the misuse and overuse of voiceover

Charli

Charli

cool little "title"
In many new screenwriter's scripts you will find that the first piece of dialogue is a -- (V.0.).

While voice-overs can be used as bookends, at the beginning of the story
and at the end of the story, I think there needs to be a greater care in its
overuse and misuse.

If you strip your entire screenplay of V.O. and find you do not have a clear and
cohesive story, it is because you used voice over as a "cheat" to tie up all your loose ends.

Also, voice-over was not intended as a technique for exposition or to reveal character's behavior.

Action = character revealment.

Misuse a voice-over is when you depend on the V.O. to TELL your
story for you. ACTIONS speak louder than words.

"Grey's Anatomny" and "Burn Notice" are both good examples of how voice-over
ADDS to the story, but still, within each episode, there is revealment of character
and character behavior through their own actions.

So if you currently have a short script or even a full feature that is littered with
V.O., I suggest that you strip the V.O. and see what you have left.

THAT will show you that your story is full exposition and not a story with meat.

SHOW DON'T TELL

Follow that rule even with your (V.0.)
 
In general I agree, but this is one of those rules where you'll always find exceptions that work, like the first ten minutes of Lord of The Rings (exposition galore), or the entirety of Goodfellas and Taxi Driver (constant internal dialogue). A teacher of mine once said great movies often break one rule and make it work, that's what makes them memorable.
 
Coppola's masterpiece "Apocalypse Now" made great use of VO too (by Martin Sheen).

So I completely agree with Charli, but there are so many notable exceptions that it's a tough rule to teach by example. There sure are plenty of examples of how/why not to do it among amateur screenwriters, however...
 
Ted - exactly. I just gave feedback for 10 pages on a script that exploded with V.O. - there was no story without it or the excess use of flashbacks. They are good tools to use, but use wisely.
 
One of the all-time most favorite films, The Shawshank Redemption, uses VO extensively. I use to think VO was a crutch until I wised up and realized the "over-useage critique" is merely someone's opinion. My revised opinion is: If it works -- well -- then it works.
 
10s said:
One of the all-time most favorite films, The Shawshank Redemption, uses VO extensively. I use to think VO was a crutch until I wised up and realized the "over-useage critique" is merely someone's opinion. My revised opinion is: If it works -- well -- then it works.
Click to expand...

Right. Like I said - there are too many good exceptions to teach it easily by example. The Shawshank narration (spoken by the incomparable Morgan Freeman) is indeed excellent, and not at all out of place. And VO is a staple of certain genres, Noir/Detective movies in particular.

But how many amateur/newbie screenplays have you read? Charli's point was directed at those, and she's right. Too many of them rely on narration to all but "read the story to you" in the script, and that is crap screenwriting. Next to over-writing of descriptions, settings, ideas and character thoughts (novel-style) it's one of the commonest 'bad screenplay' techniques I see.

Try reading a few newbie feature film scripts at peer review sites like zoetrope.com (if you haven't already done so) to see what I mean...
 
Related-- excessive exposition dialog (blabbering?) by a mentor character (including V.O.). I just watched Unborn and the old woman in the nursing home (Mentor) at one point rambles on and on and on about the Dyybuk (demon, antagonist) to explain anything and everything about it to the protagonist so she will know its origin, weaknesses, its goal, blah blah blah. I found it excessive. It was not show don't tell, but rather tell don't show. I admire David Goyer as a writer, prolific and successful, but that scene in Unborn seemed to violate a basic principle. I will have to look at the script, but I wager that scene has a continuous full page of dialog coming from the Mentor (old woman).
 
Excess expositional dialog is also one of the quickest ways to lose/confuse the audience. If key story/plot info is contained in dialog (particularly when it's brief), all it takes is a momentary lapse of attention by the viewer and the story thread is lost forever.

One of my favorite lesser-known movies to re-watch is "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" (2006), written and directed by the extremely clever Shane Black (Lethal Weapon), and starring Robert Downey, Val Kilmer and Michelle Monaghan.

But Black inexplicably goes horribly wrong with the core storytelling, and has Monaghan serve up the key, crucial information about the already convoluted plot concerning her sister back home in a short piece of dialog about 2/3rds of the way through the film. Sneeze at that point, and the plot will be a chinese puzzle box you'll never open. Her sister's involvement is never shown, and in fact she's barely in the film at all. Yet all the key action is ultimately leveraged on events her past. How a writer of Black's stature could make a storytelling blunder of such huge proportions is beyond me, but there it is.

Like I said, I've watched the film numerous times because otherwise it's a treat - Downey's performance is as good as anything he's ever done, ditto for Monaghan, and Kilmer is terrific too. Many story elements are brilliant, particularly the beginning, which is simply classic, and there's tons of Black's trademark snappy dialog. The production values are great too - excellent camerawork, lighting, sound, editing.

