Here in Sweden there is an over reliance on voice over in animated films, and its done to the degree that, if you would turn of the sound when watching them, you'd have no idea of what was going on. All of the story is told in the voice over, the animation and visuals are only in the films to give some visual stimulation to the audience while they listen to the voice over telling them the story. You could say that most Swedish animation is illustrated radio rather than film.
So, do I think that voice over is bad? Absolutely not. But filmmaking is a collaboration, not only between people, but mainly between the different storytelling elements and tools used in the film. I wrote in a previous article about how 1 + 1 can equal 3, and this applies to everything in a film. You can communicate a stronger message by making signs/storytelling elements work in synergy or in contrast than they would do alone. If you let one of the storytelling elements starts overshadowing the rest, you lose the chance of it working together with other elements.
If you feel that your films message would strengthen with a voice over, start by thinking about who the narrator is. The most used, but in my opinion the hardest to do well, is the storyteller narrator. With the storyteller narrator the voice over comes from someone outside of the story, like someone reading the story from a book. In the storyteller narration it's often hard not to repeat what is already seen in the images. One way of approaching it is, since it is narrated like someone reading it from a book, to treat it like it is read from a book. There are things that are easier to communicate in written form than in images or sound effects. You can utilize this to your advantage.
Sensory sensations like heat, smell, taste etc. can be hard to communicate in film. Using narration with sensory based metaphors to strengthen visual elements (like "he stepped out and the thick, warm air hit him in the face..." or "The food tasted like it smelled, like five time regurgitated bile") or the characters emotions ("His mouth was dry" or "Butterflies fluttered around in her belly" or "The sight made her blood boil.") allows you to let the narration work in synergy with the visuals so that they together communicate a stronger message.
Another option in voice over is to use an unreliable narrator. An unreliable narrator is a character who is part of the story, either as main character or closely connected to her, who retells the events from her point of view. Because we as humans newer can comprehend 100% of what happens in a situation, our view of what has happened will only be correct from our point of view not from other people, that makes every one of us unreliable to retell an event alone.
Using an unreliable narrator generally works in two ways, either the same situation is told several times from different points of views or by, what I enjoy more in a film, letting the narration retell the story from the characters point of view and contrasting this with the images showing what really happened. Like, for example, having a beautiful romantic poem read in the voice over while the visuals showing a dark man hiding in the shadows while following a woman. Another example of use of an unreliable narrator is in Forrest Gump, where Forrest retells his life from his point of view and the images show us what really happened. I think contrasting elements like this generally creates a stronger effect on the audience by creating a lacuna, or gap, between the storytelling elements, this lacuna creates room in the film for the audience to participate in the story in a way that is hard to do when letting the elements convey the same message or making them work in synergy.
Using voice over can be a great tool, but it can also be abused. The most important rule to remember is to not let the voice over retell what you can already see in the images. When you're making animation you can get away with doing this, but try to think of your film as being live action instead. Would the voice over work even if the film was live action? If not, don't do it in animation either just because you can get away with a sloppy execution in the medium.
Although the best way to communicate a message is to make it clear and easy to understand, it is not about being simplistic. The line between being simple and simplistic is blurry, but as a general rule: Being simplistic is about you and how you can get away with less work, and being simple is about your audience and how to communicate the message to them as clearly as possible.
Thank you for taking your time,
Peter Hertzberg
So, do I think that voice over is bad? Absolutely not. But filmmaking is a collaboration, not only between people, but mainly between the different storytelling elements and tools used in the film. I wrote in a previous article about how 1 + 1 can equal 3, and this applies to everything in a film. You can communicate a stronger message by making signs/storytelling elements work in synergy or in contrast than they would do alone. If you let one of the storytelling elements starts overshadowing the rest, you lose the chance of it working together with other elements.
If you feel that your films message would strengthen with a voice over, start by thinking about who the narrator is. The most used, but in my opinion the hardest to do well, is the storyteller narrator. With the storyteller narrator the voice over comes from someone outside of the story, like someone reading the story from a book. In the storyteller narration it's often hard not to repeat what is already seen in the images. One way of approaching it is, since it is narrated like someone reading it from a book, to treat it like it is read from a book. There are things that are easier to communicate in written form than in images or sound effects. You can utilize this to your advantage.
Sensory sensations like heat, smell, taste etc. can be hard to communicate in film. Using narration with sensory based metaphors to strengthen visual elements (like "he stepped out and the thick, warm air hit him in the face..." or "The food tasted like it smelled, like five time regurgitated bile") or the characters emotions ("His mouth was dry" or "Butterflies fluttered around in her belly" or "The sight made her blood boil.") allows you to let the narration work in synergy with the visuals so that they together communicate a stronger message.
Another option in voice over is to use an unreliable narrator. An unreliable narrator is a character who is part of the story, either as main character or closely connected to her, who retells the events from her point of view. Because we as humans newer can comprehend 100% of what happens in a situation, our view of what has happened will only be correct from our point of view not from other people, that makes every one of us unreliable to retell an event alone.
Using an unreliable narrator generally works in two ways, either the same situation is told several times from different points of views or by, what I enjoy more in a film, letting the narration retell the story from the characters point of view and contrasting this with the images showing what really happened. Like, for example, having a beautiful romantic poem read in the voice over while the visuals showing a dark man hiding in the shadows while following a woman. Another example of use of an unreliable narrator is in Forrest Gump, where Forrest retells his life from his point of view and the images show us what really happened. I think contrasting elements like this generally creates a stronger effect on the audience by creating a lacuna, or gap, between the storytelling elements, this lacuna creates room in the film for the audience to participate in the story in a way that is hard to do when letting the elements convey the same message or making them work in synergy.
Using voice over can be a great tool, but it can also be abused. The most important rule to remember is to not let the voice over retell what you can already see in the images. When you're making animation you can get away with doing this, but try to think of your film as being live action instead. Would the voice over work even if the film was live action? If not, don't do it in animation either just because you can get away with a sloppy execution in the medium.
Although the best way to communicate a message is to make it clear and easy to understand, it is not about being simplistic. The line between being simple and simplistic is blurry, but as a general rule: Being simplistic is about you and how you can get away with less work, and being simple is about your audience and how to communicate the message to them as clearly as possible.
Thank you for taking your time,
Peter Hertzberg
Comments
Post a Comment