Narration - do you like it?

Just picked up a copy of Donald Miller's book, A Million Miles in a Thousand Years. Early on he writes about preparing to attend a Robert McKee seminar. He mentions some of the things he has been told about McKee and one of them was that narration should never be used in a movie.

...and that kinda got me thinking.

First, I came up with several narrated movies that have done really well. Then I started wondering just WHY some consider narration to be bad form.

Is it considered "cheating"? (ie. anything required for the audience can be SHOWN or told through dialog?)
Was there some other reason?

So I thought I'd post here and get you guys' feedback. What do you think about narration?
 
I don't like it when it's unnecessary. I don't think it's cheating but I think it needs to be used at regular intervals during the film, rather than introduced at a randomish point. I also think it needs to serve some purpose other than describing.

For an example I would use American Beauty. Sure the first line is the famous one, but in that same opening monologue Kevin Spacey describes jerking off in the shower as 'the highlight of my day'. Sure we can see him whacking off, but the crucial information that the narrator gives us is that it's the highlight of his day. That sort of dry and illuminating narration is great.

Another form of narration I like is the (I would stress, in brackets, that I only like it when it's properly applied) is the added detail narration, particularly in historical films. The best example I have of this is from The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Superbly stylised and packed with seemingly useless information but, ultimately, one of the most enlightening pieces of narration.

Those are my thoughts. On the whole I like narration, but it can be very easily abused.
 
Two personal favorite flms that use narration brilliantly - "Forrest Gump" and "The Shawshank Redemption".

Films that use a narrator are neither better nor worse than other films, as long as the narration is integral to the film prior to shooting. The reason so many films with narration don't cut it is that the narration is added during editing to fill plot holes, etc.

The entire narration for "Forrest Gump" was filmed on the park bench (opening scene). Audio tapes and timing logs were used during the rest of production so now director Robert Zemeckis and DP Don Burgess could plan long pans, visual set-ups, B-roll etc. and Forrest could answer and repeat himself, set scenes up and the like.

In "The Shawshank Redemption" Red is actually telling the story of Andy Dufresne, so the narration is very natural.
 
He mentions some of the things he has been told about McKee and one of them was that narration should never be used in a movie.
Anyone who says, "never" is a fool. Fortunately, McKee never says that.

Irony understood.

In my experience as a reader most new writers use narration poorly. We
can all point out movies where it was used well.
 
When used right it's a great tool.

Arrested Development used a narrator to build the joke, then the actors delivered the punchline. The result was wall to wall humor that leaves people rolling. At least it leaves me rolling :)

The short film we're working on, we included just a bit up front, and at the very end. Up front it gives some of the exposition needed in a clever way that would take at least an extra 15 minutes to "live out". We get to build character fast enough in the first bit that the rest can focus on the story.

Then bit at the end wraps it all up, mirroring the beginning. Leaves you with a nice strong punch.

I think it's a great tool when used well.
 
If the screenwriter feels they need the narration, I feel they could work a little harder to do something creative with it. For example, what I think appeals to many people about the movie Pi is how the narration isn't someone telling a story -- after all, we are watching a movie, NOT listening to a book on tape, right? In Pi, the narration is done in a creative way that fits the art-house mood of the rest of the film. A Clockwork Orange and 2001 are like this too, where the narration is more thoughts from someone's head instead of the overdone feeling of sitting in front of a fireplace listening to someone read you a story. I personally cringe a little when I hear a narrator say "It first started when.." or "Back when I was five" or "I've always been this way" as the movie flashes back to their childhood. I mean, honestly, isn't that just a bit of a waste? Couldn't they have either not shown the flashback or not have the narrative and gotten the same point across? When millions of dollars are going into the production of the film, I definitely starts to irk me. If I was on set, I'd be bummed out about something like that..

I know I used a couple typical cult-film examples, but I think this is part of the reason why they are cult films..
 
Last edited:
I appreciate all of the responses, guys!

One of the things I'll take from this is to try for a more creative approach, as opposed to using narration to describe what is plainly being shown.

Also, I think it's important to establish early on that there's a narrator.
 
Isn't there a general rule that narration should only be used when not necessary? i.e. if you remove the narration from your film, and the story is still told well, then it's probably okay to use.
 
Just watched The Informant! which used narration/inner dialog.

Uranium City said:
Isn't there a general rule that narration should only be used when not necessary? i.e. if you remove the narration from your film, and the story is still told well, then it's probably okay to use.

These are perfect examples working together.

Ok the film isn't brilliant, but The Informant! does a really good job with making the narration interesting, funny and informative without ever using it to tell the story...

If I remember rightly (and I feel like I saw this films ages ago) it's mostly superflous detail about corn delivered in a distinctly tongue in cheek manner...
 
That's like saying never use flasbacks.
Narrations add character to characters and the story.

Where would DEXTER be without his thoughts being narrated?

Narrations are great for prologues and epilogues. 300, T2, SURROGATES, and SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES use narrations this way.
 
That Blade Runner narration was totally not his fault. :)

Actually, if I remember correctly from an interview I read a while back, he said that he didn't want to do it in the first place, and he thought that if he did it bad enough, the studio would never be stupid enough to use it. And the moral of the story is: never underestimate the stupidity of the studios...
 
Actually, if I remember correctly from an interview I read a while back, he said that he didn't want to do it in the first place, and he thought that if he did it bad enough, the studio would never be stupid enough to use it. And the moral of the story is: never underestimate the stupidity of the studios...

Yep. They never should have asked for a narration and I'm 100% on Ford's side of this.
 
Watchmen is a pretty good example of how Narration can create an affinity with a character.

It makes Rorschach seem like a more three dimensional character, rather than just a psychopath with a strange mask.

In essence, it can create a gateway into a characters personality when the character can't really interact with other characters.
But it does need to be used wisely...
 
Back
Top