Dan Provost

Change is certainly the word de jour when it comes to politics these days, especially among the Democratic candidates. Why change? Well, for starters, it is a simple and elegant way for conveying their core message. More specifically though, our current president has an approval rating hovering around 30 percent, so of course it is smart (and obvious) politics to be a champion for change. There are several things across the political spectrum that I care about, but one thing has always resonated deeply with me, and it was best stated in a speech by Barack Obama, saying we need to put an end to “George Bush’s War on Science.” The War on Science, in my mind, is best encapsulated by the ongoing stem cell research debate. The stem cell research debate is fascinating, because to me it is the perfect example of the human desire for knowledge conquest vs. the inhuman desire to repress it (out of fear or a false sense of ideals). First, allow me to drop some knowledge before we get started. Stem cell research involves the creation, usage, and destruction of human embryonic stem cells. These cells contain a unique property in which they can “differentiate into specialized cell types but also retain the ability to renew themselves through cell division.” This means they can be used to cure complex diseases, such as Parkinson’s, by morphing into the needed cell. I honestly believe that using stem cells to cure disease will, in time, be considered the greatest scientific advancement of my lifetime. So why is it being stifled right now, and why is change called for? I am trying to decide the direction this paper should now take, and I think it is best to avoid the reasons for and against stem cell research, and why people take each side. Perhaps it is best to use stem cell research as an example of a social issue requiring change in a society. I am intrigued by social progressivism; I feel it is as essential as scientific progressivism. Stem cell research is a nice topic, then, as it has a foot in both camps. It is a topic that is obviously about the advancement of scientific knowledge for the benefit of all, but also deals with moral and ethical issues that make it fodder for social change discussion. So I ask, why social progressivism? To me it seems obvious, but maybe I am looking through young and naïve eyes. It seems that progression always wins. If we look back at slavery, woman’s suffrage, African American rights, it appears that the progressive ideals, however hard fought, eventually win out. We then look back with embarrassment to acknowledge that people in this country actually thought that woman should not vote or black people should drink from separate water fountains. What puzzles me then, with two centuries of hindsight, is that we still claw and scrape and fight any new or progressive ideal. I am near positive that we will look back at our treatment of homosexuals with the same embarrassment as we now look back at our treatment of black people. So then, where does stem cell research belong in this mix? I believe that research is being held back by counterintuitive conservative ideals that fly in the face of America’s history of progressive advancement, both scientifically and otherwise. Perhaps we can boil these ideas of social progressivism and social conservatism down even further. One group appears to value social change as a necessity for human advancement, while the other group sees social change as a threat to our current state of well-being. One group strives for a perfection that will never quite be attended, while the other believes perhaps that perfection has already been attained, and any change would diminish that. These are of course generalized and over simplified, but I think they are true. It is interesting to me to consider the ebb and flow of the American political landscape. It is obvious people must to willing to embrace change on a personal level, or else we wouldn’t have rotating liberal and conservative representatives in the White House. Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are not the first politicians to advocate change. Maybe it doesn’t mean anything, and it is just a shrewd political maneuver to capitalize on the failures of the previous office holder. Perhaps, but I would like to think that social change is an inherently human characteristic that we all, consciously or not, seek.

Final video for second project. 

