the worst

That was succinct. I like you.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

He's not talking about the film stock, you idiot. He's talking about the morals and ethics shown in the film. Go back to X-Men.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

The sentence makes perfect sense, you just don't understand it. There is a very large difference there.

Cute, but you're wrong.

There's something you don't seem to be understanding here, and I'm afraid that that "something" is the English language. I'm actually quite well aware of the phrase "mise-en-scene," and I was at least somewhat aware of the existence of the textbook.

But here, I'll play along: We'll examine the sentence using both possible usages of the term - we'll consider it as if he were referring to the textbook, and we'll consider the far more likely scenario, which is that he was using it in the more traditional sense as a term used to describe the design and framing of a film. I think we will find that, under both scenarios, the sentence is still quite nonsensical.

Scenario A: He was referring to the textbook "Mise en scene," which is regularly assigned in 200-level French courses. His post suggests that he's an American (as evidenced by his use of "foreign film" to describe this movie), and never mind his lack of basic writing skills in his own language (so we wouldn't expect proper capitalization of the first word, or either italics or quotation marks around the title) - it still could be that he's somehow managed to make his way into 200-level French-language courses. The next question is, given that definition, how does the sentence make sense? Perhaps it could read: "It was a boring French cinema textbook snoozefest." He is, then, calling this a "textbook film," because somehow its qualities as a film are inextricably linked with that specific textbook. It would be a fairly esoteric reference, but it's still possible. However, as mentioned, the general qualities of his post would suggest that this is a rather unlikely scenario.

That's an incredibly unlikely use of the term, and the fact that you read it that way only evidences your strong desire to read his post in the most charitable light possible (which is fine, but you still come out looking worse for defending what is, at best, a moderately incoherent sentence.)

SENSE scale: 3/10 (so still far from "perfect sense," even in the most charitable light.)

PLAUSIBILITY scale: 1/10

So I contend that the above scenario (the one suggested by you) is actually quite unlikely. The simpler answer is:

Scenario B: He was referring to the film term "mise-en-scene" - meaning the "design" and "framing" of the film (among other things) - and decided to throw the term in to add weight to his criticisms. The thing is, every film has mise-en-scene. It's not a qualitative term. At best, he was saying: "boring design," but then the last word, "snoozefest," doesn't fit in at all. One doesn't say "boring design snoozefest." It's true that even critics who use the term tend to disagree as to its exact meaning - but, still, the term has specific meanings, and no matter which definition you use his sentence is still incoherent, no matter how valiantly you try to defend it. No critic would write, much less condemn a film with the phrase "boring mise en scene snoozefest."

SENSE scale: 1/10

PLAUSIBILITY SCALE: 10/10

So, the first scenario - the one you assume to be an accurate description of his intentions - makes slightly more sense than the second, but it is also far more unlikely, since we have to pretend that he was making an obscure reference to a French textbook without any slight indication that that was the case (that it makes the slightest bit more sense isn't reason to assume, since there's lots of absolute nonsense on the IMDb.) The second scenario makes no sense, but is far more plausible given the much higher likelihood of his having encountered that term and given people's general propensity to use terms (especially fancy-sounding French terms) they don't actually understand.

-

So I'm at a loss here - you're going to have to tell me how his sentence makes "perfect sense." The explanation you gave doesn't actually give any added coherence to his post. Don't put it through your IMDb decoder ring, don't twist it around until it means what you want it to mean - simply parse the sentence for me, so I can finally understand it in all its perfect sense.

I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here

reply share

add reply

formatting help

That's ludicrous. That they have a rigorous technique/style says nothing about the quality of their style. The argument is a largely subjective one. You just choose to sit on the other side of the fence than the fellow you were replying to.

Not so much ludicrous, as truthful. Though it is interesting that your definition of "ludicrous" so drastically differs from that of the general populace - it may well be that your differing linguistic "understandings" may account for your finding "perfect sense" in the OP's incoherent ramblings.

But for the record, there are certain objective elements to aesthetics, and by what we know about aesthetics it can be determined that the Dardennes' filmmaking, whatever else it may be, is not "bad."

"Bad," when applied to aesthetics, generally implies a certain level of sloppiness or incoherence (it can also imply a moral judgment, though I don't think that's the case here.) The fact is that the Dardennes are, objectively, far from sloppy or incoherent in their aesthetics. So yes, it is the very rigor of their technique (and even "mise-en-scene") that, ipso facto, precludes them from being placement on the list of "bad filmmakers."

-

On a side note, it's interesting to know that you apparently believe in the volitional nature of aesthetic judgments, as evidenced by your use of the word "choice" to describe our filmic preferences. I don't know if I'd agree with that assumption (I suppose there might be some choice involved) but I suppose that's an argument for another day.

I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here

reply share

add reply

formatting help