The Arts In New York City

Our last class!  We started off with the introduction to a new concept, mise-en-scene, which is literally translated into “placing on the stage.”  As seen in the 1995 and 2005 scenes we were shown of Pride and Prejudice, this can have a significant effect on the portrayal of the scene to the viewer.  In the 1995 version, we took note of the costumes and how this was evident of the family’s status/wealth.  In the 2005 version of the same scene, we took note of the daughters’ images, who seemed to be hardworking.  As for the dancing scene, in the 1995 version, the movements of the actors were more graceful, while the 2005 version was visually more complex and on a grander scheme.

We were then shown the movie On the Waterfront.  After being introduced to mise-en-scene, we saw how this concept was applied in film, for example, was each person meant to be portrayed as an individual or did the director want he or she to be portrayed as part of a single mass of people?  I have always been a fan of Marlon Brando so I knew I would enjoy this movie, so my opinion of it is a little biased, but the symbolism and thought put into the making of this film was impressive.  We come to learn throughout the course of the movie that the pigeons we are constantly shown represent the workers and at one point, hawks are mentioned by Terry that slaughter the pigeons, symbolic of the mob.

Dr. Kahan made sure we took note of the placement of the camera, as well, which in dialogue would allow us to feel as if we were talking to the characters when placed over their shoulders.  I have always loved black and white films and I’m happy I can check yet another Brando movie off my list!

The bulk of this week’s class was spent watching the movie On The Waterfront. I knew some of my classmates were hesitant going into the movie because it was in black and white. Black and white movies don’t bother me, so I was not worried about that, especially since I had read some good reviews of the film before class. However, I am disappointed to say that I did not like the movie at all. I thought that the acting was horrible and made the plot difficult to follow. I also found myself horribly bored by about fifteen minutes in and had difficulty focusing on the rest of the movie. I kept holding out hope that we would reach a point in the movie that would grip my attention and make me change my opinion, but that just never happened. So instead of spending my blog post talking about this movie that I did not enjoy, I am going to spend it talking about the first portion of the class.

Dr. Kahan started off class by briefly talking about our final papers. In doing such, the phrase mise-en-scène came up. Mise-en-scène is defined as “the arrangement of scenery and stage properties in a play”. Dr. Kahan explained that it is pretty much everything that appears in front of the camera and how it is all arranged and how the placement or the putting into the frame contributes to the style, content, and meaning of whatever you’re watching. Dr. Kahan also took this as an opportunity to remind us that when writing, we have to be sure to use proper accents as they change the meaning of the word, and in addition to the example of mise-en-scène, gave the example of Radamès, a character from the opera Aida that we saw. To give us examples of mise-en-scène, Dr. Kahan showed us clips from two different versions of Pride and Prejudice, the 1995 BBC mini series, and the 2005 film. We were able to see how the mise-en-scène was different in both of them. Though they were interpreting the same book, the family was portrayed in a way that made them seem lower-middle class in the BBC version, and upper-middle class in the film. In addition, the ball was much more grand in the film, as compared to the simpler ball in the BBC version. It was easy to spot the differences between the two versions, and I was glad that we got to watch each clip a few times to find more and more differences.

This weeks lesson began with a discussion about mise-en-scène.  Mise-en-scène (the literal French translation being “placing on stage”) is a phrase used to describe the setting of a scene in a film or play and how it is used to inform the audience of the time, place, setting, etc.  This is done through the visual artwork and cinematography.  It occurs during first few frames of a movie.  Doctor Kahan showed us a comparison of the mise-en-scène with two different versions of cinematic adaptations of Pride and Prejudice.  The first adaptation was the BBC adaptation, and that mise-en-scène consisted of a middle class family, a father reading a newspaper, the daughters sitting/talking/sewing, a comfortably furnished house, and everyone is featured in plain period clothing.  The other version with Kiera Knightley showed a middle class family, a working mother, a haphazard household, and much more vivid colors.

We then proceeded to watch On the Waterfront.  I remember my grandmother had mentioned it once or twice in reference to my great uncle who used to work on the docks (and incidentally died in an accident on the docks.)  It basically told the story of Terry, a dockworker who was involved in the corrupt gang-like system that controlled the docks.  It follows Terry’s character as he slowly recognizes the real problem he’s gotten himself into when Edie, the sister of the boy Terry murdered by proxy, falls in love with him and opens him up to good opportunities.  At first, the movie didn’t catch my interest all that much, but as the story become more in depth and complicated I found myself wondering what Terry’s next would be and very much invested in his fate.

