What is the importance of mise-en-scène and/or sound in creating meaning and generating response in the films you have studied?

Like majority of films the mise-en-scene is vital as it creates meaning and generates response. With the films I have studied the mise-en-scene is key when creating meaning and understanding to the narrative of the three films.

 Kassovitz's (director of La Haine) use of mise-en-scene throughout the film allows the audience to generate a personal response to the film as a whole and each individual scene. The scene which takes place is Hubert's bedroom the mise-en-scene shows a lot about the character of Hubert solely through the use of props and setting. The room itself appears to be small and cramped which could represent how Hubert feels about his life in the projects, closed in and trapped, unable to escape the sad life he is living during the time of riots. The start of this scene has Hubert prepping some sort of drug to sell in order to get money, which is something his family seem to be struggling with; the fact that Hubert has resorted to selling drugs and having to prep them in his bedroom in his family home speaks masses about the severity of the situation during this time in the projects, as from this happening you are made aware of the length youths have to go to just to ensure they and their families have a roof over their heads. The close up of Hubert's hands with the pocket knife and lighter puts focus on what is happening at this point which contrasts to other parts of the film, as it is made known that drugs play a part in the lives of the youths in the projects, like in the scene where Hubert, Saïd and Vinz are sat down doing nothing and there are dirty needles on the floor, however the drug use is never a focal point of any part of La Haine. Thus the close up emphasises that, for Hubert, this is the last resort to help his family. This makes me sympathise for Hubert at this point of the film as he has to go to drastic lengths to make sure his family and live somewhat comfortably. During this scene you see Hubert's bedroom, which in all films being in a character's bedroom can reveal about said character and it's no exception for Hubert in La Haine. In the room you can see a pair of boxing gloves and some dumbbells, which display Hubert as a person who has great strength and reflects the first time you see Hubert, which was in a gym punching at a punching bag. Also a poster from the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City of Tommie Smith and John Carlos showing the black power salute as a silent protest during the medal ceremony against racial discrimination, as this is on the wall of Hubert's bedroom, his personal space shows that he proud of his race and how far its come since the worst days. The diegetic sound during this scene is very soulful and meaningful, and this creates an atmosphere for the audience to feel while watching this scene, as its so mellow and soothing it allows those watching to share the same relaxed mood as Hubert, even though his is drug induced.

Another scene from La Haine that demonstrates Kassovitz’s use of mise-en-scene to create meaning is the scene when Hubert, Saïd and Vinz go to Paris to see Astérix to get Saïd’s money. The first shot you see of Astérix’s apartment there is an obvious different between the Parisian flats in comparison to the flats in the projects. The diegetic music portrays a clear division between life in the city and life on the edge. In Paris opera music is played which is often associated with the higher classes and being cultured, yet in the projects the music is westernised rap music, which shows no links or ties to French culture. The difference in the genre of music in the two places also shows the class gap between life in Paris and life in the projects just outside of Paris. On the wall in Asterix's apartment there is a poster of the never-ending staircase illusion which represents well that the issues that thee people live in are never ending and keeping going round in circles. That there is no end to the riots in sight. This poster in Asterix's flat shows the problems of those in the projects in a subtle and artistic way. Asterix offers the boys a line of coke that he has already out on the table; the fact that Asterix has cocaine shows the difference in lifestyles and the amount of money each lifestyle has. The difference in class of drugs highlights the difference in social class, as the drugs in Paris are more expensive than the drugs used in the projects such as weed and heroin.

