Does anyone know what format tends to be more popular and successful when narrating a documentory?1. Having the person who interviews the subject do VO and do on camera narratives2. Have only the subjects interviews themselves guide the documentary along3. Never meeting the person asking the questions and having a VO be the guide to each topic.
best way to guide a documentary
- Thread starter lhdor
- Start date
Gregg Juke
Well-known member
Any and all of them have been used to great effect, in the documentaries that I've seen. I guess it depends on how you feel the story would best be told.
Also, IMHO, when using an unseen/"V.O.G." narrator, it's kind of important to have that person be a) really good and b) available. Do you have someone
in mind? Do you know someone that could fill that talent role for you? If not, maybe one of the other two choices is better for your doc.
GJ
Also, IMHO, when using an unseen/"V.O.G." narrator, it's kind of important to have that person be a) really good and b) available. Do you have someone
in mind? Do you know someone that could fill that talent role for you? If not, maybe one of the other two choices is better for your doc.
GJ
combatentropy
Veteran
That's actually a really good question. The nice thing is, you don't have to answer it until you are editing it.
adkimery
Veteran
Like Gregg said, it really depends on what you want your style to be. Some people feel that VO is a crutch while others see it as a great way to clearly and concisely communicate complex ideas or events to the audience. Personally I don't have a preference one way or the other. I will say though that having a narrator that is compelling is key. That persons voice will, both literally and figuratively, become the voice of the film so you'll want to make sure that their style and deliver meshes with the tone of your film.
-Andrew
-Andrew
legrevedotcom
Veteran
I think it's often down to the mood of the doc isn't it? If you want a more hard knocking investigative doc, then bringing the interviewer into play could mean some added depth to the doc. Take the work of that guy, Ross something... (can't remember his name) that visited some of the worst gangs in the world. Those series would never have worked, had it just been the gang members talking to an off camera interviewer or just talking.
Where as something small and informative like the doc I'm about to start on, where the subject is a small veteran railroad with interesting but down to earth characters, can live without and is probably better without an actual interviewer.
We plan on making the questions in a way to allow the subjects to dive into telling the story themselves and then edit our way into the fininshed product.
I think we will allow ourselves to do takes to achieve the wording we need rather than relying totally on being 100% authentic if you know what I mean. The same thing can be said in many ways and one might sound better or deliver the material better than the other.
In regards to voice over, I think they work wonders for docs like nature programs or similar where it's all about observing and learning. But yeah, you need someone that have that right voice and ability to enhance the images.
Where as something small and informative like the doc I'm about to start on, where the subject is a small veteran railroad with interesting but down to earth characters, can live without and is probably better without an actual interviewer.
We plan on making the questions in a way to allow the subjects to dive into telling the story themselves and then edit our way into the fininshed product.
I think we will allow ourselves to do takes to achieve the wording we need rather than relying totally on being 100% authentic if you know what I mean. The same thing can be said in many ways and one might sound better or deliver the material better than the other.
In regards to voice over, I think they work wonders for docs like nature programs or similar where it's all about observing and learning. But yeah, you need someone that have that right voice and ability to enhance the images.
While it depends on the style of your doc, the goal of the project (to expose, entertain, investigate, pontificate...), and where
you'd like the finished project to show, I think audiences are getting tired of V.O.G. in independent documentaries. So many
creative techniques are used in indie docs today that people almost expect there not to be a V.O.G., and they seem let down
when there is. That's what I've seen anyhow.
you'd like the finished project to show, I think audiences are getting tired of V.O.G. in independent documentaries. So many
creative techniques are used in indie docs today that people almost expect there not to be a V.O.G., and they seem let down
when there is. That's what I've seen anyhow.
aguia
Active member
In practical terms not using off cam VO will complicate the edit by orders of magnitude. That's why a lot of people use VO, it can get you into and out of ideas, subjects and places that might not be supported by live footage, interview or budget (as in animation or recreations for instance) after the fact if necessary.
From an aesthetic standpoint the most common (and valid) criticism is that VO can very easily get very formulaic. It certainly depends on the audience.
If it was a labor-of-love as opposed to a paying schedule gig I would be tempted to avoid a VO design, but with the right budget (multiple cameras) a non VO'd doc can work fine in a commercial project, it just needs more attention in the edit.
To sum up: Ken B. doesn't play well at Sundance these days (or maybe any dance) but he still manages to pull in a few bucks here and there.
From an aesthetic standpoint the most common (and valid) criticism is that VO can very easily get very formulaic. It certainly depends on the audience.
If it was a labor-of-love as opposed to a paying schedule gig I would be tempted to avoid a VO design, but with the right budget (multiple cameras) a non VO'd doc can work fine in a commercial project, it just needs more attention in the edit.
To sum up: Ken B. doesn't play well at Sundance these days (or maybe any dance) but he still manages to pull in a few bucks here and there.
Last edited:
adamrahn
Well-known member
as people have mentioned, both styles have their place. personally I think documentaries with no narrator are typically better - however, sometimes you do NEED one for the story you're telling and there are a lot of really great narrated docs out there just as there are a lot of really bad non-narrated docs - for a great example of a narrator leading the story check out "Dear Zachary" (and expect to tear up)
cheers,
Adam
cheers,
Adam