VO Narration -Good or Bad?
 

What's your opinion on voice-over narration in movies? See, I'm starting to write this screenplay of this idea I have and want to go the best route possible. Is narration lazy storytelling? Or a cool look into what the lead character is thinking?

For the most part it's lazy. Film's a visual medium, you shuld try and show what the character is thinking, or perhaps incorporate what you would've narrated into dialogue.

However, there are exceptions. See Adaptation for at least one example of voice-over done well.

"God help you if you use voice-over narration!" -Robert McKee

It's generally considered lazy filmmaking by anyone who has an opinion on the matter.

However, as Jay G. says, when done extremely well, its helps the movie tremendously. That said, its not done extremely well very often.

Having read several amateur scripts while going through the Project Greenlight process, I can definitely say it is VERY easy to use VO narration lazily, improperly, or whatever. I read so many scripts where the main character just explained EVERYTHING, because the writer simply didn't have the skills to find a creative way to write it into a script. Things like "Jerry was a real ladies man. He could get any girl into bed in ten minutes" or "Bob had real problems at home. His dad was abusive as hell." Things like this can easily be shown, and it's so much more appealing for the viewer when they are allowed to connect the dots themselves. IMO, narration only works when it allows us to get a character's inner insight into the story. When used to simply dish out plot, it's lazy. The one exception to this I can think of is The Shawshank Redemption.

While not many movies I like use it, it seems to be a staple of many later Scorsese efforts like Goodfellas, Casino, and Gangs of New York.
Is Marty losing his touch, or are his screenwriters? While I thought the V.O. was effective in Goodfellas, it got kind of tedious in Casino.

It's *very* hard to do VO and not have it sound like a Raymond Chandler ripoff. That, or a Ferris Bueller ripoff.

Like DRG said, look at your VO. If it's being used purely to do exposition and explain plot points, rip it out.

Usually it's a sign of lazy writing, but sometimes it works brilliantly:

The Shawshank Redemption
Menace II Society
American Beauty
The Thin Red Line
Fight Club
A Clockwork Orange
The Princess Bride



I can't imagine any of these films working as well without the voiceovers.

I believe that About Schmidt is extremely clever and innovative in its epistolary voice over narration. Kudos to Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor. It would be easy to have Schmidt just explain whats going on in his life (ala American Beauty), but Payne / Taylor actually make it a plot device. In a sense, throughout the movie (sans the end), we are ndugu, and Schmidt is writing to us.

Nobody mentioned Blade Runner yet?

Check out Barry Lyndon for one of the best uses of voice-over. It's very sly, and is deliberately at odds with the action. Less description than commentary, the narrator becomes a character unto himself.

And my opinion of voice-over in general is to not generalize it. There are good instances and bad instances. Film is also an audio experience and it's just one more tool.

Goodfellas is another good example. Dual narration is interesting.

And I found the narration in Blade Runner to be a bit redundant in parts.

I was just getting ready to mention Blade Runner. The original version with the Harrison Ford voice-over was, IMO, far superior to the director's cut that left it out.

I think it is a useful tool when used correctly, like Adaptation and About a Boy. Other times it's just a sign of laziness as others have already mentioned.

Yeah, BLADE RUNNER with VO is far better then without. I can't explain it, but I love blade runner but if I watch the one without VO, I just knock out every time.

The "Director's Cut" isn't really as such, but merely has as many changes Ridley Scott wanted that could be changed in the time frame WB gave. When the VO was added to the film, scenes were lengthened to accomadate it. In the "DC" they removed the VO, but didn't have time to edit scenes back to their proper length. The upcoming SE DVD, if it ever sees the light, will fix the timing. It will also reportedly have the Original Theatrical Cut as well.

Here's a usenet post I made regarding Blade Runner, VOs, and Director's Cut:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=us....supernews.com

I was just watching Fight Club again last night and noticed that the voice over was very clever. I guess you could say voice over is good if it points out what the lead is thinking but not good if it flat out describes characters and settings.

