Think about the film's mise-en-scene. Choose one scene in the film and discuss all aspects of the mise-en-scene (costumes, set, lighting, props, framing) and its relation to the scene and the film as a whole. Use at least 2 hearty paragraphs for your discussion. Your discussion should include insights into the intent of the filmmaker as well as copious evidence from within the frame.
And please post your favorite line from the film.
During the scene in which Susan calls David to tell him about and enlist his help with Baby the mise-en-scene provides a look into the lives of both Susan and David without explicitly stating the differences between the two following the principle of show don’t tell. As the two talk over the phone we see a relatively clear view of both of their, what appear to be, appartments. At first glance the rooms are about the same size so there doesn’t seem much difference between the two but with a slightly closer inspection it can be clearly seen that everything furnishing Susan’s home is significantly more extravagant than everything in David’s simple almost office like home. This difference in furnishing implies a class difference long before we learn that Susan’s aunt is the one considering donating one million dollars to the museum that david works for, during this phone call we see that although we do not know how Susan supports herself she is clearly better off than David. Furthering this difference is the lighting in the rooms although both are lit externally and naturally, at least in the context of the film, via windows the the difference in lighting is quite blatant. Susan’s apartment is bathed in bright light that make the set appear almost heavenly with the vast amount of light cast across a nearly entirely white set, David’s however seems bleaker as his furniture is darker and the light source is much smaller than Susan’s massive bay window. As well as showing a difference in monetary standing this scene provides a contrast in their personalities as David’s furnishings look akin to what one would find in a office.
ReplyDeleteWhile the differences between the two apartments draw clear contrast between the two characters one could also argue that the set draws similarities between the two characters. Both apartments have similar layouts, the two start in approximately the same place in the set for the scene and ultimately carrying out a similar path of motion over the course of the scene. This implies that the two are not quite as different as you may be led to believe and the two ultimately getting together.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe mise en scene in the “let’s play a game” scene in Bringing Up Baby (dir. Howard Hawks) is very lighthearted to accompany the screwball comedy dialogue and the upbeat characters. Even though the film is in black and white, the cinematography (Russell Metty) was very complex and helped to bring a better understanding to the film. In this scene, David is wearing a plain tux, in contrast to Susan’s very shiny gown, to show that she is the center of attention, because she is causing all of the ruckus. They mostly stay centered on the screen, with Susan on the right side of the screen and David on the left, with them taking up equal sections of the screen, showing that they are equally in power. The only prop in this scene is David’s hat, which he eloquently uses to cover up her bare behind when her dress rips. This is considerable, because it’s the literal only prop in the entire scene, not counting the costumes. The costumes are interesting because David’s tux jacket rips first, and then the back of Susan’s dress, sort of alluding to how Susan changes David before he changes her. My favorite line is: “Nonsense. You tried it in the tail yesterday, and it didn't fit.” In the opening scene.
ReplyDeleteThe mise en scene in the "loon cry" scene is meant for comedy. Each of the characters, especially in the way that they're dressed, are parodies of some type of person. Aunt Elizabeth is dressed as one would imagine a fancy, rich old lady to be dressed. Her hair is set perfectly in place and her dress is very sparkly. Major Applegate is dressed exactly the way you would assume a "major" to be dressed: beige with a bow tie. He and David are the centers of attention in the scene, which is strange because the two women are at the heads of the table. In scenes with the entire table, the aunt usually takes up the most space, symbolizing that she is the head of the family and she holds the most power. This can be further applied when you realise that she, or at least her money, is the driving factor of the film's plot. When George is in the frame, we always have a clear shot of him because he is the second most important character at that point in the film. He is why David is staying at the farm, so he is extremely relevant.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite line is: "I just went GAY all of a sudden!"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHoward Hanks skillfully threads implied meanings into his 1938 “whiteout” film Bringing Up Baby, with techniques such as mise-en-scene, costume design, framing, and lighting. Similarly to John and Madeline/Judy in Hitchcock’s Vertigo, Hank characterizes Susan and David by color and uses these colors specifically in their clothing to show the dynamics of Susan and David’s relationship in a different form. Hanks allows the audience to associate David’s persona with dark Greys and black, and we see throughout the film that the color white is both a symbol for wealth and riches as well as a way to identify Susan’s character. An example of how the audience is made to identify these characters is in the scene where they are speaking to each other on the phone. When seeing Susan and the mise-en-scene around her, the floors, walls, her wardrobe, and especially the telephone are completely white. On David’s side of the conversation everything in his apartment is grey and black but more importantly nothing is white. His telephone is the exact opposite of hers; completely black and simple. From the beginning of the film we see Susan’s want for David by the color of clothing she wears. An example of this is after their telephone conversation, which is where we are first introduced if not bombarded to the color white as a symbol for Susan, David meets up with Susan and she is wearing a black dress with white and grey stripes. Her wardrobe in this scene could suggest she is better welcoming the idea of a relationship with David while transitioning from independence-hence the white lines.Through the rest of the film, although she does wear white clothing such as the long white dress she wears when they aren't the country house, she always has an accent of black (in the scene at the country house she has a long black belt that hangs from her waist to the ground). But we don’t see David connecting with the color white aside from the last scene, David is wearing an all white lab coat, and Susan is wearing an all black dress, with a black hat, and black gloves which shows they're both open to each other and forgiving, and it foreshadows David forgiving Susan for knocking over his lifetime’s work. In the later colored version David is still depicted the same way however Baby is shown with an array of colored clothing. I think the use of colors such as gold, red, orange, and green as wardrobe choices for Susan contrast with the dark colors of David's wardrobe and is another method for interpreting her free and outgoing spirit.