We began the class with a previously unknown concept for me, mise-en-scène. What Dr. Kahan began with is explaining that this phrase means to put into the frame, literally. In other words, this is how everything is set up and presented to the viewer and how this adds on to the effect the director is trying to create. This also involves the kind of shot being used. Dr. Kahan also mentioned that everyone on set has their own opinion on what they want the scene to look like but great artists, including directors, will put their own artistic stamp into what they’re doing. We moved on to watch scenes from Pride and Prejudice, the 1995 and 2005 versions to see how they varied. The 1995 version introduced us to a middle class family who seemed very formal to one another. Their home was modest and did not have many intricate decorations and the family seemed to survive on just what they needed. In the 2005 version, we were introduced to a more intricate design of the set and the family seems a little wealthier. The parents do chores, so they are more down-to-earth than the first movie and the ball scene showed more fun and more extravagant things than the 1995 version. The pace, tone, formality, and shots of varying duration all differed in both movies, which proved to me that analyzing a movie isn’t too difficult and actually helps understand what the director had in mind.

Then we watched On The Waterfront which I did not expect to like as much as I did. The director, Elia Kazan, was an immigrant who interlaced his experience into his films while he struggled to be accepted into American society. He taught method acting and worked with great American actors but his downfall came when he made the mistake of sitting for the HUAC in 1947 during the Red Scare. The movie itself dealt with corrupt unions in New Jersey and the dock workers (who were struggling to get by) that were affected by this. The movie was made as realistic as possible, being an antithesis to the mise-en-scène of Pride and Prejudice. Throughout the movie, there was a plethora of symbolism scattered around. Catholicism and religion were alluded to quite often, whether it was the church or a cross hanging on a wall, or the priest preaching. Pigeons and birds, in general, were also very prominent symbols, with Joey Doyle being referred to as a canary who couldn’t fly but could sing. Pigeons were referred to when it is said that the city is full of hawks who spot pigeons and hunt them, hawks being the predators and pigeons representing the urban and youthful generation. Throughout the film, there were many close-up shots and one of them was one we already learned about: when Edie and Terry were conversing, we looked over their shoulders. When Terry spoke we saw him close-up over Edie’s shoulder and while Edie spoke we saw her over Terry’s shoulder. This is a film technique I have never really noticed but now understand why it is needed. To review the film’s plot seems unnecessary, since everyone watched it together, but needless to say, I loved the film and truly enjoyed watching it while understanding the hard work that went into it.

We started Wednesday’s class with a discussion of mise-en-scène. Mise-en-scène is the placement of everything in the frame. It is a french term with the English translation being “placing on stage”. The mise-en-scène can and most often depicts the meaning of a certain shot. Depending on how it is used it can change the scene dramatically. We witnessed this first hand when watching two different versions of scenes from Pride and Prejudice. It is clear that the director’s had highly different views of what the scenes wanted to show. The scenes from the earlier, television version seemed much more slow and quiet where as the scenes from the movie version were much more grand. The reason we were able to know this is because of the mise-en-scène. In the TV version they girls were much more modestly dressed in comparison to the movie. Another aspect that shows this was the sheer magnificence of the ballroom scene in the movie version that differs from the quieter scene in the television show.

After this discussion we were ready to watch On the Waterfront. When I found out we were going to watch this movie in class I was very excited. It was a movie I’ve been meaning to watch for a long time ever since my father told me about it. The reason it was so interesting to him, and now to me as well, is because my grandfather used to work on the docks in Staten Island. My dad has many memories and stories from what his father told him. My dad told me about the accuracy of the movie and though exaggerated, much of the things that happened in the movie happened to my grandfather when he worked.

I thought the movie was fantastic. Every aspect was great, from the fabulous acting job by Marlon Brando to the music. Marlon Brando, as Dr. Kahan said, seems to become the character. I feel as if that is him in real life because he delivers such a honest performance. The music as well seems to capture the mood of every scene perfectly.

The New York City skyline is constantly in the background of shots on the docks of Hoboken, New Jersey. To me, the city seems like an unreachable paradise for the characters that are stuck in a sort of purgatory. Other aspects of the mise-en-scène in the film such as low-lit shots and shady looking neighborhoods help depict the rough and dark neighborhoods of the time.

This week’s seminar, we began discussing a film technique called mise-en-scène. Mise-en-scène is very important to a work of art because it determines the type of shot being used, what is actually displayed for the scene, and emphasizes the emotion the director is trying to convey. Dr. Kahan showed us a great mise-en-scène example through the two makes of the same movie, Pride and Prejudice. We contrasted two of the same scenes, which helped me realize what mise-en-scène was. Mise-en-scène is so crucial to a film because it determines the visual aspect and has the power to make a movie a hit or a miss.