But it took me several thoroughly confusing re-watchings, trying to figure out what the heck the central story was about, before I sustained my attention enough to pick up that *one short speech* by Monaghan that explained it. Even with that, since it's pure exposition, it requires the viewer to take pains to store those facts away and apply them as needed to connect up the storylines. Ugh... Adding scenes that *showed* the relevant information would have been infinitely more effective. But no...

The film was a commercial bomb theatrically, costing $15M to make but grossing only $4M in the US and $9M in the rest of the world. $7M in DVD sales may have helped a little, but still it was a big flop overall. Personally I look right at the near-incomprehensible storytelling for the reason.

It's also the last (and only) film that Black directed. I see from IMDB that he's doing Lethal Weapon 5 in 2012 as screenwriter. Hopefully that will get him back in the game. Very talented guy...

EDIT: I completely forgot to mention that "KKBB" is also loaded with VO (by Downey, who starts out by saying "I'll be your narrator for the movie"), which is all ok IMO, and most of it is very funny. But unfortunately it doesn't help to ease the plot confusion...
 
Last edited:
A lot of the horriblest VO was never in the script, it was added at the last moment to cover some production problem (budget cuts mid-shooting, no time to reshoot a scene that isn't working, an actor is no longer available, etc) or because some studio wonk was too dumb to understand the film (or thought the audience was too dumb) - examples are Dark City and BladeRunner, both now happily restored to non-VO versions as intended by their directors.

I think that's what gives VO its bad reputation - as others have said, it's not a bad tool in itself, only when misused, and unfortunatelt, it's cheap and easy to misuse.
 
If you study and closely look at Lord of the Rings, Shawshank Redemption, and other great uses of Voice Over, you'll notice that it is both telling AND showing at the same time. Like Charli said, it only adds to the visuals you see.

Red gives his inner thoughts and feelings towards the situations we see, rather than explaining something we don't. Lord of the Rings is a bit of an exception. The woman (forgot her name) explains with visual examples (this time the visuals add to the voice over), yet it's so beautifully done that we're drawn in. It's more like she's reciting a beautiful poem than actually explaining something. Before we lose our interest it switches over to what works. From the point of the battle it's the VO that adds to the visuals.

-------
EDIT: thinking about it more, I think it works as well because Lord of the Rings is something we KNOW is a series of books. I never read it, but if the intro is not like the introduction to the book, then it's made to feel like it. The way it's written and spoken makes it feel like we're getting the introduction to an epic saga. If I remember correctly, after the introdution we're introduced to Frodo reading a book, which I think is appropriate to take us out of this introduction...

Thoughts?
-------

Here's an example of a horrible VO from an awful film. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkBALyIWxfs

The problem with the above example from Red Planet is that it's just too much, so much exposition over images of what? It really shows that they just needed to jump ahead and didn't have time or ressources to explain it. Not to mention that when we go to the characters, she explains, like off a list, who this guy is, who that guy is, what that is, why we're here... etc... This is a film that I stopped watching about 30 mins in. Horrible characters and dialogue and everything all around, but the narration is a great example of what NOT to do.
 
Last edited:
Now I am depressed. I am using a bit of VO in my script. I am doomed!


LOL.

I understand exactly what is being said here. My use of that tool, is only because certain things cannot be "shown" in my script. My lead character does the VO, only to accentuate what he is doing and give a bit of adjective addition to it. Without it, it still works, but with it, it gives a more sarcastic look to what you are seeing.
 
That seems fine, and I'm using VO in my script as well, though I'm trying to cut it out and make it work more.

Also another thing that should be noted is that VO once you're in the prod and post prod stage should be easy to understand and slow... if the person rushes through the dialogue then you can't process it. After all, at least half if not more of your attention is drawn towards the image. A rule of thumb my teach said to use is to speak VO twice as slowly and it'll work a lot better. So VO can't be packed into a short amount of time when writing.
 
The problem isn't with VO as a technique. The problem stems from the fact that screenwriting requires the communication of the characters' internal/emotional states to the audience, and VO is one of the easiest ways to do that. So it's usually one of the first tools that aspiring screenwriters learn to use.

Now, in some cases, it's the right tool for the job. But in other cases... well, there's a saying, "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." So, when a screenwriter who has only learned how to use a hammer comes across a situation in which a wrench would be more effective, s/he just uses the hammer to less than impressive results.

But when a master craftsman--who knows how to use a hammer, and a wrench, and a screwdriver, etc.--comes across a situation in which s/he knows that the hammer is indeed the best tool for the job, the results can be fantastic.

In a nutshell, are you choosing VO because you know it's the best choice out of all of the tools in the toolbox? Or are you choosing VO because it's the only tool in the toolbox that you know how to use?

Challenge yourself to come up with five other ways to communicate the information in the VO, and then push yourself to execute those alternate versions as effectively as they could ever be realized by any filmmaker (not just by you with your current level of craft). Now you're coming to this decision from a place of knowledge/power, instead of ignorance.

And you've probably elevated your level craft, as well - Mark
 
It's like Ted said, this thread is geared to those starting out, those trying to figure out a way to 'explain everything' and guess what? You don't need to explain - you need to SHOW.

