Tour de force Mise-en-scène

[HerrSchreck]

The term "mise-en-scène" gets bandied about so loosely by some, and yet-- at the very same time-- is never employed by others in their discussions of cinema... due to these idiosyncracies I think it'd be a great idea to unravel the mysteries lurking behind this term. I think it's particularly timely in light of the ongoing discussion about the "proper" aspect ratio of the forthcoming Magnificent Obsession set via CC... and how changing the AR from one to another-- it is believed by some-- dramatically affects the mise en scene of the film.

Narrative composition would be the unfolding of your film from beginning to end, the way you distribute the elements, events major and minor and how they're paced, what's added & nixed from the plot, accentuated, minimized etc.

Then we come to the more esoteric zone of attempting to pin down-- generically-- the Definition of Mise En Scene. There's some debate and mystery around the term, which apparently carries a certain 'aura'. Check out how it shimmers: MISE EN SCENE.

The way I understand it, and the way it's intended for the thread is relatively simple, and pretty much represents the closest thing the term has come as far as a consensus definition is concerned: all the-- primarily visual-- elements of film direction... i e the look of what is in the frame, the way those elements in the frame are arranged. This is different from the purely cinematographic shot composition of objects and actors that have already been arranged by the director according to his sense of mise en scene.

And why. These elements comprise the art direction, the blocking of the actors themselves, the props, the backdrop that is chosen to interact with these elements, the way it's all lit... so that a story is told before the actors even speak. Where a text becomes clear-- in the case of 'that kind of' (or tour de force) mise en scene-- even if the sound is turned down, or if one simply gazes at a freeze frame. There are some directors who work heavily with the actors on their performances, tweak the script, let the dp photograph it in a visually attractive way, and leave it at that.

Thus it's through mise en scene that a director can find the primary outlet for expression-- and style. It's here that his expression can be most clearly and profoundly felt-- where his individual stamp is unmistakable. Especially since it is a zone where other directors (many who come from the stage) choose not to assert themselves.. many not choosing to make many or any demands on the dp.

A director whose work would be a cinch to illustrate the basics of mise en scene, because of the narrative strength of his compositions, would be Anthony Mann. Particularly via his work with John Alton, but not neccessarily exclusively so. Here is a director whose 2 and 3 shots are so illustrative regarding the dynamics of a given scene, that one can isolate shots from his better films, and get a very strong sense via these freezeframes what is happening in the scene simply via observing the execution of his mise en scene, which abounds with visual cues deploying elements of the text. You can glance at one of these frames and immediately determine the mood from the lighting and backdrop, the speaker at that given moment as well as his position of authority or power within the hierarchy of the narrative's text.. as well as any others within the frame-- this by their poisitioning within the frame, the interplay between one another and static and dynamic objects.

Welles was another director with a very vibrant, storytelling mise en scene. So, of course, was Sirk. The first master of psychological, storytelling/story-expanding mise en scene I'd say would have to be Yevgeni Bauer: the father of the decadent & dark arthouse style taken up by Murnau and taken into the sound era by von Sternberg, Bauer was the first guy to convincingly, and unmistakably (notwithstanding with incredible brilliance virtually unmateched to this day) deploy his actors, decorate his sets, move his camera and light his scenes in a fashion that told it's own story... perhaps a subtextual aspect of the surface melodrama not handled by the title cards and the actor's performances. Bauer was a revolutionary viz the (among other conceits) moving of the camera. Take the brief camera movement in Twilight of a WOman's Soul-- here we have not only an extremely early movement of the camera in and of itself... but we have it being moved in an entirely subjective way, doing one of two things, which are purely subtext-related, and not at all advancing the plot of the unfolding surface melodrama: 1) expressing, as Tsivian suggests, a sympathy and warmth for Mme. Dubrovskaia, by staying "with" the character, and signaling solidarity with her... or 2) a voyeuristic intrusion upon her privacy (a possibility I've not heard raised, but one I think just as feasable), an obsessive following of her movement away from the camera-- a hounding of Vera which echoes that of the rest of the partygoers who keep breaking her solitude and desire for it. Not dissimilar to the absolutely astounding camera movement in After Death, where the shy, reclusive character of Andrei Bagrov shocks bourgoise society and appears at a social function.. and the camera follows him on a long sustained tracking shot hilighting his discomfort and the intrusion into his personal perimeter that the entire affair constitutes.

