Voice-overs

TimCollins

TimCollins

Well-known member
I've noticed that usually writers who have made use of voice-overs in previous works like to keep using them.

I find that sometimes when I'm using a voice-over for the main character it can complicate the process a bit. Sometimes I don't know what should be told visually, through dialogue or through the voice-over. But, at the same time, it can be a good tool to get the audience inside the character's head.

What are you guy's thoughts/opinions on voice-overs? Do you like to use them?
 
I feel it is best to show everything possible as opposed to telling it. I avoid VO as much as possible. When used well, it can help tell a story, particularly a short one. Most of the time, though, it comes off as a crutch for a filmmaker trying to tell too much story in too short a time. As far as getting in the actor's head, I love the filmmakers who can do it with their images. Of course that's just my opinion. One place I think it's important, though, is in Film Noir. I love the flavor it adds there.
 
I prefer them when they add thematic nuance, color, or depth rather than narrative detail or depth. If the story or character arc wouldn't make sense without the V.O. then it's probably being used as a crutch as Blaine mentioned. Not to site Se7en at you all the time but, even though David Fincher doesn't like this use of V.O. at the end - it was a studio concesion, I quite like Freeman's V.O. at the end -

William Somerset (VO): Ernest Hemingway once wrote, "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part. "

I straddle the line or try to with my short ODD Squad (on my website) you get a touch of backstory necessary for the short, but more color than anything.

I hate, hate voice over that does not really let you into the characters head, doesn't add thematic material, but only gives you information the writher thinks the audience needs to know. A lot of Blade Runner is like that. And though it's a throwback in tone to Film Noir which Blaine also mentions, it more often than not gives you novelistic detail that the character wouldn't be thinking, we wouldn't know from just looking, and no one really cares about. When Edward James Olmos comes up to take Ford in for example, Ford's V.O. gives you EJO's entire biography with lots of novelistic detail then finally comes up to something like "if they were sending this guy then it must be trouble" which is all you need and all you would have had in the Noir style V.O.

So IMHO, it's best when it's extra - adds color or suppors theme and is used sparingly.
It can work when it's a window into the characters mind (when that's necessary or a convention of the genre such as in noir)
It's almost always awful when it's doing the work of telling story or adding a bunch of novelistic detail because that takes you out of being an observer by giving you info you couldn't observe. The thematic or color use doesn't quite push you out in the same way because it's inviting you to consider the piece on deeper conceptual levels not giving you facts that you would have no way of knowing.

Worst use of Voice Over ever? Beginning of Dark City. I saw the film in a test screening without the opening V.O. Without it, it's a great film. With it it's mediocre. If you haven't seen it, Rufus Sewell wakes up in a bathtub full of bloody water with a dead hooker in the next room and no memory. Clues begin to surface that suggest maybe weird gray men are mucking with reality at night. But the only people that believe this are mad. So there's a great dramatic forward or question set up - Is Rufus Sewell a murderer whos bought into or even himself constructed an elaborate and absurd conspiracy theory which facilitates his madness and murder, or is he the only one that has some kind of clue as to what's really going on. Now the audience has something active to do - watch intently trying to figure out what the main character is trying to figure out - we're in his shoes exactly. But due to studio pressure an opening V.O. was added by Keifer Sutherland that explains exactly what's going on before the movie starts. Ruins it. If you haven't seen this film, rent it and watch it with the volume down until Rufus sewell wakes up in a bathtub of bloody water.
 
The Shawshank Redemption has a ton of VO and it works! ... and it's one of the best regarded films by movie-goers. So while I agree with the others here to keep VO to the absolute minimum, there are exceptions to the rule.
 
Voice over narration is an *extra layer of story* - which means the whole script should work 100% without it.

If you look at everything from SUNSET BLVD to OPPOSITE OF SEX, those films work perfectly without the VO - but the VO gives a smart ass commentary on they story. It doesn't tell the story, the story doesn't need it to be told - it's a bonus.

- Bill (typical monkey funeral)
 
10s said:
The Shawshank Redemption has a ton of VO and it works! ... and it's one of the best regarded films by movie-goers. So while I agree with the others here to keep VO to the absolute minimum, there are exceptions to the rule.
Click to expand...

Granted, anything narrated by Morgan Freeman is automatically interesting. He could read the dictionary and people would be captivated.
 
One quick note: If you want to see exactly what NOT to do with VO, watch Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li. It made me wonder if the VO was an afterthought, as literally EVERYTHING the VO says is spelled out visually as well - what the hell is the point, other than insulting the audience's intelligence?
 
I've only used voice over in shorts as a send up to certain genres like noir and more specifically the genre known as The Dukes of Hazard. But I haven't used it in any of the feature scripts I've written. I keep hearing Robert McKee's own VO in my head saying "God help anyone who ever uses voice over." However I do really enjoy it in the right places like Fight Club and my favorite use of VO to date has been on Arrested Development where it was responsible for nearly half of the jokes on the show.
 
I agree with Jack. I hate it when people use VOs to tell a story, if you can't do it visually, then why are you making movies, just write books. But I do love when VOs are used to get you inside a characters head, cause hearing their thoughts, when it pertains to the movie, makes the experience much fuller.
 
I personally avoid VO, but they don't bother me when watching movies because they add an extra layer of meaning (if done well), and give your brain more to do when watching (for example, comparing/contrasting the VO and the mise-en-scene.)

My day job is writing documentaries, which are mostly all VO. I often toy with the idea of writing a fictional screenplay with full-on VO completely incongruous with what's going-on onscreen, but haven't figured out (yet) how to do it without looking like a pompous ass.
 
For the Everything's Eventual adaptation, I fought V.O. at first - and fought it hard (even though my creative heart of hearts told me it was right). After all, the "crutch" taboo had been drilled into my head as if by a medieval barber surgeon.

Then, the director and I started naming off examples of well played voiceover-driven films (not including the hard-boiled noir stuff). Needless to say, once we got around to the likes of Forrest Gump and A Christmas Story...I felt both confident that we were going to be in great company, and very comfortable going with my narrative gut.

:beer:
 
write your script first...

afterwards, and if you still need it, add your voice over, internal dialog, whatever
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top