Voice-Over

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Voice-Over

    Hey all

    I am starting a new assignment (page 1 rewrite) in the next few weeks.
    It's a great story but none of the previous scripts have nailed it, so to speak.
    The crazy thing is... if you go on Youtube and look up any doc about the story, the highest rated comments are always a variation on "why isn't this a movie yet".

    My feeling is that the other scripts used a stilted, reverential approach to the material - instead of opting for something a bit more stylized and baroque.

    And part of my take was/is to tell the story from the antagonist's POV, pepper it with juicy Voice-Over and essentially tell the same story but with a whole lot more "whoomp".

    Am I naive I thinking that some scripts are great simply because they are told by the right character and therefore bring out details and observations that would otherwise be missed?

    In other words, if you gave me a Goodfellas minus the Voice-Over, told objectively i.e. not from Henry Hill's POV, would it still be a fantastic film?

  • #2
    Re: Voice-Over

    No particular approach (Voice-Over, no Voice-Over) is the only way to tell a story.

    But you get a different overall effect according to your technique.

    "The fact that you have seen professionals write poorly is no reason for you to imitate them." - ComicBent.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Voice-Over

      yes GoodFellas could have stood on its own without the V.O. why it feels more necessary to that story though (imo) is because it's a "howdunnit" that explains the world of the mafia -- all the rules, written and unwritten, and how the schemes work etc. but Sopranos did much the same without any V.O. at all and was equally compelling

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Voice-Over

        Originally posted by JoeBanks View Post
        yes GoodFellas could have stood on its own without the V.O. why it feels more necessary to that story though (imo) is because it's a "howdunnit" that explains the world of the mafia -- all the rules, written and unwritten, and how the schemes work etc. but Sopranos did much the same without any V.O. at all and was equally compelling
        The obvious difference inherent in the two examples cited above is only the amount of time allotted to tell the stories. Goodfellas had a lot of ground to cover in a short amount of time, and V.O. really helped to make events and time move rapidly from one plot point to the next. Agree with JoeBanks that the V.O. “feels more necessary” to the story of Goodfellas. I could only imagine it without the V.O., but it wouldn't be as easy to comprehend without the explanations of Mafia codes of conduct, or as rich, IMO.

        For the OP's query, an excellent example of another movie that uses V.O. from an antagonist's point of view is Amadeus. All the best to you on the new angle for your screenplay.
        Last edited by Clint Hill; 08-11-2018, 04:03 PM.
        “Nothing is what rocks dream about” ― Aristotle

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Voice-Over

          Fang-

          You are absolutely correct re: AMADEUS! What a great recommendation.

          It is probably the closest to my take.

          As a rule, are you "allowed" to show events via voice-over that DON'T feature the character in the scene itself? Either because the character simply wasn't around in that particular period of the story, or because you want to show an interaction between characters that might bite the character in the ass later (i.e. they know something he doesn't)

          I'd have to go through every scene in classic VO movies like Goodfellas and Clockwork Orange, but it seems to me that they are all extremely subjective and that they do indeed only feature scenes with the protagonist, both physically and "aurally".

          Then again, I seem to recall that Amadeus has tons of scenes with Salieri's narration in which he clearly wasn't around, e.g. young Mozart's life, or any of the scenes with Amadeus and Constanze...




          Originally posted by TigerFang View Post
          The obvious difference inherent in the two examples cited above only the amount of time allotted to tell the stories. Goodfellas had a lot of ground to cover in a short amount of time, and V.O. really helped to make events and time move rapidly from one plot point to the next. Agree with JoeBanks that the V.O. "feels more necessary- to the story of Goodfellas. I could only imagine it without the V.O., but it wouldn't be as easy to comprehend without the explanations of Mafia codes of conduct, or as rich, IMO.

          For the OP's query, an excellent example of another movie that uses V.O. from an antagonist's point of view is Amadeus. All the best to you on the new angle for your screenplay.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Voice-Over

            Originally posted by TravisPickle View Post
            Then again, I seem to recall that Amadeus has tons of scenes with Salieri's narration in which he clearly wasn't around, e.g. young Mozart's life, or any of the scenes with Amadeus and Constanze...

            It doesn't make sense that Salieri could narrate a scene that he wasn't in, unless he somehow knew what occurred in the scene.


            If Salieri did narrate a scene he wasn't in between Amadeus and Constanze, maybe he guessed at what occurred or gave an unreliable account of what happened. Or heard about what had happened in the scene.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Voice-Over

              so...this scene doesn't make sense?
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvQkWOOGHAU

              I don't understand your point

              Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
              It doesn't make sense that Salieri could narrate a scene that he wasn't in, unless he somehow knew what occurred in the scene.