Fernando Meirelles' City of God also creates meaning and response through it's use of mise-en-scene throughout the film, however I believe that the montage scene of 'The Story of the Apartment' creates strong meaning as well as generating response through Meirelles' use of mise-en-scene throughout the scene. The scene starts with a dissolve that establishes that the next piece of footage is a flashback that tells the story of the appartment that is used throughout the film. The start of the flash back the apartment is lit with high key lighting that sets the feeling of a warm and homely environment which is what the apartments was although it was being used as a drug den it was so that Dona Zelia could support her family.  As the narrative darkens so does the lighting and the appearance of the apartment; as the cross dissolve from it being Dona Zelia's apartment to Big Boy taking control of it the mise-en-scene changes to a more dangerous, and illegal looking place to be, when Big Boy pulls Dona Zelia out of the apartment she grabs onto the table cloth pulling it off the table and all the items falling to the ground showing that being in the drug business won't turn out well, your whole world will come crashing down, Meirelles (director) took this concept and made it real through her trying to hold onto what she has before it all falls within a matter of seconds. This part of the montage shoes how little the men of the favelas think of the women, as although it is Dona Zelia's apartment Big Boy just takes advantage of her and takes over her home; however in the 10 years alter documentary it stated that although there  hasn't been a massive amount of progress in the situation of life in the favelas women are becoming to get stronger and starting to gain more rights/respect than what they had in 2002 when City of God was made  As the scene progresses the mise-en-scene changes the audiences perception of what is happening, because as Big Boy takes over, the apartment loses its homely look and starts to look like an empty shell of a home; which, in my eyes, is what happens when drugs become a big part of somebody's life, they begin to lose sight on everything that is truly important and only focus on the drugs that are taking over they lives. The knife that is lodged into the table, I feel, shows this point well as its unsafe to have a sharp object half stuck into a table, in a home like when the apartment belonged to Dona Zelia that would never have happened due to it being her and her daughters' home, however when Big Boy throws her out and it is no longer hers, there is no need for it to be a safe environment because they are using the apartment as their den for their drug business which is also shown in this part of the montage as when Carrot hands drugs over to one of the neighbourhood kids they use as dealers. The whole of this scene shows through the cross dissolves of the mise-en-scene changing as drugs take over family life and life in general.

The second scene I feel uses mise-en-scene to create meaning and response is the scene where Lil Zé makes Steak and Fries shoot one of the runt as it creates such a strong response because the setting of the scene is obviously a real favela like the whole film so it attracts the audiences ethos to be touched by the reality they’re shown through this film. Also the two runts being backed into the corner shows that there is no escaping people like Lil Zé’s gang while living in the favelas and they were to be feared, in the 10 years later documentary the younger of the two runts revealed that while filming City of God he was made to fear Leandro Firmino (Lil Zé) as a person rather than his character, so while shooting this scene the younger runts fear would have been real not acting, this brings a feel of verisimilitude to this scene; this being what creates a strong response from the audience as knowing the child is really in fear while filming brings out an emotional attachment to the character and in a woman’s case her motherly instincts would kick in and would be hit hard emotionally by this scene and want to protect the child in the film. Also this scene has a shallow depth of focus making the gun in Lil Zé’s hand the focal point of this scene, hinting that this scene will not end well because the gun is the main focus. Not only does this scene generate a response for the audience but also the actors, as after being in this emotionally heavy scene Darlan Cunha (Steak and Fries) couldn’t talk about being in this film when asked about it in the 10 years later documentary because it was too real for him.

How useful has a particular critical approach been in gaining a deeper understanding and appreciation of your chosen film

Fight Club is a polysemic film so not one approach alone could explain the film. I think the crisis of masculinity helps to explain the first third of the film with the self-help groups, and the Freudian approach helps with the second third with fight club. Although both approaches help explain aspects throughout the entire film. 

