Groundhog Day staring Bill Murray had all of the things a good movie should. It was entertaining, funny romantic, and somewhat moving. The characters developed throughout the film, the plot was original and it even ends on a pleasing note. It just works. I walked away happy and content after experiencing a movie I wouldn't mind watching again. There was nothing too unsettling about this film and in that sense director Herald Ramis has thoroughly done his job right? The directors use of mis-en-scene goes unappreciated while being appreciated, and somehow this is exactly what he was going for?
Mis-en-scene is essentially the scene, but for film it can mean so much more. Mis-en-scene is everything that goes into a shot, that is the camera angle, staging, lighting, backdrop, and even sound. If there is one thing I've learned its that an incredible amount of meaning can be attached to any cinematic event of your choosing, even if it was never intended.To the general population Groundhog Day was a good movie, maybe even great. But to the cinema community, the directors, screenwriters, and higher educating theater teachers its a cinematic miracle. Why? Mis-en-scene is what makes a movie great, and they tell me Groundhog Day is full of it. So would this film have been so much worse had they left out some of that visual embellishment? No one goes to the movies looking for that one great backdrop that somehow reflects the internal struggle of the dynamic character, unless to stroke their own ego because they were the only one to identify it.
Undoubtedly there are fundamental tools used by directors and screenwriters that do convey or even reflect the situations the characters are placed in, but is that anything to write home about? Certain situations demand certain shot techniques, scenery, and style. These are important to the overall quality of the movie no more, and I would suggest less than, the actual content. Why are we overstating something that most people only recognize subconsciously? And yes, I understand that's the point. The reason I am asking these questions is because I am completely at a loss as to what makes a good movie. How do The Avengers and Moonrise Kingdom compare cinematically? or Groundhog Day for that matter. All successful in their own right. How much of that is big budget cgi, and how much is mis-en-scene?
Work Cited:
"CATEGORIES." The Black List Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2014.
Barsam, Richard, and Dave Monahan. Looking at Movies; An Indroduction to Film. 4th edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2010. Print.
Groundhog Day. Dir. Harold Ramis. Perf. Bill Murray. 1993. DVD.
Mis-en-scene is essentially the scene, but for film it can mean so much more. Mis-en-scene is everything that goes into a shot, that is the camera angle, staging, lighting, backdrop, and even sound. If there is one thing I've learned its that an incredible amount of meaning can be attached to any cinematic event of your choosing, even if it was never intended.To the general population Groundhog Day was a good movie, maybe even great. But to the cinema community, the directors, screenwriters, and higher educating theater teachers its a cinematic miracle. Why? Mis-en-scene is what makes a movie great, and they tell me Groundhog Day is full of it. So would this film have been so much worse had they left out some of that visual embellishment? No one goes to the movies looking for that one great backdrop that somehow reflects the internal struggle of the dynamic character, unless to stroke their own ego because they were the only one to identify it.
Undoubtedly there are fundamental tools used by directors and screenwriters that do convey or even reflect the situations the characters are placed in, but is that anything to write home about? Certain situations demand certain shot techniques, scenery, and style. These are important to the overall quality of the movie no more, and I would suggest less than, the actual content. Why are we overstating something that most people only recognize subconsciously? And yes, I understand that's the point. The reason I am asking these questions is because I am completely at a loss as to what makes a good movie. How do The Avengers and Moonrise Kingdom compare cinematically? or Groundhog Day for that matter. All successful in their own right. How much of that is big budget cgi, and how much is mis-en-scene?
Work Cited:
"CATEGORIES." The Black List Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2014.
Barsam, Richard, and Dave Monahan. Looking at Movies; An Indroduction to Film. 4th edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2010. Print.
Groundhog Day. Dir. Harold Ramis. Perf. Bill Murray. 1993. DVD.