Differentiating Spaces: Exploring Epistemic Qualities of Film Scenography in The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article uses Peter Wuss's cognitive approach to cinematic perception, combined with a notion of scenography, and close analysis, to analyze Wes Anderson's 2014 film "The Grand Budapest Hotel." It is well structured, well conceived, and clearly argued. The article goes beyond the usual understanding of Anderson's "quirky" and "stylized" settings as aesthetic choices to understand their epistemological effects. I think it makes an original contribution to the study of what the author calls "differential space cinema." I have some suggestions for how it can be improved:

(1) The terms "scenography" and "differential space cinema" are crucial to the argument here. I eventually came to accept them as somewhat esoteric uses of these terms. I would have used mis-en-scene and production design for scenography and think that differential space seems to refer more to different historical periods. I did come to understand them as they are defined here. I would, however, suggest that the author explain why these less common terms are being used here.

(2) The author considers a wide range of sources, but I suggest considering two more: 

Zinman, R. (2024). The Fantasy World of The Grand Budapest Hotel. In: Reality and Fantasy in American Independent Cinema. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70207-5_6

Seitz, Matt Zoller. The Wes Anderson Collection : The Grand Budapest Hotel. Abrams, 2015.   (3) Perhaps (I'm not entirely certain), some more discussion of Anderson's distinctive style would help to contextualize the film for an audience interested in the director. I understand why the author wants to dispense with this ubiquitous observation, but it seems to show that scenography is quite visible and often discussedin his works. Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing does not appear to be that of a native English speaker. It is comprehensible, but would benefit from careful proofreading and editing. Small changes like "historical film" for "history film" will make a big difference. 

Author Response

I would like to thank you for your careful reading and constructive engagement with the manuscript. I am grateful for the specific suggestions and have addressed each point below. I am also happy about the observation that the article "goes beyond the usual understanding of Anderson's 'quirky' and 'stylized' settings as aesthetic choices to understand their epistemological effects", as it captures precisely what the research aims to achieve. 

Comment 1: "The terms 'scenography' and 'differential space cinema' are crucial to the argument here. I eventually came to accept them as somewhat esoteric uses of these terms. I would have used mis-en-scene and production design for scenography and think that differential space seems to refer more to different historical periods. I did come to understand them as they are defined here. I would, however, suggest that the author explain why these less common terms are being used here."

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable observation. I am happy, that you "eventually came to understand" the terms as defined here, which confirms that the article's analytical approach does develop these concepts through the analysis itself. Nevertheless, I strongly agree that earlier clarification strengthens the argument. The term "scenography" not only aligns with the framing of this Special Issue and the writings of its editor, who is already cited in the preceding paragraph. It is also preferred over "production design" or "mise-en-scène" precisely because it exceeds the purely technical or profilmic, drawing on theatrical traditions of spatial world-making to encompass not only the arrangement of visible elements but the epistemic operations through which constructed spaces produce meaning and affect. I am also choosing it because of its alignment with recent developments in theatre studies, where "scenography" has equally come to denote not merely the arrangement of stage elements but the broader epistemic operations of spatial world-making. My usage of the term thus encourages that film and theatre studies employ the same concept, as it enables a transdisciplinary dialogue that, in my view, is overdue, given both disciplines' concern with how constructed spaces produce knowledge and affect.Similarly, "differential space cinema" is not intended as a genre classification limited to historical periods, but as an analytical tool identifying a shared scenographic condition across historical film, science fiction, fantasy, and other settings that deviate from production context.

To address our shared concern, I propose adding the following clarifying passage in the Introduction (Page 2, line 54):

"The term 'scenography' is preferred in this article over 'production design' or 'mise-en-scène' – not to introduce yet another diffuse term, but to move toward a much needed greater analytical precision in the field. The term aligns with the framing of this Special Issue, but I am also choosing it because of its alignment with recent developments in theatre studies, where scenography has equally come to denote not merely the arrangement of stage elements but the broader epistemic operations of spatial world-making (cf. Wiens 2019). Hence, my usage of the term encourages that film and theatre studies employ the same concept, as it enables a transdisciplinary dialogue that, in my view, is overdue, given both disciplines' concern with how constructed spaces produce knowledge and affect. Rather than offering a stipulative definition at the outset, this article therefore aims to develop its understanding of scenography through the analysis itself. Similarly, the category of 'differential space cinema' introduced below should be understood as a heuristic device, a provisional analytical tool whose application ultimately reveals its own limits and points toward the broader understanding of how cinema operates scenographically."

