OK, so, first things first: let’s define a voiceover…
Non-diegetic narration – that is, dialogue without a visible onscreen source…
voiced over images…
A character’s interior monologue – direct address, present tense…
Or maybe their past recollections…
Perhaps from a diary or journal…
Or it could be a second party discussing another character.
OR… a narrator totally OUTSIDE the world of the story…
Who’s maybe even OMNISCIENT…
Hmm, this is more complicated than I thought.
Why didn’t I just do a Wes Anderson video like everybody else?
OK, here we go – the old “show-don’t-tell” argument.
But isn’t this is just a defensive distancing from its literary forefathers, forgetting
that cinema is actually a hybrid art form?
I mean, criticisms of “flaccid, sloppy writing”, they actually object to lazy exposition in
general, which can just as easily come from dialogue…
Besides, voiceover exposition has been highly innovative…
‘Yeah, but it’s still “uncinematic,”’ some wise guy will say.
‘Think of Blade Runner’s terrible, pseudo-hardboiled detective voiceover in the original that they
later retired.’
OK, Blade Runner is a fair point – this is how you ruin an iconic cinematic moment:
And this is how you save it:
there, much more eloquent…
And on the other hand, what about, say, The Shawshank Redemption?
If I strip out Morgan Freeman’s narration from its cathartic ending, and just leave
the music…
It still works.
But if I put the narration back in…
More powerful, right?
I’d even say, “more cinematic”…
Which is kind of obvious, if you look at voiceover as just another aural element to interact
with, and enhance, a film’s audiovisual potential.
Good, glad that’s settled.
[Excuse me.
Don’t forget to look at other types of voiceover.]
Oh.
You mean, more subversive, self-aware usage, multiple voices, that kind of thing?
[Yes, exactly.]
Sure, sure, that’s coming up in part two.
But thanks for the reminder.
[You’re welcome!]
Jeez, tough crowd…