Do you use voiceovers?

Post by **Evan Kubota** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:49 am

My current project involves some first-person narration. In some circles it's considered uncinematic, telling instead of showing, etc. OTOH the Criterion website recently had a good article on less conventional uses of a voiceover or internal monologue. It doesn't have to be a trite establishing technique. What's your opinion? Are they nearly always bad, usually good, or somewhere in between?

'The New World' brought the divide in opinion into contrast. Most critics hated the voiceovers, but some liked them. I thought they were tastefully used to bring a more subjective intimacy to the material.

Post by **npcoombs** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:57 pm

I am guilty of frequently using them.

In fact I am very fond of voiceovers when the person has something to say. The voiceovers reading poetry in Mirror and Nostalghia are my favourite parts of the film.

Post by **mattias** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:37 pm

i rarely use voice overs and when it do it's part of the storytelling. i also like them and find that they can add things but i'd never use them as a shortcut or to explain what's already told in the storytelling. it's that kind of use that's the root of their bad reputation.

/matt

Post by **Evan Kubota** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:48 pm

I voted for as little as possible - actually that applies to most extraneous elements (music, etc). Honestly, I've rarely seen films that have poorly-done or detracting voiceovers. Probably because I'm only selecting films that have stood the test of time, but the voiceovers in Mirror or Der Himmer ÃƒÂ¼ber Berlin are integral to the aesthetic as a whole. They aren't something added on.

Even in a film like Nobi, which I highly recommend, where the voiceovers are relatively frequent and sometimes used for explanation, they give a way in to the character's mind that would otherwise be unexplored. Obviously acting accomplishes much of this, but vocalizing it gives another effect entirely. When the voiceover works counter to the suggestion of the images an interesting tension develops. Europa, Europa has a similar effect.

Post by **CHAS** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 1:53 am

I find it very useful in a medium like Super-8 if you can't afford to go the synch-sound route. My film, "Ennui" relied exclusively on the voiceover of the mentally deteriorating character to describe her views on life. Sometime it matched up with the action on the screen and sometimes it didn't. Some people liked this film (won best short at the Boston Underground Film Fest) and some people (like on this board) hated it!

Anyway, I think it can be used effectively. Still haven't seen "The New World" but I saw Malick's previous film where I thought it was a bit over done in parts.

Post by **steve hyde** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:45 am

...I like voice overs, but like anything they are often a carelessly used device. The best short-form film I have seen this year (from 2005) "Phantom Limb" is all voice over and an excellent example of voice over done really well...

Steve

Post by **Nigel** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:15 am

I usually don't like voice over in films with dialog. It works for me in shorts and where the VO is distinct from what you see on screen.

There is nothing worse than a voice telling me what I am looking at...That just makes me feel like the creator thinks I am to stupid to see for myself.

Good Luck

Post by **Evan Kubota** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:39 pm

"I usually don't like voice over in films with dialog. It works for me in shorts and where the VO is distinct from what you see on screen."

This is a good observation. "The New World" has very little dialogue, so removing any voiceover would have removed a lot of the insight into the characters. I also agree that the requirements are different for short films.

My project has a character who is alone for nearly the entire film, so I don't think a voiceover will be strictly bad. It's also in Japanese. For some reason this makes the device more acceptable, since most audiences will be reading it rather than hearing it. I looked at other ways to convey the same information and it would be nearly impossible in a short time frame.

Post by **keagan** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:21 pm

I put as little as possible because I think to be effective they must be craftilly done. Has anyone seen Godard's 'Ãƒâ‚¬ bout de souffl'? He uses a variation where he has the actor talk directly to the camera, which was interresting.

Post by **Davideo** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:55 am

I produce a lot of sign language films and mostly use music background and subtitles for those who don't know sign language. The only time i'd use a voice-over is for interviews where we have a voice interpreter translating the guest for the hearing host.

Post by **Evan Kubota** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:11 am

I ended up being able to remove the voiceovers...

Post by **Evan Kubota** » Wed May 10, 2006 7:17 am

... and there may be one at the ending once more.

I was thinking that for such a despised technique, there are a lot of "good" films that use them - not just Malick, but films like Au revoir les enfants where it marks a sudden and powerful tonal shift. While some may say film is "showing, not telling," there are some observations that are too nuanced or subtle for the audience to be able to grasp from a simple viewing. Voiceovers that serve this function I have no problem with. The bad kind involves "and then we went to the bank and robbed them blind, and drove away into the sunset."

Filmshooting