Obviously, mise en scene interplays with narrative composition. One is the distribution of text at the scene level, and the latter is the distribution of text at the macro level-- the overall sense of rhythm and distribution of the who what where and when and why. And it's at that micro level of mise en scene, where those ideas lurking behind the decisions that led to the narrative composition of a piece, are expressed.

[accatone]

Do not want to start again with the AR thing, but i think its worth adding again - JLG states in the arte online interview that there is a (major) difference in the term aspect ratio and Format (that is the term for AR in France and Germany). AR is just a mathematical term whereas Format speaks of something else. For example in Germany you can say "Ein Mann von Format" which indicates certain qualities whereas a "Man of aspect ratio" is nothing and everything. I think keeping this in mind makes it much easier to understand that the american AR is of course part of the mise en scene. As far as the term mise en scene is concerned - i think thats 90% about what people talk/discuss here on this forum.

[HerrSchreck]

As far as the term mise en scene is concerned - i think thats 90% about what people talk/discuss here on this forum.

You mean 9 out of 10 threads are devoted to the aesthetics of mise en scene? I'm sure the mods are heartened that discussions of real cover art, fake cover art, blu-ray/HD anxiety, random speculation, election discussion, online ordering & bargains, infighting and navel gazing, Hollywood news of forthcoming films, general non-cinema arts, trailers, general dvd-discussion & transfer/dvd-packaging assessment etc have dipped to 10%.

I'm not sure that you're neccessarily calling this thread redundant ("we talk about this 9 out of 10 times anyway"), so excuse the dip into sarcalepsy.

If that is the way it was intended, this thread is intended in the spirit of an earlier thread of mine, Subjective & Tour de Force Camera Movements. You get sprinklings of a topic here & there, but in-depth focus on a specific, worthy subject brings out, sometimes at least, the best in this forum.

We also had an interesting Aspect Ratio thread going for awhile. Now may be a good time to re-open.

[swo17]

I read accatone's post as saying that 90% of the discussion of mise en scene is related to AR disputes, or in other words, that mostly the only time it gets brought up is in defense of one AR over another. In which case your thread is a welcome addition in order to address other elements of mise en scene.

[accatone]

in no way did i want to call your thread redundant! Just wanted to add my two cents but again you called someone out-thnks!

[SoyCuba]

If that is the way it was intended, this thread is intended in the spirit of an earlier thread of mine, Subjective & Tour de Force Camera Movements. You get sprinklings of a topic here & there, but in-depth focus on a specific, worthy subject brings out, sometimes at least, the best in this forum.

Exactly. I've been longing a thread exactly like this and even planned on starting one. Good thing that I didn't have to do that though as it propably would have been a very poor starting post. Anyway, being a big fan of strong visual filmmaking I've been making a list on this very subject in the past few days. Yes, I know that the descriptions suck, but I hope my selections aren't that bad. Hopefully thanks to this thread I'll find many more great films to add to that list and of course learn more about mise en scene.

[HerrSchreck]

in no way did i want to call your thread redundant! Just wanted to add my two cents but again you called someone out-thnks!

Then, as I said, excuse my sarcasm... it was a little tough to get at your meaning there.

Mostly I hear folks who seem familiar with the real definition of the term-- a few old timers here on the forum-- bring up the phrase when praising a director generally.. and with the assumption that the rest of the forum is familiar with what specifically he / she is talking about. Which I've been getting the feeling may not even be 50% the case.

[accatone]

ok-you are prob. right-i am not checking the cover arts, dvd tech threads that often so 90% is too optimistic. Just wanted to point out wth regarding your own AR reference that this is indeed and a priori part of the mise en scene so this was intended to say "yes" to this topic! In my opinion its good to start something with the actual terms in use (ie AR aka Format) just to lay a good ground to start from. Format is only 1 part of the whole thing but hopefully we will add more different pieces and digg a litlle deeper.
btw,i am well aware of the quality threads you mentioned!
(typing on my mobile phone - sorry for typos...)

[HerrSchreck]

ok-you are prob. right-i am not checking the cover arts, dvd tech threads that often so 90% is too optimistic. Just wanted to point out wth regarding your own AR reference that this is indeed and a priori part of the mise en scene so this was intended to say "yes" to this topic! In my opinion its good to start something with the actual terms in use (ie AR aka Format) just to lay a good ground to start from. Format is only 1 part of the whole thing but hopefully we will add more different pieces and digg a litlle deeper.
btw,i am well aware of the quality threads you mentioned!
(typing on my mobile phone - sorry for typos...)

