Narrator

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Narrator

    Since we've already got a thread going on "talking heads" I'd like to start one on narration. I generally don't like the use of a narrator in a movie but in my present script I see no way around it. I've tried to minimize it but I can't get rid of it.

    It can't be an absolute sin because no less a worthy than Stanley Kubrick used it a lot. <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Killer's Kiss, The Killing, Lolita, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> and <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Full Metal Jacket<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> used it a lot. <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Spartacus<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> and <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Dr. Strangelove<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> used it sparingly.

    Anyway, I'd welcome your views on how much narration is too much narration. My present script seems to have the narrator talking about three or four times per scene.

  • #2
    3 or 4 times per SCENE????

    that is FAR too much. your narration is going to get in the way of your story. in fact, if you use it 3 or 4 times per scene, you are probably using your VO as a crutch to tell your story.

    i think good use of narration is in a movie like "girl interrupted". 3 or 4 times throughout the whole MOVIE. used as bookends and bookmarks, pretty much. and the narration used to speak her inner voice and not to narrate what was going on in the movie itself.

    Comment


    • #3
      I went back and counted just to be sure. The narrator speaks exactly 30 times. There are 39 scenes so she actually speaks less than once per scene. The most is 4.

      The count of 39 scenes is kind of iffy, depending on what you consider a scene. Like: cut to a taxi, taxi parks, heroine gets out, pays fare, enters house, cut to int. of house. Is that considered a scene or do you count it as part of the preceeding or succeeding scene?

      One of my problems is that this was originally a novel in first person, heroine's POV. Which means that originally it was almost entirely narration. I have already converted masses of narration to dialog, even shifting some of it to characters other than the heroine.

      Comment


      • #4
        i've never adapted a novel before so perhaps someone else with this experience can chime in. however, i do want to say:

        novels are told always through the pov of one character or another. all stories are. that doesn't immediately tell me that VO is necessary.

        the first person perspective may call for some narration. but even with your recount, it sounds like your narration is very frequent. think of a few movies with narration -- ones that worked. and do a count of how much narration there was, exactly. i don't believe full metal jacket even had that much narration.

        take liberties with your adaptation. find ways to dramatize things she's saying from her pov. even things not necessarily in the book, if those need to be character moments.

        narration isn't a bad thing. it's just bad when it's overused or badly used, like all other devices. i can't really say more, not having read the book you're adapting, or having done so myself.

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi Actor!

          One of the best uses of narration that I've seen is in "Election." Virtually every VO juxtaposes what's happening on-screen.

          It creates (a sometimes hilarious) conflict in the scene. The character is ACTING one way, and THINKING something else.

          If your narration exists to add background info, or just more information about the character, there may be better ways to do it (like Strange said).

          Why don't you throw a few pages up in "Loglines and Script Pages," and we'll give you feedback?

          Comment


          • #6
            Watch Fight Club.

            Its based of a novel. It uses narration quite extensivly and really effectively.

            Appearantly the trick to using narration effectivly is to make sure that the narration does not advance the story. Use it only to provide insight by the character.

            Actually if you can watch the fight club DVD and listen commentary track by Chuck Palahniuk (author of book) and Jim Uhls (script). It's good. And Chuck gives a bit of insight on narration (he calls it big voice).


            Tossing out a longshot.. it wouldnt be invisible monsters that your adapting would it?

            Comment


            • #7
              Vindixion - you sound like a Palahniuk fan. Just got done with Choke, his newest, and it is every bit as perverse and awesome as his others. Get it.

              By they way, apparently Survivor is already being worked on by a prodco. I don't know about Invis. Most. but I know Choke has already been bought for adaptation. I say bring it on.

              Comment


              • #8
                Exterior shots of a character getting out of a taxi to enter a residence are scenes.

                Be careful of those. Those are transitions and unless you need the transition, or it imparts something important about a character or events, it's often something someone new to screenwriting just keeps putting in, unable to make jumps between scenes yet, trying instead to follow action in a linear way with no time gaps. The ability to leap time is one of script's advantages over other forms of writing. Try to take advantage of it.

                I don't like making all encompassing statements, but it sure sounds like you have too much narration happening. Lots of very good movies use it. Some even really depend on it. Blade Runner, for example, allegedly had the voice overs added after filming because it wasn't (according to someone or other) playing without the narrative voice overs. But it sounds like, here, you are relying too heavily on the source material. And I would strip all the voice overs out and see what you have left without them, whether the story plays at all or just makes no sense without them. If it makes no sense, you're not using your medium, film, to tell a story. You're using a monologue and that does not work in film, it works in prose. Which is probably why you like the book, but in an adaptation, you have to make the transition between the two mediums, you cannot just drag one into the other as is because one form usually won't stand on its own in a new medium, it has to be adapted to work within the new medium, to take advantage of the new medium's strengths, and to lose what, in the new medium, are weaknesses.

                Comment


                • #9
                  <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Video Review's Movies On Video<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> calls Kubrick's <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> The Killing<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> "One of the most tightly structured movies ever made!" By my count it has a burst of narration an average of every four minutes. On the other hand I have heard its use of dialog called its biggest flaw.

                  The exterior shot of the heroine getting out of the taxi, with luggage, is one of the first in the script. It is used to establish that she has been away and is not aware of what has been happening in the house. I think this is stronger than doing it with dialog later.

                  I really did not like <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Election<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> and do not remember much about it. As for <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Blade Runner<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, I like the version with narration better than the director's cut which does not have it. It may be that I got used to the narrated version over the years before the director's cut came out.

                  I'll try omitting the narration and see what is left. I probably will not get around to that for a couple of days.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X