In The Grand Budapest Hotel, Wes Anderson utilizes elements of Mise-en-Scéne to tell multiple intertwining stories. Specifically, these elements work to signify a shift in control as the stories intertwine. I chose to view the elements of Mise-en-Scéne through a distinct scope. This scope is the relationship between elements of Mis-en-Scéne and how they work to exhibit the shift in control of Gustave’s character as the film progresses.
This is most profoundly seen through the shifts in control within Gustave’s character arc. We are able to see this through the choices in staging and behavior by Anderson. In our introduction to Gustave, we are given many distinct aspects of his behavior. When these aspects are analyzed, we see he exhumes a sense of power and control. This is best illustrated in the scene of him interviewing Zero. This in itself reveals his controlling nature as he exerts dominance over Zero in their interaction. This dominance is further implied by their appearance. Gustave is presented to us with a clean and well-shaven mustache with neatly parted and gelled hair, this combined with his use of only one distinct perfume shows the control he exhibits in his appearance. As we analyze Gustave’s appearance we see it juxtaposed with Zero’s. In this scene, Zero is wearing a hat that says ‘Lobby Boy’ which is tilted on his head, which is an imperfection showing Zero’s lack of control in his appearance. When seen together their costumes reveal their drastically different ranks within the hotel, and therefore, their drastically different levels of control.
Once they enter the hotel, Anderson creates a chaotic scene. Anderson switches between a sideways shot, which has both Gustave and Zero talking, as Zero is being interviewed. This quickly cuts in and out with other clips where the camera is positioned so that Gustave is in the center of the shot with the camera moving backward as he hastily walks forwards. During these sequences, he is bombarded with questions from multiple people on either side of him. The intertwining cuts of these sequences add a level of mayhem to the scene, which is only eradicated by Gustave. Through this chaos, we watch him quickly make decisions and employ them with force, his people listening to him without question. Through Mise-en-Scéne, more specifically, staging and behavior, Anderson creates a sense of control amongst the chaos, this control centering around Gustave.
With this in mind, we can analyze the shift in control as the story progresses. It is evident that the shift in Gustave’s control parallels the multiple setting changes throughout the story. The most telling setting change is when Gustave and Zero first leave the Budapest Hotel. The first scene after leaving the hotel is Gustave and Zero on the train. Here, we distinctly see the lack of control Gustave embodies when up against the guards, they don’t listen to him the way that he was listened to when giving orders at the hotel. Additionally, this elevates the setting of the Budapest Hotel, which is characterized in the film by its relationship with Gustave. This relationship is made most apparent when he loses his control upon leaving the hotel. This distinguishable parallel between a change of setting and Gustave’s change in control is an evident use of setting within Mise-en-Scéne.
Considering these relationships with elements of Mise-en-Scéne and control makes me further reflect upon how these relationships are employed in other films. I am drawn to analyze the prior film we watched, Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window. Here, L.B. Jefferies’s character exhibits control in the act of choosing which window to look in. Hitchcock chooses to have the camera mimic his eyes in order to enforce this control because it essentially gives Jefferies the authority to choose where we, as viewers are allowed to look. This is another example of the relationship between control as it relates to behavior and staging.
A limitation of approaching the elements of Mise-en-Scéne through this narrow scope is the consideration that important sequences could be neglected if they don’t apply to the given scope. However, considering the elements of Mise-en-Scéne through this narrow scope allows me to dive deeper into the more detailed, technical, and calculated choices of Wes Anderson and those of other directors in the field.
While I fully agree with your analysis of how Mise-en-Scéne provides context and insight into the many characters in The Grand Budapest Hotel, I have to disagree on how you believe they exemplify the character arc of Gustave, because I do not believe he has one. The elements shown on screen with his first meeting with Zero, his quick pace, line of questioning, and general attitude to any staff members show that he is a dominant character, but it stays that way throughout the movie. I believe there are several elements on screen that rather enunciate the character arc of Zero. I believe one particular element demonstrates whether a character holds power and status or not, and that is the l’aire de panache. It is the scent that Gustave always carries, and it is so strong it alerts people of his presence and lingers with them after meeting Gustave. It is also carried by the other hotel owners, as seen when Bill Murray’s character picks them up from the countryside. The l’aire de panache represents Zero’s character arc because at the start of the film he was not aware of its existence and learned of it through Gustave. After rescuing Gustave from prison and proving that he is a fully capable individual, he puts on the l’aire de panache along with Gustave. This shows his development from being a more submissive character into a dominant one, and this idea is fully realized when it is revealed that the owner of the Grand Budapest Hotel, the one telling the story, is Zero.