              If Salieri did narrate a scene he wasn't in between Amadeus and Constanze, maybe he guessed at what occurred or gave an unreliable account of what happened. Or heard about what had happened in the scene.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Voice-Over

                In CASINO, Pesci and DeNiro narrate EVERYTHING. Their VO runs over their own scenes, the boss's scenes, Ginger's scenes, the FBI's scenes. They even narrate each other's scenes. It's not even established when or where this narration is coming from, unlike AMADEUS which establishes a frame for the narration.

                The Casino VO works. I can't tell you why it works, but it does. It's a lesser movie, and far more incoherent, if the VO is removed.

                I wouldn't worry too much about justifying the VO. Do whatever makes for the best story.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Voice-Over

                  This.

                  Originally posted by Bunker View Post
                  I wouldn't worry too much about justifying the VO. Do whatever makes for the best story.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Voice-Over

                    Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
                    It doesn't make sense that Salieri could narrate a scene that he wasn't in, unless he somehow knew what occurred in the scene.
                    Originally posted by TravisPickle View Post
                    so...this scene doesn't make sense?
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvQkWOOGHAU
                    I don't understand your point

                    The scene itself makes sense, but how could Salieri narrate it if he wasn't there to see and hear what happened between Mozart and his wife?


                    Are you sure Salieri narrated that scene? I didn't hear any V.O. and I didn't see Salieri in that scene.

                    In your own screenplay, your antagonist could narrate, and in addition you could have a non-character provide narration for the scenes your antagonist isn't aware of. Hope that makes sense.
                    Last edited by jonpiper; 08-10-2018, 04:03 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Voice-Over

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDUZ3CtMRCI

                      where's Salieri in that one?



                      I think we're getting a little tangled up in the logic of it all, which ironically is exactly the reason why I posted in the first place.

                      But having a "non-character narrate"... ?? not even sure what that means

                      Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
                      The scene itself makes sense, but how could Salieri narrate it if he wasn't there to see and hear what happened between Mozart and his wife?


                      Are you sure Salieri narrated that scene? I didn't hear any V.O. and I didn't see Salieri in that scene.

                      In your own screenplay, your antagonist could narrate, and in addition you could have a non-character provide narration for the scenes your antagonist isn't aware of. Hope that makes sense.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Voice-Over

                        Originally posted by TravisPickle View Post
                        Fang-

                        You are absolutely correct re: AMADEUS! What a great recommendation. It is probably the closest to my take.

                        As a rule, are you "allowed" to show events via voice-over that DON'T feature the character in the scene itself? Either because the character simply wasn't around in that particular period of the story, or because you want to show an interaction between characters that might bite the character in the ass later (i.e. they know something he doesn't)

                        I'd have to go through every scene in classic VO movies like Goodfellas and Clockwork Orange, but it seems to me that they are all extremely subjective and that they do indeed only feature scenes with the protagonist, both physically and "aurally".

                        Then again, I seem to recall that Amadeus has tons of scenes with Salieri's narration in which he clearly wasn't around, e.g. young Mozart's life, or any of the scenes with Amadeus and Constanze...
                        Remember that the V.O. is a tool, a device, and obvious story logic will be overlooked for the sake of a good tale well told as long as the story's flow is seamless. Many time-travel stories where the protagonist meets himself/herself fall under this spell. Twelve Monkeys comes to mind.

                        In the case of Amadeus, however, if you recall the opening scene, Salieri is an old man who remains bitter, likely near death and still playing second fiddle without renown to a dead Mozart whose music lives on to carry Mozart's name into musical posterity. The movie begins with the antagonist Salieri as he jealously reflects on the genius of Mozart, which is the story that is the movie we see unfold before our eyes and ears and minds.

                        One may correctly presume that by the time the story begins, which is long after Mozart's death, the agèd Salieri has uncovered all the details, heard all the gossip, and put together all of his own clues collected from his spies to correctly abstract Mozart's more private moments. Even so, such backstory logic hardly matters until the movie's over and one gets out into the parking lot at the movie theater or in a coffee shop soon afterward for a lengthy discussion with their date.

                        The V.O. of Salieri comes in to cover ground and render exposition when necessary to move along the story. It also served to remind us, the audience, that as a naturally talented musical genius, Mozart had an unseen enemy in his sphere, the most dangerous kind of antagonist, when all others seemed to absolutely love and adore him. Honestly, did anyone — who, when they saw Amadeus for the first time — ever say to themselves about any scene, “But wait! How could Salieri know this?”