Mise en Scène is a difficult term to grasp or describe. Personally, I interpret it to mean everything that is contained in a shot (in a film). When I say “everything in the shot,” “everything” refers to all of the physical and visual elements. Thus, “love,” “action,” “satire,” and “dramatic irony” are not part of the mise en scène. Shot selection, angle, lighting, character placement and blocking, camera movement, scenery, and props are all part of the mise en scène. I am hesitant to include visual effects into the categorization, if they are not invisible (a la Forrest Gump). Attention to detail is extremely important. To steal a nice wording from wikipedia, “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. 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.” Of all modern filmmakers, I believe Wes Anderson to be the greatest example of a director in complete control of the mise en scène. Mr. Anderson is one of a few directors to have an immediately recognizable style. The fact that he is an auteur helps with this fact. He was written or co-written every film he has directed, and serves as the production designer, cinematographer, producer, and is in charge of music selection. Perhaps we can begin by discussing Mr. Anderson’s intense attention to detail, an important component of the mise en scène. It is obvious, from various interviews and readings, that Mr. Anderson always has a clear and exact picture of what his film should look like. A perfect example of this is a short character shot in The Royal Tenebaums (2001). The film begins with the characters being introduced in very artificial and “staged,” looking scenes, each very descriptive, with an overlaid voice over rather than dialogue. This sequence of scenes in itself are very mise en scèney (forgive me), but one in particular always stood out for its incredible attention to detail. Margot Tenemaum, the adopted daughter in the story, is revealed to be a young playwright, and a prodigy at that. There is a shot, which lasts about four seconds, of a young Margot standing in front of her bookshelf. The shot is a medium range shot; we see Margot from the waist up. What is so marvelous about this moment is Mr. Anderson annotated in his production notes every book and play that he wanted on the bookshelf. Never mind that the shot is incredibly brief or that it is too far away for any of the titles to be legible, Mr. Anderson still felt it important to not overlook this – to not “cheat” with prop books. Aside from the insane level of detail and lush production design, there is something also to be said of Mr. Anderson’s visual composition and cinematography, and how it contributes to his status as a mise en scène extraordinaire. It should first be stated that the point of mise en scène, in my eyes, is for what is visually being seen to tell the story as much as what is being said. As a film goer, nothing satisfies me more when the content of the film is consistent with the way it is presented. One recent example of this is The Prestige (2006), directed by Christopher Nolan. What is happening to the characters (the events) and what is presented to the viewer (the mise en scène) run concurrently. Without giving too much away, the film beautifully mirrors the three act format of the magic illusion. Mr. Anderson is excellent at this fusion of form and content. Perhaps his most notable example is Rushmore (1999). The film is about a 15 year old boy who writes and directs plays for the stage. What is beautiful about Rushmore, and a perfect example of mise en scène, is that the film itself is shot like a play. There is something surreal about everything that happens in the film, although nothing is out of the ordinary. First, let’s discuss composition and cinematography. Mr. Anderson breaks many rules of film (rule of thirds, 180 degree dialogue axis) in Rushmore. Most of the shots are composed with the character centered directly in the middle of the frame, parallel to the camera. This unconventional technique mirrors the way plays are presented (with the characters facing the audience). Mr. Anderson carefully composes scenes with multiple characters in such ways that may seem slightly odd or unnatural, in order to have all of the characters facing in one direction, performing for the audience. This technique is also seen in the theater, when characters sitting at a table facing each other both “cheat out” and are actually speaking to the audience rather than each other. Furthermore, Mr. Anderson’s set design and usage of props very much reflect an adherence to a traditional theater vernacular. The opening montage is a great example of this (Max Fischer as bee keeper, aviator, fencing club president, model nations member). These scenes have a very meticulous and “staged” feel to them. Also, Mr. Anderson uses costume to reflect on the events of the story. Max Fischer begins with an iconic, triumphant blue blazer with a crest in the first act, moves to more of a blue collar costume in the second act (hunter’s hat, parka), and in the third act, his green suit represents a return to form, but perhaps with more maturity. Costume is a critical part of the mise en scène, and Mr. Anderson uses it to great effect.

Who’s the Boss?

Spoiler Alert

The Baby Suit

Curb Grandma

Mmmmmmm

Dolph In Your Eyes

Hell Yes

Charles in Charge

Nickelback

Andy’s Message in a Bottle

Paul Newman

New Leon

Portman Hotel

Royal Roxbury

Barack Obama moves away from the mic to breathe in

Poopfist

Something went terribly wrong.

Leon

YouTube

Interesting article in the New York Times.

Here