After our discussion on mise-en-scène, we prepared ourselves to watch a classic movie called, On the Waterfront. Black and white movies have never been my cup of tea but I was actually quite surprised on how much I enjoyed the movie. That is what basically sums up the whole seminar semester for me. Everything, whether a show, museum, opera, or music recital I have went to I did not possess high expectations at all in terms of entertainment. However, after all of these shows, museums, operas, or music recitals are over, I come out with a surprised smile on my face. But, back to the movie. The movie had a rich plot of the struggles of being associated with a mafia combined with a love story. It reminded me of my favorite movie, Goodfellas, because of its mafia undertone. I liked Terry’s character because he was a true fighter (literally and figuratively) and overcame the pressures of being sucked into an infested group of people.

-Tyler Crespi

This week in class we began with a discussion of mise-en-scène. Dr. Kahan defined it by saying it is either putting into the scene or onto the stage. Mise-en-scène is everything that appears in front of a camera and how its arrangement is contributes to the style, context, and meaning of a film. Why were these costumes picked? Why was the background blue? Everything in a film or stage is there for a purpose. Mise-en-scène is a collaborative effort. The director, cameraman, costume designer, and set designer all give their opinion on what will look the best. Dr. Kahan said that this is sometimes a very complicated process because there seems to be always be clashing ideas. Mise-en-scène can also help us to determine the economic status of people based on the type of clothes they wear and the condition of their house. To help us understand the concept of mise-en-scène, Dr. Kahan showed us two clips of Pride and Prejudice, one version of the film from 1995 and another from 2005. The way the 1995 clip was shot was completely different than the 2005 clip. The costumes that were used in the 1995 clip were less elaborate than the ones used in the 2005 clip. The ballroom scene was a little small social event with not that many people and simple music. In the 2005 clip, the ballroom scene had a lot more people, loud music, and was decorated much more. The newer version showed much more insight than the older version did. It was amazing to see how much rapid change there had been in a mere ten years.

We then watched the movie, On the Waterfront. I enjoyed watching On the Waterfront, even though I initially thought I wouldn’t. At first, when I heard it was a black and white movie, I didn’t want to see it because to me, black and white movies are generally boring, but I was quite surprised at how much I loved the movie, even though it wasn’t in color. In the film, pigeons seemed to be a recurring theme. Terry takes care of the pigeon coop with two younger boys and he loves the pigeons to death. The gangsters in the movie, the “hawks,” usually refer to the longshoremen as pigeons. The pigeons are in a cage, but they are the most happy and free when they are able to fly freely in the air. The pigeons represent Terry’s desire to be free and to no longer want to be associated with Johnny Friendly, who manipulates him. There was also interesting slang utilized in the film. One word I found to be interesting is “Cheese-eater.” This word today can be translated to either a “bum” or “jerk.” Another thing that was fascinating was that whenever we would see Edie and Terry alone, there would always be close ups of them. This could be used to show that the passionate love between them and the director wanting them to be the most important aspect in a particular scene. Overall, I loved watching this movie and I have officially changed my mind about black and white movies being boring.

The semester is rapidly drawing to an end. 12/10 was our last ‘real’ class– with the next and final one being the presentation of our assignments. And with the end of the semester, the true purpose of our blogs and notes was revealed: to help supplement and inspire our ‘What is Art?’ essay.

This week in class, the first new thing we learned was “mise-en-scène“, a french term translating to ‘placing on stage’. As the name suggests, it means the setting of the stage in a scene: everything that happens in the frame– costumes, characters, camerawork, lighting, props, everything that gives a scene its distinctive feel. To demonstrate how mise-en-scène can be different between two works of film of the exact same subject matter, we were shown scenes from Pride and Prejudice, the movie, and Pride and Prejudice, the BBC TV show. We were asked what we could glean about the family from the brief clips we were shown: the setting, the decor, the behavior of the characters, etc.

Though it was clearly the same source material, there were distinct contrasts in how the two mediums displayed themselves. The TV show had stiller shots from greater distances, with colors that were more drab and personalities that seemed subtly more accurate for the time. The daughters of the main family wore clothing that was so similar they seemed to blend into one person. The movie, in contrast, was faster paced and more vibrant, with elaborate sets and props. There were many more secondary characters and the camerawork was more complicated, containing tracking shots and a greater amount of splicing.

After Pride and Prejudice, we settled down to watch On the Waterfront, a movie special for its overwhelming critical success. It is one of few movies that holds an 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, a premier movie reviewing site. While I struggle with older films– the acting has never struck me as the most realistic, and the technological inferiority means less editing, less impressive techniques in scenes (I confess to being a victim of my generation’s love of all that is fast-paced and which provides instant gratification)– I liked On the Waterfront, though I felt I spent time attempting to write down all the technical camerawork and scene shots as practice for my essay at the expense of genuinely enjoying the movie. I’ve always had a soft spot for jerk-with-a-heart-of-gold characters such as Terry. I also liked the bird symbolism that was prevalent throughout the movie. As has been typed before me, Terry’s care for the pigeons belied his tough exterior, and the pigeons themselves represented the honest, hard-working nature of the longshoremen, whereas the hawks were the exploitative, corrupted Union members such as Friendly. Other bird references include, “He talked like a bird but he couldn’t fly like one”– a cruel reference to Edie’s brother, Johnny, and his death, how he was going to speak up against the mob– thus “talking like a bird” (talking like a canary is also used in the movie to reference being a snitch), and then pushed off a building and being killed, which explains how he “couldn’t fly” and save himself.