Ok-- that's what I thought.. I was reading your original post correctly viz the percentile of academic mise en scene discussions.

Also, I think you may be overemphasizing the espect ratio reference in my opening post. I mentioned AR's only viz the Magnificent Obsession thread, as a launching point for this discussion: the contention within that thread (which I agree with judging from what I've seen so far) that an examination of Sirk's mise en scene is a neccessary part of the "evidence".. and that a reduction of the discussion to pure AR "evidence" in trades, etc, misses the bigger picture.. when Sirk's intentions may be in evidence by examining his mise en scene, and how some feel it plays out in an atrophied fashion when cropped to widescreen.

I don't really feel that AR is a part of a directors mise en scene-- it's a stricture within which is mise en scene is deployed. He can adapt his mise en scene for a film to perhaps any AR.. he will make adjustments and redeploy the elements that constitute his mise en scene, which I defined as:

the art direction, the blocking of the actors themselves, the props, the backdrop that is chosen to interact with these elements, the way it's all lit... so that a story is told before the actors even speak. Where a text becomes clear-- in the case of 'that kind of' (or tour de force) mise en scene-- even if the sound is turned down, or if one simply gazes at a freeze frame.

In other words, mise en scene is what happens after the AR has been dictated... constituting those visual variables occuring within the unbending shape of that AR.

In other words, classic mise en scene, as understood by television directors stuck with 1.37, or by film directors prior to the age of widescreen.

Taking exception with the fact that the director may plead prior to shooting for a ratio he feels is most condusive to a subject matter/script, or even have the sufficient control over the production to dictate the AR... and therefore deploy the AR as a part of his aesthetic arsenal. Perhaps even, in bolder projects, change the AR from one scene to another.

[Poncho Punch]

I think quite a number of people here understand the term but don't use it for fear of a) sounding pretentious, and/or b) putting off [or encouraging the incorrect usage of it by] the members who might not be familiar with the term beyond a recognition of it as a phrase used in discussions about film.

It would be nice if accatone could clarify his initial statement. I read it initially in the same way that HerrSchreck read it-- that 90% of discussions on this board seem to be concerned primarily with mise-en-scene (or specific aspects thereof). Schreck made a valid point in response to this-- the threads dedicated to cover art, rumors, bargains, politics, etc. are by far the most popular here. However, I think looking at the post count of individual threads is unfair to the ones that are defined to discussion of one specific film, person, genre, element of cinema, etc. Looking at the original statement again, I can see how accatone may have been commenting on the recent tendency for a few high-profile discussions to narrow down into a debate over which AR is "correct" for a given film. Personally, I see the same thing, and am relieved at the creation of this thread-- if there's anything that can tear the forum away from the increasingly ugly fighting, it's this kind of a topic-- one that attracts both "listers", encouraging them to flesh out their lists with at least cursory descriptions and reasoning, and "essayists", encouraging them to pare down their 1000+ word counts to something more manageable for everyday browsing.

EDIT: Maybe I shouldn't hop in the shower in the middle of posting replies anymore. Asking a question that's already been answered in the meantime is just embarrassing.

[swo17]

Mostly I hear folks who seem familiar with the real definition of the term-- a few old timers here on the forum-- bring up the phrase when praising a director generally.. and with the assumption that the rest of the forum is familiar with what specifically he / she is talking about. Which I've been getting the feeling may not even be 50% the case.

Not calling you out here, but I'm just curious what you would consider as an example of someone not understanding what mise en scene is, or why you get the impression half of the forum doesn't understand it. I didn't go to film school or anything, so I could be wrong, but I understand it to be a fairly simple concept: basically, the construction of a scene. Not that that makes for a simple, pat discussion though, as there are any number of ways to go about doing this, and the way a director does so can be very distinctive and can drive the narrative forward in interesting ways. Am I missing something big here?

[HerrSchreck]

Just a quick note SoyCuba-- nice list! A heads up though, the poster used for Chute de la maison Usher is just a French poster for the Corman/Price version.. not the Epstein silent.

