>More specifically, you take the rather nineteenth century view, that
>20th century auteurist swallowed whole, that there are aesthetic
>aspects of art that are specific,
>particular and exclusive to that art's medium.
That's what I don't get about mise-en-scene. Isn't it the same as the more pedestrian phrase composition? And if that's the case then doesn't it have a lot in common with the language used to talk about painting? I like reading that kind of language in relation to painting, but if I'm watching television and hear Meadow say to Tony ""What I said was, the state can crush the individual" and Tony says "New Jersey?" it isn't the composition of the scene I'm primarily interested in. I don't think that means I don't see the composition, just that I'm focused elsewhere.
I saw "Directed by John Ford" a couple months ago and there's something in there that I think illustrates the commonality between film and painting I'm talking about. In an interview Steven Spielberg talked about meeting John Ford in Ford's office when Spielberg was 15 years old. Spielberg said Ford had him look at a series of Western paintings on the wall and tell him what he saw. Spielberg started talking about the story in the picture, saying he saw, for example, an Indian sitting on a horse. Ford stopped him and said he should look at the composition, the horizon line. Ford said, "When you can decide that putting the horizon at the top of the frame or the bottom of the frame is better than putting it in the middle of the frame, you may, someday, make a good picture maker. Now get outta here."