Design

Abstract

Cinematic design is a strangely slippery term that can include a range of activities linked to the imagination of screen space, the style of film publicity, the choice of costumes and the architectural layout of the theatre where the movies have traditionally been housed. It is, however, in the mise-en-scene where design has played the most significant and enduring role in creating an atmospheric sense of space. If the imagination of this cinematic space was once driven primarily by temporary structures built in studios, over a period of time a hybrid form has emerged that combines the physical texture of sets with the use of actual locations and virtual spaces generated through special effects (Bergfelder et al., 2007). Set design requires a large labour-intensive workforce that is managed by figures who are interchangeably referred to as art directors, production designers, set designers, set decorators, etc. (Bergfelder et al., 2007; Izquierdo Tobias, 2016). Most production designers have been assigned these different titles at some point in their career since the work involves extensive knowledge of props, objects, fabric, colour, décor and architecture. It is this confusion about the specific nature of the skills required that has resulted in the marginal status accorded to production design as a legitimate site of enquiry in film studies (Bergfelder et. al., 2007; Ramirez, 2014; Izquierdo Tobias, 2016). In recent years, however, we have seen an increase in the academic engagement with set design, and while this is still sparse, some interesting and provocative methodological approaches have clearly emerged. Charles and Mirella Jona Affron have argued that the movie set and the role of the art director are crucial for an understanding of the industrial and narrative pressures at work in cinema. In their formulation, décor plays a significant role in the dispersion of narrative meaning and is arranged primarily through various levels of ‘design intensity’ (Affron & Affron, 1995). Charles Tashiro (1997), on the other hand, believes that sets and objects are independent forces that may even run counter to the narrative or operate in excess of it. A somewhat similar line of thinking can be traced in the collaboratively authored work of Tim Bergfelder, Sue Harris and Sarah Street, where the performative and stylistic force of set design is highlighted to challenge the primacy accorded to the director in the history of cinema (Bergfelder et al., 2007). The recent revival of phenomenological approaches and architectural concerns has also played a significant role in shifting the obsession with the gaze in film theory to a sensuous and haptic engagement with the texture of the mise-en-scene (Albrecht, 2000; Bruno, 2002; Ramirez, 2004; Vidler, 1993). All these debates have brought to the fore the place of the