ReplyDeleteAs important as the color of diegetic elements are in Bringing Up Baby, what is arguably just as important is the actual elements surrounding Susan and David, specifically what objects surround them in their telephone conversation. Surrounding David we see countless books reflecting his intelligence as well as a piano and many notebooks which is further evidence that shows the audience of David's intelligence. On the contrasting side of the conversation, the objects in Susan's room partially reflect her openness. The Windows behind her when she's speaking on the phone are open with white curtains which lets the audience know of her free spirit. Because we are introduced to Susan while she is constantly into the idea of a relationship with David we see her in the dark colors that symbolize his persona. This specific scene is so important to the development of Susan's character because it's the first time we're giving the idea of white symbolizing her character, and there is so much white not only because of this era in Hollywood where the rich and wealthy were shown in cinema, but because there needs to be this much white in order to understand the meaning it carries. Hanks stitches in different implied meanings through mise-en-scene and color characterization in this film that makes viewers away of the changes occurring concerning Susan and David’s relationship.
To get this out of the way first, favorite line: "Now it isn't that I don't like you, Susan, because, after all, in moments of quiet, I'm strangely drawn toward you, but - well, there haven't been any quiet moments."
ReplyDeleteReason: Who does this guy think he is to be talking to Katharine Hepburn like that. She's too good for 'em. Anyway, to the meat of the post -
(this'll be referencing the scene where David goes to her apartment thinking that she's being mauled by a big cat thing, and he leaves. She then follows him with Baby, and sorta tricks him into getting in the car with her to go do whatever her thing is)
One interesting aspect (to me anyways, I'm a pretty simple, boring person) is their costumes in this scene. They're both dressed really well and look really tidy, neat, professional - their situation is anything but. With the juxtaposition of the meticulous clothing and the ridiculous situation (see what I did there, meticulous and ridiculous rhyme, so I thought that it'd sound kinda cool if you read it out loud), rather than balancing out in the middle and being all "eh, whatever," it emphasizes them both (as juxtaposition usually does). I feel like a recurring element in the book is David being oblivious/not knowing what to do in one situation or another. I feel like it's added to pretty well in this scene. He's walking down the street with Baby right behind him, and he doesn't even notice. Even when Katharine Hepburn drives up next to him and starts talking to him, he doesn't notice Baby until she explicitly points it out to him. That's all about the narrative, right? Here's some cinematic stuff on that same thread - the bright even lighting totally jacks up (improves, adds to, makes a clearer point) of this. It's not like Baby is in a shadow or anything, it's walking right next to David, in broad daylight, on a somewhat busy street with big buildings (more mise-en-scène stuff) helps characterize him.
The framing in the scene also adds to this. The frame is somewhat off balance until the car comes in (it's a nice resolution the director does there, the off-balance sets us off and then the car comes right in there to balance it out and make us happy with our lives again), with David and Baby on the same side of the frame, taking up a pretty similar amount of space. Baby's right under David's nose on the same side of the frame with him. Shouldn't he see it? He should, but he doesn't, and that's why his character keeps getting this oblivious shroud thrown around him. Adding to what I wrote in the previous paragraph about him being on the busy street: no one mentions that there's a big cat thing walking next to him, when surely a couple of people must've seen it right? Why don't the mention it? Because they figure he can see (which he can, albeit selectively), but he doesn't, and it makes it pretty funny when he finally sees Baby, because we've known about Baby being there for a long time, and it seems like a really delayed reaction.
The use of mine-en-scene in Bringing Up Baby controls how Hawks portrays both David and Susan throughout the film. By way of costumes and props, viewers are able to track character arcs and plot development even without dialogue. During the scene in which Susan is calling David in order to try and persuade him to come over and help with Baby, it is clear that the perception of each character's outlook on life is personified and visualized through their space and clothing.
ReplyDeleteSusan is a more childish figure than David, and therefore her clothing portrays this. Her carefree nature is reflected through the translucent polka dot top she has on. The outfit reflects something that a clown might wear, even furthering the nonsensical musings of Susan. On the other hand, David is dressed for his job, and for him attempting to secure the one million dollars. His outfit later changes during his fall into the "arms" and ideals of Susan. This reaches its pinnacle when he "turns gay all of a sudden" and is seen by the members of the house wearing Susan's frilly outfit. This reflects he profound effect she has had on him, making him loosen up a little here and there during the course of the film.