Watch a Terrence Malick movie. He's not using VO in anything remotely resembling a lazy way.

Alec Baldwin's narration in <b>The Royal Tenenbaums</b> is also very good.

There was narration at the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring, but only up to the end of the prologue. Like, Tenenbaums, it was used to sum up a whole bunch of backstory before the actual plot kicks in.

I disagree. The voice over wasn't originally planned, but was thrown in at the last minute because the studio execs felt that mainstream audiences wouldn't understand the film without it. Ford didn't want to do it, and deliberately "phoned in" a bad performance...and it shows.

The main reason I like the version without the voice over is that it makes the replicants much more sympathetic, and strengthens the film as a whole.

Anyway, as for the original thread: voice over should rarely be used, and never by novice screenwriters. Once you have written a few scripts (and read several hundred more) should you decide whether you can pull it off or not. Probably not. A golden rule of filmmaking (and storytelling in general)...show, don't tell.

It's flaccid, sloppy writing!

Just saw "Winged Migration" and while the voice over was kept to a mininum and pertinent to the understanding of the film, I thought it was a slight obtrusive.

I want to see Blade Runner WITH the voice-over, but screw VHS.

I think there is is Criterion LD of Blade Runner that contains the VO. It's essentially the theatrical cut, with a few added seconds of violence.

For the most part, it's being lazy. But it also comes down to how you use it. Jerry Maguire used it for just the beginning. True Romance has very brief V.O. at the beginning and end.

One of the worst examples I've seen of V.O. is A Murder of Crows.

I think that they're probably more examples of GOOD VO, than BAD VO.

Although I don't understand Cantonese, Wong Kar Wai seems to use it to good effect (most of his films have featured VO narration. Its almost one of his trademarks).

Just going from memory (so I’m sure I missed some), at least 10 movies on the AFI’s 100 Greatest American Films list feature VO. To me VO is like any other technique or narrative device; it can be used effectively or poorly.

In actual produced films, perhaps. But go read some amateur scripts and you'll find that a majority of the unexperienced writers use VO sloppily.

One of my favorites with IMHO a good example of V.O. is Silver Bullet. And I like hearing Ray Bradbury's voice narrating Something Wicked This Way Comes.

My favorite examples of great V.O. narration: Fight Club, which has been mentioned already, and American History X, which hasn't. In the latter, the V.O. is essential. If you've seen it, you know why.

K

Apocalypse Now is another great example of good narration... what would the movie be without Martin Sheen's story?

^^
This is one the many interesting aspects of Apocalypse Now, but it wasn't Martin Sheen's V.O. They realized after the movie that they needed some narration so they hired someone related to Marty (I forget who) that sounded just like him to do it.

another great example imho is Election - with the stills incorporated at the moments of voiceover it was pure genius. A great great film fully enhanced by a clever use of stills and voiceover.

And i'd have to agree that American Beauty, Adaptation, and i'd add About Schmidt to those listed were also very well done and wouldn't be the same great films they are without it. I tried to think of some bad examples, but I think the reason I can't is because any film that does it poorly is ultimately entirely forgetable.

one of my favorite movies from childhood and still today used VO very effectively, Stand By Me

I like most of the VOs mentioned so far. I also thought it was well done in Amelie.

"Choose life, choose a job, choose a family..."

i agree with most of our friends about the fight club V.O. being one of the best examples.
also, I was thinking about this the other day how david duchovny does so many of them, i mean kalifornia,playing god,red shoe diaries and most episodes of x-files, surely he must get some sort of medal for this.

VO Narration is also a great way to give a kind of fairy tale mood to a film. I think mainly of films like "Amelie" where we forgive the improbabilities and the absurd parts of the story as we would do in a fairy tale. I think it goes straight to our visceral child need to have someone telling us stories.

But in most cases, I think that the use of a VO narration should be avoided whenever possible.

Don't overuse it and it's fine. I usually prefer visual storytelling over narration, but if done correctly, voice over can be very effective.