Why Doesn't Hitchcock Use VO?

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why Doesn't Hitchcock Use VO?

    So I recently bought the Alfred Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection. I've already seen quite a few of his films but I'm starting a script soon that I really want to pay homage to Hitchcock with, so I'm rewatching his library just to "study" some more.

    When it dawned on me - Has he ever had a consistent voice over in his movie?

    In the last two weeks I've re-watched Vertigo, Rope, North by Northwest, and Rear Window. The Trouble With Harry, Psycho, and The Birds aren't as fresh in my mind but I don't remember a VO in them. I did a quick search and I guess Rebecca (which I haven't seen) opens with a VO, but that's all I could really find. I guess I'm just a bit surprised since Hitchcock did a lot of dark movies, yet he never seemed to enter that whole noir inner monologue VO territory that was common in other movies of the era. Anyone know why? Or is there a Hitchcock movie that does this?
    Last edited by NoirDigits; 02-10-2012, 12:01 AM.
    Ring-a-ding-ding, baby.

  • #2
    Re: Why Doesn't Hitchcock Use VO?

    Probably because he can tell a great story without VO... not to be obnoxious, but ...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Why Doesn't Hitchcock Use VO?

      Interesting point - but whereas his V.O.'s were at best sparse, his ON-CAMERA appearances on his Alfred Hitchcock Presents Television Show where he "appears after the title sequence, and drolly introduces the story from a mostly empty studio or from the set of the current episode from monologues written especially for him by James B. Allardice" were CLASSIC!!!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09Zsd858KQs

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Why Doesn't Hitchcock Use VO?

        Noir, it's "didn't", not "doesn't".
        "A screenwriter is much like being a fire hydrant with a bunch of dogs lined up around it.- -Frank Miller

        "A real writer doesn't just want to write; a real writer has to write." -Alan Moore

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Why Doesn't Hitchcock Use VO?

          Because he was smart enough that he could tell a compelling story through images.

          Remember, he started out working with silent films. No voice-over there. Hell, no *voice* there. He learned how to tell a story through images.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Why Doesn't Hitchcock Use VO?

            Voice over can be used well or badly. People take too literally the "film is a visual medium" and "show, don't tell" maxims.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Why Doesn't Hitchcock Use VO?

              Originally posted by NoirDigits View Post
              [...]Hitchcock did a lot of dark movies, yet he never seemed to enter that whole noir inner monologue VO territory that was common in other movies of the era. Anyone know why? Or is there a Hitchcock movie that does this?
              Actually, that got me thinking. Despite it being considered a motif of the genre...really, how common was the voiceover in film noir?
              "Forget it, Jake. It's Hollywood."

              My YouTube channel.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Why Doesn't Hitchcock Use VO?

                He's the Master of Suspense. VO would have been kryptonite to him.
                "I ask every producer I meet if they need TV specs they say yeah. They all want a 40 inch display that's 1080p and 120Hz. So, I quit my job at the West Hollywood Best Buy."
                - Screenwriting Friend

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Why Doesn't Hitchcock Use VO?

                  Originally posted by Dr. Vergerus View Post
                  People take too literally the "film is a visual medium" and "show, don't tell" maxims.
                  But film is a visual medium.

                  If you disagree, I have a challenge for you...I'll make a film without dialogue, and you make one without visuals.

                  Sure, V.O. can be used to enhance a story as easily as it can be used to hinder one, but I wouldn't say that it has ever been necessary.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Why Doesn't Hitchcock Use VO?

                    Gregorgy Peck narrates the dream sequence in SPELLBOUND with a V.O.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Why Doesn't Hitchcock Use VO?

                      Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
                      But film is a visual medium.

                      If you disagree, I have a challenge for you...I'll make a film without dialogue, and you make one without visuals.

                      Sure, V.O. can be used to enhance a story as easily as it can be used to hinder one, but I wouldn't say that it has ever been necessary.
                      It's not a challenge, radioplays aren't very different from what you propose. I've recently listened to a radio version of Psycho -how fitting- and it worked very well.

                      "V.O. has never been necessary". Maybe. That could be argued of dialogue: it's perfectly possible to tell a story without dialogue. But, it could also be said of camera movement and editing: it is possible to tell a story in a single set, in a single, static shot, without dialogue and even without sound altogether.