Also during the phone call scene, viewers are keyed in to Susan and David's differences by the design of their rooms. Susan's room is filled with light, and her phone is white, along with many other objects. The color white in this case portrays her good intentions and her beauty. David's room includes a black phone and wood accents, showing that at the moment of the phone call, he is still business first and is trying to deflect Susan's crazy story.
My favorite quote is David when he says "The only way you'll ever get me to follow another of your suggestions is to hold a bright object in front of my eyes and twirl it"
This shows his frustration with Susan in a highly comedic fashion.
In one particular scene there is a contribution to mise en scene that is really excellent. This scene has many intricate props that contribute to the narrative and gives us a background on our story. The first thing you notice in the frame in the food and the extensive array of food and the way that there is placemats and candles makes the dinner formal. The way that the room is set up contributes to the image of Susan's aunt. It is an outdoor stone patio that is only for dining and the way that David can move freely in the room emphasizes how much space she has to leave specifically to dining. Not only that, but generally the enormity of her belongings. The contribution of the maid serving the food and the way that the light bounces off of the aunt's clothing contribute to the glamour of the life. The framing of the dog between David and Susan show the importance of the dog to both of those characters. It brings in an aspect of the story into the way things are placed. Not only that, but the way that all of the character’s are dressed represent upper class. David seems to be the only practically dressed one at the table nothing with frills, sparkles or plaid. This is a barrier that keeps him out of that society. The door frame behind Susan in a way represents how she is a free bird and we never really know what is going on in her mind. Not only that, but it leaves for convenient off screen space because when David gets up from his chair there is a fluidity to his movement to the door and showing that framing of David into the doorway is almost as if finally him and Susan are on the same page, because of how Susan was framed in the door before. The dropping of the china and the reaction that the aunt gives brings another attribution to mise en scene because the china didn’t really matter to the aunt. Maybe representing that she didn’t really care where she was donating the million dollars to. There is a moment when David has just called animal control that Susan says that it is her aunt’s leopard. Susan is bigger in the frame and David is sitting down. We see an equality in their relationship and the small enclosed room represents this because they are in private quarters. In this case it looks like the only lighting in the room is the light on the table and this kind of creates an atmosphere of being secretive. All in all the entire set was made to create an open movement within the scenes that ties into the way they speak fast and move fast. The set is for utility and show a lot of meaning when it comes to the aunt’s wealth.
ReplyDeleteMy Favorite Line: “The only way you'll ever get me to follow another of your suggestions is to hold a bright object in front of my eyes and twirl it.”
Bringing Up Baby’s final scene is an outstanding scene, and its mise-en-scène helps convey the emotional struggle between Susan and Huxley that fades away, and finally brings the two characters together. This scene begins with medium-long shots of both Huxley and Susan, Susan in a black dress, brimmed hat, and spotted veil — which this costume choice is already juxtaposed to her normal attire; more concealed fashion over her normal free willed attire. Huxley is in his professional white lab coat attire, which he was donned in during the beginning of the film. This also represents a key point in Huxley’s relationships. He starts the film in the same attire engaged to Alice Swallow, now in the same clothing after ending his relationship with Alice, and finally giving in to Susan. In the presence of Susan, he climbs the ladder prop to the spine of the fossil prop, and the next shot is framed to have Huxley in the midground, high angle over Susan in the foreground, where Huxley is finally developing a dominance over Susan, denying her and telling her to leave. However, the skeleton prop divides Huxley from Susan, similarly to that of hiding from her, and he immediately begins climbing a ladder opposite of the scaffolding in order to level out the camera perspective .
ReplyDeleteThe following shots maintain a high to low angle on Huxley and Susan respectively, however the frame is closer to the characters and the difference in the angles is dramatically reduced, as the two begin to kindle their relationship in the end. The lighting for the most of the scene is high key, with enough leniency to cast some shadow, but Susans face is extremely high keyed, as to draw less attention to details on her face as an attempt to beautify her in the perspective of the lens, which would be Huxley. The swaying of the ladder before the inevitable fall adds a dynamicism to the frame, as the constant panning adds movement to the scene, and therefore is more entertaining, which creates an incentive to then have Susan climb on the skeleton to evade her doom. We are then taken to a long shot, where the skeleton falls apart after Susan disturbs the fossil too much. This reminds us of the sizable work that Huxley has put into the exhibit, and how it ultimately fails like his relationship with Alice, which in turn, the film ends with a medium closeup of the two characters on the scaffolding, completely disregarding the exhibit to emphasize Huxley's new found love for Susan.
My favorite line from the film was “My sir, it will never be clear as long as she’s explaining it!”, told by Huxley after the coinpurse incident in the restaurant after the golf meeting.