 

I have also added to the References:

Wiens, Birgit, ed. Contemporary Scenography: Practices and Aesthetics in German Theatre, Arts and Design. London: Methuen Drama, 2019.

 

Would this provide sufficient clarity?

 

Comment 2: 

The author considers a wide range of sources, but I suggest considering two more: 

Zinman, R. (2024). The Fantasy World of The Grand Budapest Hotel. In: Reality and Fantasy in American Independent Cinema. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70207-5_6

Seitz, Matt Zoller. The Wes Anderson Collection : The Grand Budapest Hotel. Abrams, 2015.   

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out! 

Regarding Seitz (2015): This source was central to my research, but I had omitted it from the bibliography – an oversight I have now corrected. Seitz's volume also contains David Bordwell's essay on Anderson's visual style, which I now also reference explicitly on page 24, line 781 (see also my response to Reviewer 2).

Regarding Zinman (2024): I was not previously aware of this publication. However, I read the passage on Anderson with great interest and benefit. Based on the chapter's argument that "the medium of film may be losing its capacity to help viewers distinguish between reality and fantasy," Zinman's observations align productively with my concluding argument about the false opposition between reality and artifice. I have therefore referenced him on page 23, line 754. 

In total, I have added to the References:

Seitz, Matt Zoller. The Wes Anderson Collection: The Grand Budapest Hotel. New York: Abrams, 2015.

Bordwell, David. "Wes Anderson Takes the 4:3 Challenge." In The Wes Anderson Collection: The Grand Budapest Hotel, edited by Matt Zoller Seitz. New York: Abrams, 2015.

Zinman, Rick. "The Fantasy World of The Grand Budapest Hotel." In Reality and Fantasy in American Independent Cinema, 147–172. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70207-5_6

Comment 3: "Perhaps (I'm not entirely certain), some more discussion of Anderson's distinctive style would help to contextualize the film for an audience interested in the director. I understand why the author wants to dispense with this ubiquitous observation, but it seems to show that scenography is quite visible and often discussed in his works."

Response 3: Thank you for this astute observation. The reviewer is correct that Anderson's scenography is frequently discussed – indeed, this is precisely an instance of what the Introduction identifies as the problem of hypervisibility. Anderson's work receives substantial attention, but this attention typically remains at the level of stylistic description rather than functional analysis. Critics celebrate what his scenography looks like without investigating how it operates affectively and epistemically.

The present analysis thus does not claim that Anderson's scenography is overlooked, but rather that even in cases of pronounced visibility, the underlying mechanisms remain undertheorized. By applying Wuss's cognitive model, the article moves beyond describing Anderson's "distinctive style" toward understanding the perceptual and affective operations that this style performs.

To not obscure this existing scholarly interest, I have added a brief passage in the Introduction (page 2, line 71):

"Anderson's films are typically discussed for their “quirky” aesthetics (MacDowell 2014) and formal signatures (Kirsten 2016)."

Kirsten's (2016) observations are further discussed on page 12, line 425.

I have also added to the References:

MacDowell, James. "The Andersonian, the Quirky, and 'Innocence.'" In The Films of Wes Anderson, edited by Peter C. Kunze, 153–169. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.

Comment (English Language): "The writing does not appear to be that of a native English speaker. It is comprehensible, but would benefit from careful proofreading and editing. Small changes like 'historical film' for 'history film' will make a big difference."