                      The question is: why would you choose to ignore the tools available? Depending on what you want to do, you pick a certain set of tools, but that doesn't mean the ones you're not using are worse somehow.

                      Even silent films had narration, sometimes to conpensate lack of clarity but sometimes because they were a more effective way to get some information to the audience.

                      V.O. can be a very effective way to convey a lot of information in short time, which otherwise could damage the pace of the film. It can also be used to add layers to what's happening on-screen, like Dexter's ironic remarks. Just because V.O. of often used as a crutch by lazy storytellers it doesn't mean it is bad in itself.

                      Do you know that in Japan, in the days of silent film, theaters had professional narrators that commented the story for the audience? That had to be an extrange experience...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Why Doesn't Hitchcock Use VO?

                        Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
                        But film is a visual medium.
                        I'd rather think of them as an audio-visual experience.

                        Movies with sound can accomplish things that movies with images alone cannot. Yes, movies without images are not movies.

                        The root of a film is images. But we should not ignore what sound allows us to do. So I think it is much more helpful to think of film (today) as an audio visual experience.

                        Use both to their best. If VO, makes your movie -- the audio-visual experience -- better. Then go for it.

                        There are times when sound can do things better than images.
                        -chris

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Why Doesn't Hitchcock Use VO?

                          Originally posted by Dr. Vergerus View Post
                          It's not a challenge, radioplays aren't very different from what you propose.

                          "V.O. has never been necessary". Maybe. That could be argued of dialogue: it's perfectly possible to tell a story without dialogue. But, it could also be said of camera movement and editing: it is possible to tell a story in a single set, in a single, static shot, without dialogue and even without sound altogether.

                          The question is: why would you choose to ignore the tools available?
                          Why bring up radio plays? We're talking about films. Make a film without visuals. Cannot do it. Film is a visual medium.

                          Why ignore the tools available? Just because you have a tool doesn't mean it always has a function or purpose with your current situation. I have an oil filter wrench. Should I use it to fix my sink? How about my bedroom light? Or a computer? Or a sore back?

                          See, V.O. is a strange tool because it is seldom ever required. Sure, films have been made without dialogue (loved The Artist), but that's not to say dialogue cannot be used to greatly enhance nearly any story. Same with color. It can help set the mood or the atmosphere, and give the story a particular feel that black and white can never replicate. Same with camera movements. Visuals have been used to tell cinematic stories for over 100 years. The advancements of camera technology that are happening even today are quite often used by skilled directors to help tell the story in ways that large, bulky, antiquated low-definition cameras were never capable of.

                          That's the reason why these things have stuck around and developed into better versions of themselves ever since their inception. But voice-over? Can't really help most films. Some, perhaps. But not all. Not even a large percentage. Imagine a movie like Black Swan or Toy Story with voice-over, and how completely unnecessary that would be.

                          Sure, V.O. can be used to great effect...love its function on Burn Notice. Love the way Terrence Malick uses it to tell stories that would be otherwise impossible to tell. It does have a function and purpose that is just too specific to be used all the time.

                          Why did Hitchcock not use V.O.? Because he never encountered a story in which it was required. Hell...most directors never will.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Why Doesn't Hitchcock Use VO?

                            And who said V.O. should be used all of the time?

                            Do you realize that the arguments you are using supporting the use of dialogue, color, and all things cinematic, can be used to support the use of V.O.? If it is about enhancing...

                            V.O. would be as innecesary in "Toy Story" as 3d cinematic madness would be in "The Shawshank Redemtion" -by the way, a film clearly "enhanced" by the use of V.O. Is it necessary? No, but did anybody say it was?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Why Doesn't Hitchcock Use VO?

                              Originally posted by Dr. Vergerus View Post
                              And who said V.O. should be used all of the time?

                              Do you realize that the arguments you are using supporting the use of dialogue, color, and all things cinematic, can be used to support the use of V.O.? If it is about enhancing...

                              V.O. would be as innecesary in "Toy Story" as 3d cinematic madness would be in "The Shawshank Redemtion" -by the way, a film clearly "enhanced" by the use of V.O. Is it necessary? No, but did anybody say it was?
                              Um...you did, when you equated V.O. with dialogue and camera movement and editing in an earlier post, and have just done the same thing again in the passage quoted.

                              The same argument for dialogue and color, etc. cannot be used for V.O. I've already explained why.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X