This week was our last “official” class, and one of the most crucial, as we learned and practiced many important film analysis skills that will aid us in writing our final papers.

The first is interpreting mise-en-scène, which we often do subconsciously when watching a film. Mise-en-scène constitutes the visual aspects of a scene; it is a French term that translates literally to “placing on the stage,” and includes props, people, and furniture. As shown the contrasting scenes from a TV series and movie version of “Pride and Prejudice,” the mise-en-scène can significantly impact the mood of a scene as conveyed to the audience. This was most evident in the two ballroom scenes; the movie scene was much more crowded, boisterous, and elegant than the portrayal in the TV series.

After this “Pride and Prejudice” warm-up, we applied our skills to a full two-hour movie entitled On the Waterfront, which deals with corruption in Hoboken, N.J. Director Elia Kazan was known to employ “method acting,” in which the actors immerse themselves in their roles rather than superficially memorizing their lines and adapting a persona. Honestly, though the actors seemed to embrace their roles, the acting was not the most impressive aspect of the film. The mise-en-scène and symbolism, however, make On the Waterfront a true classic. First of all, whenever the union workers were conversing, the camera showed them all as a cluster, facing in different directions with varying looks on their faces. This implies that they were not all on the same page, and are weak and at the mercy of their bosses, who are shown separately from their employees most of the time, snickering confidently with cigars in their mouths. Also, their speech is blaringly casual, arrogant, and brisk, accentuating their altitude in the chain of command. In addition, the camera follows the interactions between Edie and Terry with close-ups, focusing on one or another to convey the unequal relationship between the two. Initially, it appears that Terry has the upper hand, and is capable of manipulating Edie into doing his bidding. However, once Terry’s brother is murdered, he becomes less dominant, and the camera focuses on Edie during their dealings.

In addition to the mise-en-scène and camera motions On the Waterfront contains symbolism that provides insight into the themes of the movie. Foremost among these symbols is pigeons, which seem to adapt several meanings throughout the play. To me, they represent the union workers, who do not reason to challenge their bosses, blindly following them and facing punishment if they decide to go against their boss. This meaning is confirmed when Terry is referred to as a “crummy pigeon.” In addition, alcohol is used as more than a casual standpoint for socialization; it seems to be a congregating point for the union bosses when they conduct their illegal or unethical dealings. Finally, the church represents the unity of the union; however, their precepts are hypocritical – though they meet in a church and appear to be religious, they blatantly ignore basic morals in their day-to-day business dealings.

The cinematography, characterization, plot, and symbolism serve to yield an effective treatment of the issue of union corruption in On the Waterfront. The film is indeed a classic and was a pleasure to watch in class, and I look forward to an equally fulfilling experience while analyzing Inside Man for my final paper.

As the semester is rapidly drawing to a close, we enjoyed our second to last seminar class for the semester. We began the class by watching scenes from Pride and Prejudice the television miniseries and the movie. For class, we would be evaluating movies and the mese-en-scène of each. I wasn’t sure if I would be able to tell the differences between the two clips, but I was pleasantly surprised at how easy it was to do. All I had to do was pay attention to different little aspects of the movie that would add up.

In the television series, it was more obvious that the family was either poor or once had money and lost it. The room was decorated nicely, but not as nice as it once had been. In the theatrical version, the family looked more affluent than they did in the television series. The clothing was nicer and the house was furnished quite comfortably. I was enjoying watching the clips and noticing the differences and was looking forward to doing so for our final paper on Inside Man.

After we finished watching a couple of scenes from each Pride and Prejudice, Dr. Kahan gave us a short break before we began to watch On the Waterfront. Right from the beginning, I had very little interest in the movie. I had done some research on the movie to get an understanding of the plot-line and it did not peak my interest. In my opinion, I thought the acting was sub-par and some scenes were just cheesy. By far, my least favorite scene was when Terry is trying to get into Edie’s room. Edie was insistent that Terry not come in, then suddenly changes her mind when he is in the room and begins to attempt to kiss him passionately, but makes the whole situation even that more awkward.

I thoroughly enjoyed watching Pride and Prejudice and dissecting the different aspects of the movie. It was a very interesting way to watch a film. Unfortunately, On the Waterfront was not my cup of tea, but I am glad to say that I saw it.