the misuse and overuse of voiceover
- Thread starter Charli
- Start date
polfilmblog
Well-known member
Sunset Blvd. was a classic use of VO, imitated pretty successfully in American Beauty.
One instance of VO I completely hated, both times I've watched it is Opposite of Sex. You can hear it for yourself on Hulu right now. Love Christina Ricci, but I hated that VO and thought it ruined the movie. Another very knowledgeable Hollywood guy claimed that the Opposite of Sex approach was THE way to do it... Yeah right.
Who can account for people's tastes?
Fantastic film To Die For uses a modified VO, where Nicole Kidman talks to the camera in a very other-worldly sequence, all bathed in white ... as if from Heaven. That worked fantastically, as it's straight from the story. That story is masterful.
Is your VO justified and integrated into the character and story, seamlessly?
One instance of VO I completely hated, both times I've watched it is Opposite of Sex. You can hear it for yourself on Hulu right now. Love Christina Ricci, but I hated that VO and thought it ruined the movie. Another very knowledgeable Hollywood guy claimed that the Opposite of Sex approach was THE way to do it... Yeah right.
Who can account for people's tastes?
Fantastic film To Die For uses a modified VO, where Nicole Kidman talks to the camera in a very other-worldly sequence, all bathed in white ... as if from Heaven. That worked fantastically, as it's straight from the story. That story is masterful.
Is your VO justified and integrated into the character and story, seamlessly?
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Noir VO may be so idiomatic due to the implicit loneliness/solitariness of the detective/protagonist. These stories are told pretty much from a "me against the world" POV thematically, so the inner thoughts/voice of the poor fellow seems appropriate.
While not Noir, Kevin Spacey's American Beauty VO (which works very well IMO) would seem to come from a similar place.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
DecadenceFilms
Active member
I don't disagree with what has been said on this thread, however I do wonder whether these kinds of rules really matter to audiences.
It's interesting that Sex and the City has been brought up as a bad example of the use of voiceover, when this is a show that has become part of the cultural fabric and has proven to be enormously popular and successful.
I'm certainly not having a go here, but just who said that (to paraphrase) "Voiceovers were not intended to be used to reveal character behaviour?
These rules are purely arbitary at the end of the day. They may be based on sound principles much of the time, but the general audience just wants to be entertained in some way and a lot of the things that people say shouldn't be done often find a willing audience.
Here's a relatively interesting article detailing ten films that used it well.
http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/staff_top_10/top-ten-uses-of-voice-over-on-film.htm
It would be nice to see one that highlighted the different uses of narration.
EDIT: Here's quite a good one.
http://sarahwichlacz.com/?p=74
It's interesting that Sex and the City has been brought up as a bad example of the use of voiceover, when this is a show that has become part of the cultural fabric and has proven to be enormously popular and successful.
I'm certainly not having a go here, but just who said that (to paraphrase) "Voiceovers were not intended to be used to reveal character behaviour?
These rules are purely arbitary at the end of the day. They may be based on sound principles much of the time, but the general audience just wants to be entertained in some way and a lot of the things that people say shouldn't be done often find a willing audience.
Here's a relatively interesting article detailing ten films that used it well.
http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/staff_top_10/top-ten-uses-of-voice-over-on-film.htm
It would be nice to see one that highlighted the different uses of narration.
EDIT: Here's quite a good one.
http://sarahwichlacz.com/?p=74
Last edited:
BitMaestro
Well-known member
I respectfully disagree with a couple of things:
First, just because VO is often used to good effect in noir doesn't necessarily mean that every use of VO in noir will always be good (much less that it will always be the best way to achieve the desired result) which, to me, is what it would take for noir to be a legitimate exception to the VO "rule".
Second, for the VO "rule" to be arbitrary, the sayings, "a picture is worth a thousand words" and "actions speak louder than words" must also not be true. Because film is 24 pictures a second, and shows actions better than any other medium--better than "real life" even. So if a filmmaker is relying solely on words, s/he is not using the medium to its full potential. That would be radio.
Movies should move! Heck, when movies first started, they didn't even have sound!
Yes, SatC was very successful, and it was mentioned as an example of a poor use of VO. But those two are not mutually exclusive. Just because a movie does one thing poorly doesn't mean it can't be successful if it does other things well. (Heck, look at any Michael Bay movie for an example of doing some things poorly, but being very successful because they do other things well.) Further, even if we say that the VO in SatC worked, that doesn't necessarily mean that something else might've worked better (and resulted in even greater success).
My 2 cents - Mark
P.S. As an aside, much like Gossip Girl, I think the VO in SatC worked because of the premise. i.e. the lead was a columnist.
P.P.S. re: "^Good points there.... " - Thanks, Ted!
First, just because VO is often used to good effect in noir doesn't necessarily mean that every use of VO in noir will always be good (much less that it will always be the best way to achieve the desired result) which, to me, is what it would take for noir to be a legitimate exception to the VO "rule".
Second, for the VO "rule" to be arbitrary, the sayings, "a picture is worth a thousand words" and "actions speak louder than words" must also not be true. Because film is 24 pictures a second, and shows actions better than any other medium--better than "real life" even. So if a filmmaker is relying solely on words, s/he is not using the medium to its full potential. That would be radio.
Movies should move! Heck, when movies first started, they didn't even have sound!