[accatone]

"blocking/positioning of persons in the frame"
Yes, but what else is the Format/Cadrage doing? I did not want to overemphasize the Format but thought it would be interesting to point out in this context. I am aware of the classical (often enough differnt) meanings and conceptions of mise en scene through out cinemas history but was wondering in how far the Format itself is part of this? In other terms, is the correct pott of the soup part of the meal? Hhmm..literally, no... but then at least in Haute Cuisine nothing beats the Poelon au terre d' Aubage - just ask the old ladies at the Quai des Belges...

[SoyCuba]

Just a quick note SoyCuba-- nice list! A heads up though, the poster used for Chute de la maison Usher is just a French poster for the Corman/Price version.. not the Epstein silent.

Thanks for the nice comment and for the heads up as well! I replaced the image with one that is at least from the correct film (users on that site are freely allowed to upload pictures and the previous one was uploaded by someone else).

[HerrSchreck]

Not calling you out here, but I'm just curious what you would consider as an example of someone not understanding what mise en scene is, or why you get the impression half of the forum doesn't understand it. I didn't go to film school or anything, so I could be wrong, but I understand it to be a fairly simple concept: basically, the construction of a scene. Not that that makes for a simple, pat discussion though, as there are any number of ways to go about doing this, and the way a director does so can be very distinctive and can drive the narrative forward in interesting ways. Am I missing something big here?

Just saw this, as it plunked in along with my last post:

Just googling up something that would not be out of my mouth, I'll go with the first result, a goofy wiki definition which illustrates the classic problems confronting a "standardized" definition of mise en scene:

is an expression used in the theatre and film worlds to describe the design aspects of a production. It has been called film criticism's "grand undefined term," but that is not because of a lack of definitions. Rather, it's because the term has so many different meanings that there is little consensus about its definition.

Stemming from the theater, the French term mise en scène literally means "putting on stage." When applied to the cinema, mise-en-scène refers to everything that appears before the camera and its arrangement – sets, props, actors, costumes, and lighting.[1] Mise-en-scène also includes the positioning and movement of actors on the set, which is called blocking. These are all the areas overseen by the director, and thus, in French film credits, the director's title is metteur en scène, "putter on scene."

This narrow definition of mise-en-scène is not shared by all critics. For some, it refers to all elements of visual style – that is, both elements on the set and aspects of the camera. For others, such as U.S. film critic Andrew Sarris, it takes on mystical meanings related to the emotional tone of a film.
Recently, the term has come to represent a style of conveying the information of a scene primarily through a single shot – often accompanied by camera movement.[citation needed] It is to be contrasted with montage-style filmmaking – multiple angles pieced together through editing. Overall, mise-en-scène is used when the director wishes to give an impression of the characters or situation without vocally articulating it through the framework of spoken dialogue, and typically does not represent a realistic setting. The common example is that of a cluttered, disorganized apartment being used to reflect the disorganization in a character's life in general, or a spartanly decorated apartment to convey a character with an "empty soul", in both cases specifically and intentionally ignoring any practicality in the setting.

The distinctive mise-en-scène of The Cabinet of Dr. CaligariIn German filmmaking in the 1910s and 1920s one can observe tone, meaning, and narrative information conveyed through mise-en-scène. Perhaps the most famous example of this is The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) where a character's internal state of mind is represented through set design and blocking.

The similar-sounding, but unrelated term, "metteurs en scène" (literally, "stagers") was used by the auteur theory to disparagingly label directors who did not put their personal vision into their films.

Because of its relationship to shot blocking, mise-en-scène is also a term sometimes used among professional screenwriters to indicate descriptive (action) paragraphs between the dialog.

Only rarely is mise-en-scène critique used in other art forms, but it has been used effectively to analyse photography, literature and comics. Likewise, video games (especially those employing first-person perspective) have begun to seriously take into account how players experience the game's story through the "eyes" of the character they control

The article is goofballed and has problems, but gets the point across in its' own hamhanded way. You can research the term further if necc. I'm construing that the forum is an extension of the general cinematic community where there's no PRECISE definition of what it is (i e editing, lighting, etc, are all very precise terms regarding specific activities)... and simply referencing the fact that the term is rarely used around here.

I'd love to stop talking about talking about the topic, and let those interested participants explore the subject!