Response: Thank you for this observation. I have had the manuscript reviewed by a native English-speaking colleague, though the fact that I am a non-native speaker will probably always remain noticeable to some degree.  But regarding the specific example of "history film": this terminology is taken directly from Charles S. Tashiro's Pretty Pictures: Production Design and the History Film (1998), which serves as a central theoretical source for the article. I have, however, clarified this reference on page 4, line 141.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a compelling, original, well-researched, and well-argued contribution to scholarship at the intersection of scenography, Wes Anderson studies, and cognitive film theory. It could have a stronger frame at both the beginning and the end. In the opening sections, it would be helpful to specify a working definition of "scenography" to guide the analysis (not just what other scholars have said or how this study will differ from them). Along similar lines, more clarity would be appreciated about what is meant by "affective function" and "different levels of scenographic visibility" on lines 52-3 and "functions of enhanced scenographic visibility" on lines 58-9. These formulations threaten to become a little jargony and insular. Then, in the concluding sections, it would be valuable to return to "affective function," which somewhat drops out of the argument after the introduction. The idea that scenography can cognitively impact affect and emotion is a powerful and promising argument that is then surprisingly absent from the concluding section. Finally, given the focus on cognitive film theory, I was surprised to see no references to or discussions of the works of David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson - most notably, in the context of this analysis, Thompson, Breaking the Glass Armor and Bordwell, On the History of Film Style,  Poetics of Cinema, and Figures Traced in Light. 

 

Author Response

I would like to thank you for your generous assessment of the manuscript. I am also grateful for the specific suggestions, which have helped strengthen both the framing and the theoretical clarity of the argument.

Comment 1: "It could have a stronger frame at both the beginning and the end."

Response 1: I agree and have substantially revised both sections. Also follwoing review #1, the Introduction now includes a clarifying passage on terminology (page 2, lines 54-68, see also response 2) that establishes the analytical framework more explicitly. The Conclusion has been expanded to return to the central arguments and situate them within broader theoretical developments (page 23, line 747 f.)

Comment 2: "In the opening sections, it would be helpful to specify a working definition of 'scenography' to guide the analysis."

Response 2: This overlaps with response 1. The added passage in the Introduction (page 2, lines 54-68) clarifies mainly the terminological choice.

"A note on terminology: The term ’scenography’ is preferred in this article over ’production design’ or ’mise-en-scène’ – not to introduce yet another diffuse term, but to move toward a much needed greater analytical precision in the field. The term aligns with the framing of this Special Issue, but I am also choosing it because of its alignment with recent developments in theatre studies, where scenography has equally come to denote not merely the arrangement of stage elements but the broader epistemic operations of spatial world-making (cf. Wiens 2019). Hence, my usage of the term encourages that film and theatre studies employ the same concept, as it enables a transdisciplinary dialogue that, in my view, is overdue, given both disciplines’ concern with how constructed spaces produce knowledge and affect. Rather than offering a stipulative definition at the outset, this article therefore aims to develop its understanding of scenography through the analysis itself. Similarly, the category of ’differential space cinema’ introduced below should be understood as a heuristic device, a provisional analytical tool whose application ultimately reveals its own limits and points toward the broader understanding of how cinema operates scenographically.

"

This approach reflects the article's methodology, with the analysis itself serving as an extended working definition.

Comment 3: "More clarity would be appreciated about what is meant by 'affective function' and 'different levels of scenographic visibility' on lines 52-3 and 'functions of enhanced scenographic visibility' on lines 58-9. These formulations threaten to become a little jargony and insular."

Response 3: I appreciate this concern. Here as well, rather than adding abstract definitions that risk further insularity, the article's methodology is to develop these concepts through the analysis itself. The specific meaning of "affective function" and "different levels of visibility" emerges through concrete examples: the painted backdrop generating comic pleasure (Section 4), period-authentic furniture triggering temporal recognition (Section 5), restrained cinematographic choices intensifying emotional impact (Section 6), and so forth. But the revised Conclusion now explicitly returns to "affective function" to close this arc, which leads to:

Comment 4: "In the concluding sections, it would be valuable to return to 'affective function,' which somewhat drops out of the argument after the introduction."

Response 4: I agree that this was a weakness in the original manuscript. The revised Conclusion now explicitly returns to "affective function", p.24, line 784:

"To recognize this is not to dispel authenticity from cinematic form altogether, but to shift attention from camera-indexical authenticity to scenographically indexical authenticity of affective engagement: the affective function of artificial reality effects was, is, and always will be a scenographic achievement."

 

Regarding comments 1-4, I hope this approach – developing the concepts through analysis rather than stipulative definition – provides sufficient clarity. I remain open to further specification if you feel this is necessary.

