this info was a big relief for me=) Otherwise all of my observations about sleuth would be rubbish.

Watch this movie!!

Highly recommended.