[Gregory]

I certainly do not want to spread any of the unpleasantness of the disagreement about the aspect ratios of Magnificent Obsession into this thread, but something came up there that has got me thinking about mise en scène in more general terms:
I was struck there by a contention that Hollywood films generally had to stick to a certain schedule and that this hampered what directors did. What are people's thoughts on how the context of the studios and all the conventions, constraints, and resources it entailed impacted what directors could and did achieve that would be referred to as mise en scène? That's an important general question, I think.
A specific subquestion would be that of shooting time. Watching the Ford at Fox set and some of the more disappointing films in it, I reflected on how Ford didn't fully have his heart in a good number of the films he directed. The unfortunate situation was that he just wanted to finish some of these films up and move on, for Christ's sake. I found myself thinking about what might have been if he could have directed one film every two or three years the way that directors more commonly do nowadays. At the same time, he was sometimes able to create such rich things under tight shooting schedules and budgets that it makes me wonder what the constraints really were.
Anyway, the question of the Hollywood studios and mise en scène is an interesting one to think about because what are, for me, the greatest examples of mise en scène in the history of film were created by filmmakers who immigrated to the United States and continued film careers in Hollywood that they'd already begun back in Europe. So there are a lot of good comparisons to be made. I don't know if I can even say much about this because the topic seems a bit daunting to me, but I wanted to throw it into the discussion nonetheless.
My hypothesis is that the greatest directors flourished in Hollywood during this era both in spite of and because of this context. It's probably not good to generalize about it too much because the constraints that say Welles faced as a filmmaker were often different from those that Hitchcock encountered, which were different from those of Sirk, etc. But surely there were some common things in play.

[akaten]

Gregory, interesting you bring up John Ford as I was about to make the exact opposite point regarding time spend arranging a scene, allbeit with a film received wisdom places value above the 'lesser' works you were thinking about - My Darling Clementine. Could go on all day and night about this film but I'll go with one brief sequence, in the build up to the final battle, his two allies clear the path to the side leaving Henry Fonda striding toward the camera, low angle, low horizon with three clouds overhead, that looked to me like swirls of galaxies, which really hit home the cosmic mythical quality of this sequence, the conflict between frontier and civilising lifestyles brought to a head.

Was it a matte painting (an incredible matte painting by Emil Koda Jr in The Sand Pebbles springs to mind) was it merely an accident the clouds formed as perfectly as they did, Ford was known for his luck, did Ford wait patiently, tirelessly for the perfect cloud formation to emerge, or did I just imagine it all seeing what I wanted to see in the clouds?

This may run contrary to this thread wanting to focus minds on using critical discourse to draw out greater insight but right now I'm not sure I want to know the answer.

[Gregory]

Yes, My Darling Clementine is one of his great ones. I used Ford as an example for my question about shooting schedules because he was so prolific, because his best work seems to exhibit a virtually effortless virtuosity, and because with some of his films we have him on record talking so frankly about how he didn't really want to be working on them anymore after a certain point (which usually showed, I think). The effortlessness I'm referring to has to do with what I've read about how he could so often get amazing results with first takes or with filming during less than optimal shooting conditions. He could turn the unexpected to his advantage, and I think perhaps it was a "fortune favors the brave" kind of thing. All of this suggests that a rapid schedule might have agreed with him rather than constraining what he could achieve visually. But we'll never really know for certain how his work would have changed if the production schedule had been faster or slower than it was at any given point in his career.
Generally, what I'd argue about all this is that the Hollywood directors we remember today are those that were not only talented but could adapt to working within the studio system so that highly effective and evocative mise-en-scene resulted even in ways it wasn't necessarily "needed" or encouraged in creating what was fundamentally an industrial product.

To get back to the main topic at hand:
I tend to not use the term in just any film discussion even though it technically could apply. I associate it with planned and controlled elements that go into creating images with a certain resonance. So I would use it mostly with the real perfectionists, like von Sternberg, Mizoguchi, Murnau, I could go on.
I hope I wasn't bandying it around too loosely.

[GringoTex]

The way I understand it, and the way it's intended for the thread is relatively simple, and pretty much represents the closest thing the term has come as far as a consensus definition is concerned: all the-- primarily visual-- elements of film direction... i e the look of what is in the frame, the way those elements in the frame are arranged. This is different from the purely cinematographic shot composition of objects and actors that have already been arranged by the director according to his sense of mise en scene.