                        It's highly doubtful. The story was so good and so well acted that the superior position of the audience always kept them busy with “What happens next?” so that there was no bog down about minutiae such as the logic of what Salieri could have known or not known.

                        So don't worry too much about the use of the V.O. to tell your story. It's a tool, like a flashback, and many an excellent movie has used both to great advantage. Use the V.O. when necessary for your story, especially in your first drafts, because you know you're going to be rewriting until your story sings like coloratura from a soprano in a Mozart opera.
                        Last edited by Clint Hill; 08-17-2018, 10:06 PM.
                        “Nothing is what rocks dream about” ― Aristotle

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Voice-Over

                          Originally posted by TravisPickle View Post
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDUZ3CtMRCI
                          But having a "non-character narrate"... ?? not even sure what that means
                          Really?

                          What I mean is the voice of someone who is not in the story. Peter Falk tells the story of Princess Bride. He' telling or reading the story to his grandchild.


                          The narrator in Little Children is the voice of an unknown narrator that pops up throughout the story.


                          But I'm not telling you not to have your protagonist narrate the story. I'm just advising you to be careful. Your antagonist who is also a narrator shouldn't be a fly on the wall, if you know what I mean. He or she doesn't need to be involved in every scene, either by their presence or by their V.O..

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Voice-Over

                            so true!

                            ultimately you don't want your chosen technique to limit your story (and your storytelling). If anything it should be the opposite.

                            if I sit down and I tell you a great story which I played a role in, I am almost certainly going to tell you about events I didn't take part in
                            e.g. "Chris spent 5 years in a Chinese prison and it really changed him".

                            I think of VO more like that- if you frame it correctly, you can pretty much show anything.

                            And if you REALLY want to cover your bases for the minority in the audience worrying, you could always make it obvious that the scenes imagined by the narrator were hearsay - literally spelling it out in the narration e.g. "I heard that he spent 5 years in a Chinese prison and it changed him"

                            But that seems pedantic.


                            Originally posted by TigerFang View Post
                            Remember that the V.O. is a tool, a device, and obvious story logic, as long as the story's flow is seamless, will be overlooked for the sake of a good tale well told. Many time-travel stories where the protagonist meets himself/herself fall under this spell. Twelve Monkeys comes to mind.

                            In the case of Amadeus, however, if you recall the opening scene, Salieri is an old man who remains bitter, likely near death and still playing second fiddle without renown to a dead Mozart whose music lives on to carry Mozart's name into musical posterity. The movie begins with the antagonist Salieri as he jealously reflects on the genius of Mozart, which is the story that is the movie we see unfold before our eyes and ears and minds.

                            One may correctly presume that by the time the story begins, the agèd Salieri has uncovered all the details, heard all the gossip, and put together all of his own clues collected from his spies to correctly abstract Mozart's more private moments. Even so, such backstory logic hardly matters until the movie's over and one gets out into the parking lot at the movie theater or in a coffee shop soon afterward for a lengthy discussion with their date.

                            The V.O. of Salieri comes in to cover ground and render exposition when necessary to move along the story. It also served to remind us, the audience, that as a naturally talented musical genius, Mozart had an unseen enemy in his sphere, the most dangerous kind of antagonist, when all others seemed to absolutely love and adore him. Honestly, did anyone - who, when they saw Amadeus for the first time - ever say to themselves about any scene, "But wait! How could Salieri know this?-

                            It's highly doubtful. The story was so good and so well acted that the superior position of the audience always kept them busy with "What happens next?- so that there was no bog down about minutiae such as the logic of what Salieri could have known or not known.

                            So don't worry too much about the use of the V.O. to tell your story. It's a tool, like a flashback, and many an excellent movie has used both to great advantage. Use the V.O. when necessary for your story, especially in your first drafts, because you know you're going to be rewriting until your story sings like coloratura from a soprano in a Mozart opera.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Voice-Over

                              I definitely want to use Amadeus as a reference and I think the movie 'makes sense' simply because it works. Unless you make a ridiculous choice (i.e. having a dead character narrate the story... oh wait) I don't think being careful pays off and in fact it can paralyze you into becoming overly pedantic and stilted.

                              My story is from the antagonist's POV, it's a story of jealousy and murder directed at one person, but it also tells the rise and fall of an empire - so having an "outsider" take us through it all strikes me as the perfect way to cover a lot of ground and also underline some of the inherent comedy

                              Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
                              But I'm not telling you not to have your protagonist narrate the story. I'm just advising you to be careful. Your antagonist who is also a narrator shouldn't be a fly on the wall, if you know what I mean. He or she doesn't need to be involved in every scene, either by their presence or by their V.O..

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X