The scene in which the Narrator is at the self-help group for testicular cancer, I believe, offers a great amount of insight into the crisis of masculinity; which was a big deal during this time (1999). This scene is set in a basketball court, a place often associated with masculinity and competition, but in this case it's as if all the men have given up and are in a sports hall talking about their feelings which is a very stereotypical feminine thing to do. Bob from the support group is the epitome of the crisis of masculinity, he had lost his testicles to cancer and due to hormone imbalance he grew breasts. Bob is essentially a woman, the ultimate cry of loss of masculinity. This  implies that the crisis of masculinity is a big part of society during the 90s and the time of Fight Club. The irony of this scene only highlights the crisis happening, a group of men in a basketball court without balls, both basketballs and their testicles. They're in a male dominated environment without one of the things that makes them men and instead are crying about their feelings and their family.  Also the scene when the Narrator and Tyler have left the bar after the Narrator's condo blew up and he needed a place to stay; Tyler tells him to "cut the foreplay" which also applies to the cris happening with them men during this time because, once again, foreplay is thought of to be a feminine way of beating around the bush to get what they want, thus portraying the Narrator as feminine through his use of  'foreplay' as Tyler puts it. The Narrator is definitely portrayed as the most feminine, other than Bob, especially when it comes to jealousy, towards Angel Face in particular. The scene when Tyler splits the group up shows the Narrator's jealousy really well, he says "I am Jack's inflamed sense of rejection" as Tyler pays more attention to Angel Face than him and his feelings are written on his face. To wear your feelings on your sleeve isn't seen as masculine, so for the Narrator to be so open and obvious about his feelings isn't helping the crisis happening surrounding masculinity. As well as the crisis of masculinity being obvious about the fragility of masculinity, there's the homosexual undertone to the whole film. The concept of fight club seems to be a euphemism for being gay, like in Kenneth Anger's Fireworks the men are all being aggressive towards each other while trying to disguise their sexual orientation. The rules Tyler gives in fight club also hint towards a cover up of sexuality; the rules being not to talk about fight club, like you wouldn't openly talk about a homosexual relationship if you were unsure of your sexuality, only one fight at a time, two to a fight, and to take off shirts, shoes and belts, all point towards a euphemism of sexuality as it all results to shirtless men wrestling each other to the ground. Also when Tyler and the Narrator are walking down the street there is a focus on the male body through the adverts, there is the Gucci advert with the male underwear model on which in any other film would perhaps have been a female underwear model but due to the context of Fight Club and the crisis of masculinity being a running theme throughout the use of a male model highlights the crisis and questioning. 

The crisis of masculinity, I believe, helps to explain the events of the film and why the characters, majority of them being male, act the way they do and say the things they say; but the Freudian approach to this film, in my opinion, explains the relationship between the Narrator, Tyler and Marla Singer. The title sequence all happens in the Narrator's head. Which straight away implies just that, the whole film is in his head and that none of it is actually real. This idea relates to the Freudian approach of trying to understand Fight Club, the idea that Freud had involved the human psyche having more than one aspect, that all develop at different stages in our lives. To relate Freud's theory to the characters of fight club Tyler would be the id, who we want to be, Tyler even says "I look like you want to look" which is a blatant sign that Tyler could be a part of the Narrator. A scene that explains the Freudian relationship between the Narrator and Tyler is the scene when the pair leave Lou's bar through the back before Tyler gets the Narrator to punch him. At the start of this scene both characters are stood outside of the bar but in between them is a split in the door putting a clear divide between them, which could represent the split in the Narrator's personality that makes Tyler real. The scene when the guy asks if he could be next to fight while out the back of the bar and the Narrator turns to Tyler for an answer the depth of field changes and Tyler the one who is in focus, this displays who is in control of the situation, so when the Narrator is in focus he is the one in control of the himself and the situation but when Tyler in focus he has taken full control; this usually happens when things get a bit more intense, at points where the id would want to make an appearance making things a little less serious, like during fight club  during the rules it's Tyler that is mainly in focus or taking control of the scene because as a whole fight club is a rather childish idea as it is just a place to fight with other people to make them feel secure in their own masculinity and sexuality, so this would be a perfect time for the id to take control. Marla could be a representation of the superego, as she is the one who tries to balance the Narrator and his thoughts about Tyler. When Project Mayhem is about to go down Marla turns up at the house looking for Tyler but the Narrator shouts at her about Tyler not being there and she leaves knowing that as the superego she can no longer balance out the thoughts provoked by the childish behaviour of the id/Tyler. The superego is meant to control the id's childish impulses, so in this theory Marla is meant to control Tyler's impulses, which is why it's Marla and Tyler that have sex rather than Marla and the Narrator as it would be Tyler – as the id - that has the sexual impulses, due to selfish nature of the id and the need of self-satisfaction and being driven by the need of pleasure, which Tyler/id gains from sex with Marla/superego.  

To conclude, due to Fight Club being a polysemic film both the crisis of masculinity and the Freudian approach allow a deeper understanding of the film and the happenings of the film. The crisis of masculinity explains why the Narrator went to the self-help groups, why fight club came about, and how fight club helps hide the questioning of sexuality. Yet the Freudian approach towards this film allows a deeper understanding to the relationships between the Narrator, Tyler and Marla and how they all integrate and work with and against each other.