Great topic but your definition is confusing me. "Mise-en-scene" as defined by Cahiers was everything in front of the camera: actor movement, camera movement, set, lighting, composition, etc. When you say -- "This is different from the purely cinematographic shot composition of objects and actors that have already been arranged by the director according to his sense of mise en scene." -- are you arguing mise-en-scene exists independently of what the camera captures?

[GringoTex]

What are people's thoughts on how the context of the studios and all the conventions, constraints, and resources it entailed impacted what directors could and did achieve that would be referred to as mise en scène?

The impact of the studio system on mise-en-scene is that the action of the scene a director followed these two simple rules, he was given a completely free hand regarding mise-en-scene, and, more importantly, he had the freedom of mind to concentrate on the mise-en-scene (every other important decision was out of his hands).

[HerrSchreck]

Whuh?

Gringo, I'm merely differentiating between duties on-set. The cinematographer photographs what has been arranged by the director, according to the director's mise en scene.

The director creates the arrangement, and in some cases gives the photographer a bit of leeway in creating the angles, composition. But even in these cases, there is a separation of duties.. the cinematographer doesn't create the mosaic in front of him. Doesn't place the actors, arrange their blocking, select the art direction / location, etc. He's not the director.

Where you got that I am "arguing" (I'm not arguing anything) that

mise-en-scene exists independently of what the camera captures

is frankly mysterious... I simply differentiated between who does the arranging.

[karmajuice]

When you say -- "This is different from the purely cinematographic shot composition of objects and actors that have already been arranged by the director according to his sense of mise en scene." -- are you arguing mise-en-scene exists independently of what the camera captures?

It seems to me that every film (with possible rare exceptions) has an implied mise-en-scene that extends beyond the camera. To a certain extent, I figure that's a misnomer, since the mise-en-scene can only be that which we see, but this presence, this off-camera imagined existence, certainly exists within the context of the film. I'm not even sure I'd consider camera movement a part of the mise-en-scene, because it reveals the mise-en-scene, dictates and determines that which appears on-screen. Instead, I feel like it's exploring this implied extra space, and as the camera moves it translates this imagined space into the actual mise-en-scene. I realize that the distinction is troublesome, and that camera movement is often carefully integrated and planned according to the nature of the mise-en-scene, so it's just as easy to say that camera movement is a part of the mise-en-scene (I particularly feel this is true of Mizoguchi, Murnau, etc where the camera movement feels very deliberate).
Still, I make the distinction, because I equate mise-en-scene with the world we see, where things happen, and I equate camera movement (and the camera in general) with myself, the audience's perspective, the eyes which see this world.

I wholly intend to make a post about some outstanding examples of mise-en-scene, hopefully without being too obvious (The Leopard? Really?!), but I'll have to put more thought into it first.

[GringoTex]

Whuh?
Gringo, I'm merely differentiating between duties on-set. The cinematographer photographs what has been arranged by the director, according to the director's mise en scene.

Is camera movement and framing part of your definition of mis-en-scene? What about length of the shot? I ask because I think mise-en-scene is as much about rhythmn as it is objects.

[GringoTex]

Still, I make the distinction, because I equate mise-en-scene with the world we see, where things happen, and I equate camera movement (and the camera in general) with myself, the audience's perspective, the eyes which see this world.

The original utility of the concept of mise-en-scene was to praise a director no matter how bad the script, actors, sets he was forced to shoot with. This entailed camera movement and shot length. Maybe it's too broad of a definition now and has already served its uselfulness.

[HerrSchreck]

You can reply to more than one member in your post (I say this because you're creating a new post each time you reply to a different person).

Rather than have this thread go in an unproductive direction (I can't emphasize enough I don't want this thread to be talking about talking about mise en scene, or "HerrSchreck's Definition of Mise En Scene: Agree?"), why not go for the following:

instead of short posts chipping at anothers theory regarding mise en scene, why not (since it is an ill-defined term) simply commit to your own definition with examples via a nice well-illustrated post. I can't even substantially reply to you Gringo because you haven't committed anything substantial (I mean that quantitative more than qualitative) to give me anything to reply to.

But I tend to not associate editing with mise en scene. Bad editing can ruin a director's mise en scene... good editing can enhance it. But I think it's improper to include everything the director has an effect on under the category "mise en scene". And it's tough to delineate shot lengths imposed by the director from edits thought up by the editor and ex post facto approved by the director... latter case not a directorial contribution.