Additionally, I have incorporated Bordwell's (2015) analysis to reinforce the affective dimension earlier in the article. In Section 6 (Aspect Ratios), I now discuss how Bordwell observes that the near-square Academy format – which dominates the film since the 1932 sequences constitute its largest portion – poses particular challenges that Anderson masters by transforming limitations into strengths, see page 19, line 616,

"Since the 1932 sequences constitute the largest portion of the film, the near-square Academy format dominates the viewing experience. As Bordwell (2015) observes, this format poses particular challenges that widescreen avoids; yet Anderson masters these constraints by transforming limitations into strengths. Following Bordwell, this leads to a further affective dimension: observing a simple pan from Zero to M. Gustave, he notes that this constitutes “a touch that would go unnoticed in a more conventional movie, but which stands out in The Grand Budapest Hotel. By using the device sparingly, Anderson restores its emotional power” (245). The conscious use of scenographic space, it appears, can intensify rather than diminish affective impact."

 

also leading to:

Comment 5: "Given the focus on cognitive film theory, I was surprised to see no references to or discussions of the works of David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson – most notably, in the context of this analysis, Thompson, Breaking the Glass Armor and Bordwell, On the History of Film Style, Poetics of Cinema, and Figures Traced in Light."

Response 5: Thank you for this important observation. For the scope of this article, I have focused on Bordwell's essay "Wes Anderson Takes the 4:3 Challenge" (2015), which directly addresses The Grand Budapest Hotel and provides valuable observations on how Anderson's formal strategies produce affective impact. As noted above, I have now integrated Bordwell's analysis into Section 6, where his observation about restraint intensifying emotional power supports the article's central argument about scenography's affective function. In the Conclusion, I also engage with Bordwell's characterization of Anderson's worlds as "handmade, fragile, in the manner of outsider art" (238), which serves as a springboard for discussing the limitations of authenticity-based frameworks.

I have added to the References:

Bordwell, David. "Wes Anderson Takes the 4:3 Challenge." In The Wes Anderson Collection: The Grand Budapest Hotel, edited by Matt Zoller Seitz, 235–249. New York: Abrams, 2015.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Your research is timely and seems to go in the right direction. The manuscript is well written and structured and, in essence, it is quite developed. The case study used (Wes Anderson's Great Budapest Hotel) is pertinent and several references are cleverly invoked. However, before acceptance, a couple of things:

The insivibility claimed at the beginning of the paper is questionable. Indeed, film theory has not historically singled out scenography or addressed it often as a separate component worthy of analysis per se. However, it can be argued that many strands of film theory follow an all-encompassing approach to film, i.e. where scenography, camerawork, editing, music, actor performance, and several other elements are analysed. Since film is an art form that synthesises many other artistic expressions, scenography has been inherently acknowledged and valued throughout film history.
Therefore, it is not clear what are the benefits of frameworks to analyse only the scenography. Furthermore, it is not clear how this paper makes the bridge between its argument and the existing literature. In other words, the contribution and relevance of the paper should be made clearer and emphasised at several points.

There is also another aspect I would like to highlight that concerns the references. Most references are more than 10 years old. There's a couple of references from 2020, but none from then onwards. It would be good to update the reference list and use more recent references. The topic is particularly relevant in the SVOD/streaming era, where there are consistent style guidelines depending on the SVOD provider (e.g. Netflix camera settings and Apple TV camera settings), and scenarios that recurrently appear in several TV series (such as the White House replica or some palaces in Great Britain). 
Best wishes

Author Response

Thank you, I appreciate the critical observations, which help me sharpen the argument's framing and contribution.

Comment 1: The insivibility claimed at the beginning of the paper is questionable. Indeed, film theory has not historically singled out scenography or addressed it often as a separate component worthy of analysis per se. However, it can be argued that many strands of film theory follow an all-encompassing approach to film, i.e. where scenography, camerawork, editing, music, actor performance, and several other elements are analysed. Since film is an art form that synthesises many other artistic expressions, scenography has been inherently acknowledged and valued throughout film history.
Therefore, it is not clear what are the benefits of frameworks to analyse only the scenography. Furthermore, it is not clear how this paper makes the bridge between its argument and the existing literature. In other words, the contribution and relevance of the paper should be made clearer and emphasised at several points.

