Voice over or character talking to camera?...

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Voice over or character talking to camera?...

    First of all, I'd just like to say hi to everyone and that I just recently disocovered this board - and I hope to contribute as much as possible in the future. Great forum, by the way.

    I'm currently writing a spec script with a friend of mine. At the end of our script, it's revealed that the enitre story was just that - a story. Our main character has been recounting the last month or so of his life to a class of high school kids. This is pivotal to both our story and our main character's development.

    Now I know when writing a spec the use of voice overs is some what looked down upon (if handled poorly) and I don't want it to come off like we're trying to go the cheap route and TELL some of our characters thoughts rather than SHOW them. But since this is a "story" being told, I figured it almost necessary to at least hint at that our main character is narrating every so often, so when we get to the end it's not like, "oh yeah, this was all a story."

    We have the voice overs placed randomly and use them only minimally. So, to my original question: Under the circumstances, is OK to go this route and have these voice overs as long as they serve a purpose - OR - should we go the route of Ferris Bueller and the Alfie remake and have our main character talk to the audience every so often - like he's talking to the "class" but still in these moments (I'm guessing the latter may not go over well with this being a spec script and all).

    An example from our script (We used "ED'S VOICE" as opposed to "ED (V.O.)"):
    ____________________________________

    "As Ed finally brings his car to a lull, so goes his performance. It doesnâ€TMt need an audience. Instead, he finds himself a member of one.

    EDâ€TMS VOICE
    In our daily commutes, there is not a more tempting curiosity than to glance at the driver in the car next to us.

    Ed eases his gaze to the left. Casually obvious.

    EDâ€TMS VOICE
    And there is not a more impulsive hope than for this person to be an attractive member of the opposite sex.

    A glance and a look away. A little too long on the former.

    EDâ€TMS VOICE
    And if this hope is rewarded...

    He canâ€TMt help but look back.

    EDâ€TMS VOICE
    ... there is not a more whimsical desire than to want something more to come of this glance.

    Singing her heart out in a black â€-67 Mustang, is more than just a beautiful face..."
    ____________________________________

    Or would this work with Ed sitting in his car, talking to the audience while he performed these actions? Or are both ways just detracting?

    I would really appreciate the feedback and sorry for the long first post.

    Thanks!

    - Ted

  • #2
    Voice-over can be used very effectively. It should just not be a lazy man's crutch. If you do use voice-over, I suggest that you stick with ED (V.O.) instead of ED'S VOICE.

    Speaking directly to the camera is almost never a good technique.

    By the way, welcome to the board.

    Comment


    • #3
      I personally don't think having a character breaking the fourth wall (addressing the audience) is a good way to go. When an actor looks straight into the camera, all it does is remind the audience that this is a movie, and it takes you out of the story. I don't know your story, so it may work in yours... I can't tell you.

      As for voice overs, don't use ED'S VOICE as a way of pretending that it isn't really a voice over. If it's a voice over, just say so: ED (V.O.)

      Welcome to Done Deal, and good luck.

      Comment


      • #4
        Everything should be carefully crafted and placed so it serves a purpose, which makes me scratch my head when you say the voice overs occur "randomly".

        I'm sure you don't mean "random" but just in case you do, you should be sure they a re not random, nothing in the story is random, it all happens to serve the specific intentions of the writer and specific needs of the story in order to manipulate the audience how the writer wants and when the writer wants it so the audience experiences the story exactly as the writer desires them to.

        <steps off soap box>

        Back to your question.

        Films like Saving Private Ryan, Confidence, Rashomon and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance all manage to tell us a "story" without needing to remind us we are hearing the character's story by the use of VO. So if that is your only reason for using VO I would suggest it is not a good enough reason and you should fin another way to make it clear that we are being told a story by the character.

        If however you are using the VO to make the audience bond with and share the narrating character's POV, to give the audience an understanding and insight to the story and characters that would not exist without the VO and are using the VO to add another layer to the character and story that would not exist without the VO and not using it to simply repeat what is already being seen/heard -- then you have the right reasons and approach to use VO effectively.

        HTH

        Good luck!

        Comment


        • #5
          Yeah, when I meant "randomly" I meant there was no pattern as far as when we placed them in the script technically - like they're not at the first of every 3 scenes or something like that. We're only using them when either A) there isn't a better way to get our info across, or B) it moves the story forward and is relevant.

          I really appreciate the quick feedback - everything said so far was very helpful. This why I love this board. Thanks again!

          Comment


          • #6
            And yeah, I'll switch it to "ED (V.O.)." I just got done reading Cameron Crowe's latest, "Elizabethtown" (which is amazing, by the way) and he uses "DREW'S VOICE" and I just liked the way it worked. But yeah, I guess that's the difference between Cameron Crowe (who can do what he wants) and me, a specster.

            Comment


            • #7
              we go over this all the time, and i'm going to try to make a salient, informed point.

              voice over is used by newbies because it is an easy way to flush out a story. it's natural for us to talk through a character as opposed to creating the enviroment.

              the main reason why vo is looked upon as a anchor for new screenwrites is the fact that they don't now how to maximize it's potential. that's pretty much it.

              it just grew from fact. the fact is, amany spec scripts use voice over and when it's use they don't add to the story, it just repeats it.

              to this very day, i still use it as a tool to to flush out my characters. point of fact. my very first script i had the character talking in voice over for like two pages straight. later on, some of it became dialogue.

              i think the first rule is that the voice over should not retel what is going on in camera but should adhance to the character by telling a story within the story.

              i love voice over, and love dozens of moives that use it. also, i think genre plays a big role.

              vig

              Comment

              Working...
              X