Yes, SatC was very successful, and it was mentioned as an example of a poor use of VO. But those two are not mutually exclusive. Just because a movie does one thing poorly doesn't mean it can't be successful if it does other things well. (Heck, look at any Michael Bay movie for an example of doing some things poorly, but being very successful because they do other things well.) Further, even if we say that the VO in SatC worked, that doesn't necessarily mean that something else might've worked better (and resulted in even greater success).
My 2 cents - Mark
P.S. As an aside, much like Gossip Girl, I think the VO in SatC worked because of the premise. i.e. the lead was a columnist.
P.P.S. re: "^Good points there.... " - Thanks, Ted!
arroway
Well-known member
They don't. Nor do they matter to professional screenwriters who break all these supposed "rules" everyday in the scripts they're paid 6+ figures to write.
Amateurs say "don't use running V.O!", "don't use 'We see'", "don't write 'unfilmables'", don't use "is", "don't write paragraph blocks longer than four lines!", "don't write scenes longer than three minutes!" don't, don't, don't...
Meanwhile, professional writers are using running V.O, "We see", "unfilmables", the word "is", 4+ line action blocks, and 3+ minute long scenes and it appears to be doing none of them any harm what so ever.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Skilled, professional artists know the rules, and when, why and exactly how to break them. Please see the chapter on "Picasso".
Charli's original point, aimed at newbie writers, stands...
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Didn't see my standard rule, no dialog longer than 7 words.
What that rule does is cut out a lot of filler dialog that really has no business in a movie anyway...
Are there great films that have longer dialog... sure... are there a zillion scripts with purple prose masquerading as dialog... guarenteed.
arroway
Well-known member
Well sure, but with that mindset where do the "rules" end? Most comedy scripts people write aren't even remotely funny, perhaps there should be a "rule" against beginning writers attempting comedy? Most horror scripts aren't scary, perhaps there should be a "rule" against beginning writers attempting horror?
You may say those are silly or exaggerated examples of screenwriting "rules" but I don't really see much of a logistical difference between that and saying "no dialogue longer than 7 words!" just because most writers will end up puking purple garbage across the page as if they spent the entire weekend binge drinking 190-proof adjective juice in the back of Stephenie Meyer's limo...
Extrapolate this "rule" mindset far enough and the "beginning writer" moniker will become a misnomer as none of them will even be able to "begin" since almost any genre, character archetype, character arc, plot point or dramatic device is utterly botched by the vast majority of writers who attempt to utilize them.
This isn't really a response to Charli so much as it is to a certain, very vocal contingent of aspiring writers present at almost any message board or writers group who seem to believe the path to success is lined with how-to absolutes and who zealously cling to their chosen set of "rules" like they came from the top of Mount Sinai (as opposed to some "guru" who never even sold a script). Like any good group of zealots, this contingent of amateurs is quick to denounce the "sinners" as undisciplined heretics despite the inconvenient truth that the professional sphere has always been and continues to be almost completely comprised of such heresy.
dougspice
Veteran
Well said, and you can sum up those people in one word: jealousy. The stricter the "rules" the less imagination you need to have to work within them – if you're not interested in rising above mediocrity, that is. So it's perfectly all right to be angry at someone who succeeded by breaking the rules. This is a defense mechanism, nothing more.
But there's no such thing as a fair shake, and anyone who believes there is nonetheless isn't going to have their dreams of success handed to them on a silver platter.
However. From an academic standpoint I do believe there's something to be said for that old martial arts maxim "Enter by form, exit from form". Begin by mastering the form, at which point you can deviate from it however suits you. Write a screenplay that tells a compelling story without one line of voiceover. Once you've done that, maybe you see how voiceover could accentuate the mood or the character. Use it as a ladder, not a crutch.
But there's no such thing as a fair shake, and anyone who believes there is nonetheless isn't going to have their dreams of success handed to them on a silver platter.
However. From an academic standpoint I do believe there's something to be said for that old martial arts maxim "Enter by form, exit from form". Begin by mastering the form, at which point you can deviate from it however suits you. Write a screenplay that tells a compelling story without one line of voiceover. Once you've done that, maybe you see how voiceover could accentuate the mood or the character. Use it as a ladder, not a crutch.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
If someone is claiming to write a 'haiku', even a western or anglicized form of 'haiku', and spews for 3 pages... they can be 'chastized' for 'breaking the rules'...
The Script is a developing form, and so, there may be a number of variations, but still there is a core set of 'rules', for example formating of the page, or 'parsimony of style'. Someone who 'spews' for pages of dense text, pages of dense dialog, or worse pages of internal ruminations, presented to the 'screen' as voice oiver, is not writing a 'script', but a novel, perhaps formated in the manner of scripts.
If a reader, even a casual untrained reader, gets lost in the 'details', one can say the script lacks, especially lacks in economy of style.
Or more to the point, if after a read, someone comes back with a note of... on page 47 of your 93 page feature script, you used a 'We see', and that's against the rules... I think you can safely assume the reader has their panties in a big knot...
It's been a long time, but is "Ape and Essence" by Aldous Huxley in 'script format'???
Last edited:
Ryan McCarvill
Well-known member
You write a script by writing a script, how you get there is how you get there. If it doesn't work you learn from it and fix it in the rewrite. The key is to have a critical eye of your own work and read lots of screenplays.
There are no rules. But there are conventions.
There are no rules. But there are conventions.