• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

NARRATOR: carrot or stick?

Dreadylocks

Dreadylocks

What do you guys think about the use of a narrator (or VO) in films? Is it a cheesy cop-out? Or a useful tool that is overused?
Personally I've been tempted to use it as a convenient device, but for some reason feel like it would hurt the integrity of my writing. Then again, I have seen it employed well in many great films, Sandlot is the first that comes to mind.
So what do you guys(gals) think?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I'm not a big fan of it, but that's probably because I've seen it done so poorly much more often than I've seen it done well. I've used it as well and it didn't work well for me... it's difficult to do correctly, and for me comes off worse than bad dialog. But when done well, is generally very strong.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Don't rely on narration to tell your story. A general rule of thumb: say you've written a script with narration. If you can remove the narration and your story is still told well, it's probably okay to leave the narration IN. It's the same as the title cards in the silent shorts you've been posting...if your story is still told without having to use them, then you can use them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
My favorite narrator film is "Forrest Gump." You should watch the making of extras on the DVD where they discuss having written the narration first which was read on the set so Forrest the character could to respond or repeat what was said by Forrest the narrator.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The only time I would use narration would be for film noir type films, one of which I'm working on now as a short. But even then I'm thinking about removing it.

So, no, I'm not too big a fan of them. Though blending it into a comedy for satirical purposes might work.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think just as a film should stand on its own, and be well crafted and dynamic, so too should the story told in narration. The kind of engaging story that is meant to be read aloud seems a whole other writing ballgame, one that I’m not surprised few are great at.

-Thanks-
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Generally, I'm not a fan, but it can work. The narrator has to have personality.

What bothers me more is when characters talk to the camera. That really breaks the illusion for me. Larry David does it at the beginning of Woody Allen's Whatever Works. When I saw that, I just went noooo! I don't even want to watch anymore.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Swink said:
Generally, I'm not a fan, but it can work. The narrator has to have personality.

What bothers me more is when characters talk to the camera. That really breaks the illusion for me. Larry David does it at the beginning of Woody Allen's Whatever Works. When I saw that, I just went noooo! I don't even want to watch anymore.
Click to expand...

Breaking the fourth wall is an automatic fail. Even professionals will occasionally try it. Everyone wants to push the envelope. But I don't think it has ever worked one time in thousands of years.

I think the way to get around this is for the actor to talk to someone off-screen. They are not looking right at the camera, they are looking off-center at either an interviewer or imaginary person. Then the audience is still watching them as an outsider.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Lloyd Kauffman speaks (In an interview) about breaking the 4th wall in Poultrygeist, which I think for that film works. The film has its message which is relevant and serious, but speaking to the camera in it lets the audience in on the not too seriousness of a bad chicken costume. I think in the instance of Poultrygiest it’s a useful tool or creative choice that overall helps a serious message come through not so serious entertainment.
In general though, I want to punch Ferris Buler (For example) through my TV when I see it happen.


-Thanks-
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I can't speak to every example obviously, including those you guys just posted. But I will say that IMO people will often cite examples of voice-over narration and breaking the fourth wall in film, and how the film is still great and it works.

The problem with this, I would argue, is that it never works. The film is otherwise great. It would be great without the voiceover. It would be great without speaking at the audience. But, its all unnecessary and should be cut.

The only example I've ever seen in storytelling where it seemed like a good idea is when you have an unreliable narrator.

Also, I recently saw some tv show with the mom from Everybody Loves Raymond (Patricia Heaton?). The entire episode was voiceover narration as the action moved along. It was terrible, maybe the worst writing I could ever imagine.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Swink said:
Generally, I'm not a fan, but it can work. The narrator has to have personality.

What bothers me more is when characters talk to the camera. That really breaks the illusion for me. Larry David does it at the beginning of Woody Allen's Whatever Works. When I saw that, I just went noooo! I don't even want to watch anymore.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I don't think breaking the 4th wall necessarily HAS to be a bad thing. Look at Mel Brooks, more specifically Young Frankenstein. Gene Wilder does these wonderful takes where he breaks the fourth wall and kinda gives the audience this look like, 'Am I crazy?'

Hilarious moment!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Talking to the camera worked in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

It's getting real old for me in The Office though. I mean they are still using the premise that a doc is being made. That is one slow filmmaker! :lol:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A good debate example is Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. The theatrical version did not have VO and the Director's cut did...there was much debate about which one was superior, and you get a ton of breakdown pros and cons on the subject. I personally liked the VO in Blade Runner...it adds to the detictive noirness of it.

I think if done properly, in an appropriate genre and style, VO can be a wonderful tool. Look at one of the best films of all time--Shawshank Redemption--that had VO by the VO king himself, Morgan Freeman, and it was absolutely wonderful...the movie wouldn't have been what it was without it.

There are many examples like this...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
In dramatic or fantastic films, it gives a storybook feel to your film, if that's what you're after go for it. It can work, it can fail.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OK, I can think of one other instance where voice-over works...if you create a dual-protagonist.
Think Ishmael and Captain Ahab in Moby Dick, or Andy and Red in the Shawshank Redemption.

If Moby Dick was written entirely in 3rd person about Captain Ahab, it would be a story of high adventure on the open seas. About a guy chasing a whale and seeking revenge. Still a good story, but simpler than it is. But because Melville told the story through Ishmael, all of that is included, but now the story becomes deeper, a story about not just revenge, but about survival against the backdrop of monomaniacal revenge. Ishmael and Ahab are dual protagonists, in it together (along with the rest of the crew) seeking out the white whale, but in the end the conflict centers around one protagonists survival vs. the other's death.

Now, let's translate this to a film example. The Shawshank Redemption.
If the story were only told in 3rd person, that is following Andy around with the camera and no narration by Morgan Freeman, the story would still be good, but it would simply be about a man trying to break out of prison. Even if he's wrongly there, the story would be about a man trying to regain his freedom. Still a good movie, but different than what it is. Via Red's narration, Red and Andy become dual-protagonists. Sure, Red is a mentor to Andy in Act II, but both are trying to survive and live through prison life. They both have the same dramatic need in Act II, and are therefore dual-protagonists. But since they see their world in two completely different lights...that is what makes the narration and the story richer. Andy is full of hope. Red tells him hope is a dangerous thing and he better forget about it. It's the contrast that makes the voiceover work.

We see two different things on the screen and in the voiceover. On the screen, both characters have the same dramatic need, but the action follows Andy as he explores prison life, takes command of his life in prison, and ultimately escapes. But the voiceover tells another story entirely--cynical Red changing into a man who has hope by the end of the story. And Andy gave him that hope.

So I guess I can say that when you see voiceover work in story, it's probably because the action and the voiceover tell two different stories. That's my conclusion.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top