Do you know why "Shawshank Redemption" worked so well, not just because the voice over added to the story, but also Morgan Freeman's most soothing voice.

VO is a tool, it is not a CHEAT, so if you keep that in mind, you will see a lot of holes in your story.

DOC - send me the first ten pages of your script, I'd be glad to look over them and tell you if the VO is working or not, just click on my profile to get my email addy.

If you wipe away all of VO from a script and see you have little left - start over.
 
Show don't tell is always good. :) I think VO works, at least when I watch a film, if it is happening during some intriguing visuals, which is really what a huge part of a film is all about. Brings to mind a film with a great V.O., The Lover, and as we hear the V.O. we see the writing of the person doing the VO, an old woman writing her memoir about her life when she was young, then a transition to the Mekong Delta of 1929 Vietnam, stunning visuals, and we see her when she was a young woman. That sort of VO I do not mind as a viewer, it enhances the film's introduction imho.
r
 
Yup

Yup

There really are so many exceptions, but it's right to ask yourself whether the voiceover is necessary and how it's adding to the story.

I know my short comedy has a ton of voiceover, in fact basically the first several minutes is pure voiceover, with a character going about his daily routine. I racked my brain for some other way to do it, and it was the only way that worked and made sense. In the end, it's not actually voiceover (I cheated the cheat), it's him talking to a psychiatrist, we're just seeing his daily routine as he's talking and the reveal is at the end. But this character IS a loner, and his actions aren't going to be sitting there talking to a buddy about what he's telling us, because he wouldn't be telling a buddy. Not to mention the actions say quite a lot about our character, the voiceover just adds more. So it's really having two elements going at once, and if you pay attention to both you learn the most about the character.

Then for most of the short, his voiceover is sporadic, adding commentary on actions that are about to happen or have just happened, and it gives us a bit of insight into what he thinks of the situation. It's also humorous because what we're seeing is clearly subjective, from the narrator's point of view, not what actually happened. He even alludes to this once. So it's a bit of a unreliable narrator situation.

I had worried about the voiceover use quite a bit because I know the rules, and am not the type of person who likes breaking the rules except for very good reason. As a writer, I'm a stickler for structure and rules, in my non-fiction writing especially, but if you have something unusual that works, sometimes you have to roll with it. We've gotten into 11 film festivals, premiered at a big Hollywood festival, been nominated by another LA festival for Best Produced Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Comedy, and also won Best Short Short Comedy (Eugene International), and that's just so far, so I'm pretty happy with the results. I know that even still it may not work for some people.

I love Burn Notice, by the way... what a great show.
 
I think Sex and the City's VO is a contender for worst "show, don't tell" ever, I've only seen, and yes I am ashamed, 2 episodes, and all I can say is that the show has just a blatant misuse of voice over. The entire time the VO is just explaining in idiotic detail what's happening. In their defense though, if there wasn't VO to inform me otherwise, I would definitely think I was watching the lamest softcore porn ever. Ever.

Two examples that come to mind with great use of voice over are Scrubs and The Wonder Years. Although they are done in similar ways to SATC, they use it (sparingly) to describe things that you might not fully get otherwise. I'm not saying that every single word of VO in those two shows is great, but overall the writers know/knew how to utilize them effectively.

Guy Ritchie's movies border on the misuse / great use line. I recently saw Revolver and (like almost every critic that saw it) disliked it. There was far too much explanation on what was happening for you to take the time and grasp it on your own. GR makes great movies and Jason Statham's gravely voice is awesome, but this time they just didn't work for me.

Anyways, those were just a few thoughts I had after reading this thread, great topic by the way. With VO's being the zombie plague of scripts it's interesting to discuss what works and what doesn't.

Cheers
 
Charli said:
While voice-overs can be used as bookends, at the beginning of the story and at the end of the story, I think there needs to be a greater care in its
overuse and misuse.
Click to expand...
This can be a particularly good use of voice over if you are telling a story through the eyes of someone that has "been there."

If you strip your entire screenplay of V.O. and find you do not have a clear and cohesive story, it is because you used voice over as a "cheat" to tie up all your loose ends.
Click to expand...
I abhor voice over but have used it occasionally, almost ALWAYS as a bookend, though. It can be a good device when used properly but I agree that all too often it is used as a story telling crutch when one can't pack their exposition into their story in a more appropriate manner. Personally, I love it when emulating NOIR... I may be one of the few people alive that like the VO in Blade Runner for just that reason...Future Noir.

Also, voice-over was not intended as a technique for exposition or to reveal character's behavior.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely the most abused reason for using VO...a shortcut to get into the mind of the character.

Action = character revealment.

Misuse a voice-over is when you depend on the V.O. to TELL your
story for you. ACTIONS speak louder than words.
Click to expand...
Hopefully, budding screenwriters will take this to heart.

SHOW DON'T TELL
Click to expand...
The absolute first words in screenwriting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top