Response 1: I appreciate this important observation and agree that the term "invisibility" requires nuance. You are correct that holistic approaches to film have always implicitly included scenography. However, I would distinguish between being "inherently acknowledged" and being "analytically understood."

 Scenography is indeed present in holistic analyses, yet it tends to be either subsumed under broader categories (such as "mise-en-scène" or "style") without investigation of its specific mechanisms, or celebrated as "spectacular" without inquiry into how this spectacle functions affectively and epistemically.

What Peter Wuss's cognitive model reveals – and what justifies a focused analytical framework in my opinion – is how scenographic elements operate across different levels of consciousness: perception-guided, concept-guided, and stereotype-guided. These distinctions are not visible in holistic approaches that treat film as undifferentiated synthesis. The benefit of a scenography-focused framework is thus not to isolate scenography from other cinematic elements, but to understand its specific contribution to the synthesized whole; or even, if not understood as mere profilmic service, but as inherent to cinematic form: to make exactly the synthetic qualities graspable. As the other reviewers have also asked for further sharpening of the argument, specifically in the introduction and conclusion, I have revised these passages most strongly. (see page 2, line 54; page 23, line 747; page 24, line 774). 

The Introduction now explicitly positions scenography against mise en scene. The Conclusion has been significantly expanded to sharpen the article's contribution. It now:

• Returns explicitly to "affective function," demonstrating how the analysis confirms the hypothesis
• Positions scenography as an epistemic technique and a way of understanding how constructed spaces produce knowledge and feeling
• Engages with Prince (1996), who anticipated that digital imaging would expose film-theoretical dichotomies as false boundaries
• Draws on Flückiger (2008) and my own dissertation research (Nisch 2026) to show that digital processes continue rather than rupture analogue traditions

I hope that through these revisions, my research now demonstrates how the analytical framework developed here opens application fields for contemporary and future research, including synthetic image generation, virtual environments, and digital meta-spaces.

Comment 3: Most references are more than 10 years old. There's a couple of references from 2020, but none from then onwards. It would be good to update the reference list and use more recent references.

Response 3: Thank you for this observation. The argument now:

• Incorporates Zinman (2024), who confirms for The Grand Budapest Hotel specifically that the film blurs reality and fantasy through formal means
• Engages with Manovich and Arielli (2024) to situate scenographic analysis within the broader context of AI-generated imagery and the transformation of what "image" means

Respectively, I have updated the reference list with:

• Zinman, Rick (2024). "The Fantasy World of The Grand Budapest Hotel." In Reality and Fantasy in American Independent Cinema. Palgrave Macmillan, 
• Manovich, Lev, and Arielli, E. (2024). Artificial Aesthetics: A Critical Guide to AI, Media and Design.

I would also like to note that the relative scarcity of recent theoretical work specifically on film scenography is itself symptomatic of the problem the article addresses. Besides the work of Jane Barnwell (2017) and Geraint D'Arcy (2018), the foundational theoretical engagements with the topic, namely Affron and Affron (1995) and Tashiro (1998), remain the most sustained. The article aims to contribute to revitalizing this field this field by demonstrating the epistemic potential of scenographic analysis for contemporary visual culture.

Comment 4: The topic is particularly relevant in the SVOD/streaming era, where there are consistent style guidelines depending on the SVOD provider (e.g. Netflix camera settings and Apple TV camera settings), and scenarios that recurrently appear in several TV series (such as the White House replica or some palaces in Great Britain).

Response 4: I fully agree with the observation that points toward promising directions for future research. Your examples of platform-specific style guidelines and recurring sets across productions suggest precisely the kind of contemporary contexts where i hope the analytical framework developed in my argument could prove productive. How do SVOD "house styles" function scenographically? How do recurring spatial configurations constitute stereotype-guided structures across serialized content? etc. However, I believe that these questions exceed the scope of the present article, which focuses on establishing the framework through a detailed case study.  I hope that the sharpened Conclusion now makes clear how the method could be extended to such contemporary applications, i.e. AI-generated environments and digital meta-spaces. I would welcome the opportunity to pursue these directions in future work.