bottomlesscup
“Never use voice-over.”
It’s one of the big non-rule rules. Sure, everybody says it with a bunch of qualifiers, but everybody says it: the gurus, the readers, and the generous “Script Pages” snipers at DD.
Well, I call bullsh1t.
I started thinking about the issue because I’m writing a script with VO, something I’ve never done before. It doesn’t need VO. I’m not even entirely sure why I used it. The words came easy and felt right.
I put some pages up at DD a while back and while it was generally praised (including the VO), everybody still had to get the anti-VO barbs in. “I hate voice-over, but…” etc.
Consider this: of imdb’s top 250 movies, at least 45 of them use VO. (I haven’t seen all of them and didn’t count incidental VO – like Obi-wan’s “Use the force, Luke.”) Nearly 20% of the greatest films of all time use this technique, yet it’s almost universally reviled.
What’s the deal? Why does everybody hate voice-over so much?
I’m guessing the first answer will be: “Because new writers misuse it so much and write crappy voice-over. “ No doubt about that. But you can say the same about dialogue, action lines, structure, character, and subtext. I don’t see anyone telling nubes not to write dialogue.
If they’re misusing the technique, they should be advised in how to use it properly, not told to abandon it. I reject the notion that VO is a “big kid toy” that new writer’s should keep their hands off. If amateurs seek to become professionals, they should aspire to master all the tools of screenwriting. To my mind, that includes voice-over.
If it just sucks, well, let’s face it: if you can’t write a decent VO, you probably can’t write a decent screenplay. This rule is of no genuine help to a naïve writer.
The second most common justification I see is that only certain, rare movies need voice-over. I agree, in part. Certainly, Die Hard has no use for it. But no one every tries to enumerate what these rare movies might be.
Look at “The Shawshank Redemption.” It’s one of the most beloved films in cinema history and uses a voice-over extensively. Does it need it? No As far as I can remember, the voice-over never directly reveals vital information. The basic storyline could easily be told without the VO. However, the voice-over dramatically improves the quality and tone of the film.
For instance, the Aria sequence is a simple scene fully explained by the music and the visuals. Even without the monologue, it would be a beautiful, cinematic scene. However, Freeman’s voice-over elevates the moment immensely, making it, in my opinion, one of the most moving scenes in one of the finest films ever. Had Darabont followed the rule and removed this “unnecessary” voice-over, the film would have been much worse.
(And don’t tell me, “Yeah, but we’re not Frank Darabont.” That’s a specious argument. Why even try to write if you accept that you’ll never be great?)
In most of those 45 movies, the VO is not strictly necessary. But in all of them, it adds to the quality of film. Not all movies can be improved with a voice-over, but some can. It’s a question of tone and choice.
So, I’m going to come right out and say it: Voice-over is a valuable tool. It can make a good script great. Aspiring writers would do well to master its use.
Debate away.
It’s one of the big non-rule rules. Sure, everybody says it with a bunch of qualifiers, but everybody says it: the gurus, the readers, and the generous “Script Pages” snipers at DD.
Well, I call bullsh1t.
I started thinking about the issue because I’m writing a script with VO, something I’ve never done before. It doesn’t need VO. I’m not even entirely sure why I used it. The words came easy and felt right.
I put some pages up at DD a while back and while it was generally praised (including the VO), everybody still had to get the anti-VO barbs in. “I hate voice-over, but…” etc.
Consider this: of imdb’s top 250 movies, at least 45 of them use VO. (I haven’t seen all of them and didn’t count incidental VO – like Obi-wan’s “Use the force, Luke.”) Nearly 20% of the greatest films of all time use this technique, yet it’s almost universally reviled.
What’s the deal? Why does everybody hate voice-over so much?
I’m guessing the first answer will be: “Because new writers misuse it so much and write crappy voice-over. “ No doubt about that. But you can say the same about dialogue, action lines, structure, character, and subtext. I don’t see anyone telling nubes not to write dialogue.
If they’re misusing the technique, they should be advised in how to use it properly, not told to abandon it. I reject the notion that VO is a “big kid toy” that new writer’s should keep their hands off. If amateurs seek to become professionals, they should aspire to master all the tools of screenwriting. To my mind, that includes voice-over.
If it just sucks, well, let’s face it: if you can’t write a decent VO, you probably can’t write a decent screenplay. This rule is of no genuine help to a naïve writer.
The second most common justification I see is that only certain, rare movies need voice-over. I agree, in part. Certainly, Die Hard has no use for it. But no one every tries to enumerate what these rare movies might be.
Look at “The Shawshank Redemption.” It’s one of the most beloved films in cinema history and uses a voice-over extensively. Does it need it? No As far as I can remember, the voice-over never directly reveals vital information. The basic storyline could easily be told without the VO. However, the voice-over dramatically improves the quality and tone of the film.
For instance, the Aria sequence is a simple scene fully explained by the music and the visuals. Even without the monologue, it would be a beautiful, cinematic scene. However, Freeman’s voice-over elevates the moment immensely, making it, in my opinion, one of the most moving scenes in one of the finest films ever. Had Darabont followed the rule and removed this “unnecessary” voice-over, the film would have been much worse.
(And don’t tell me, “Yeah, but we’re not Frank Darabont.” That’s a specious argument. Why even try to write if you accept that you’ll never be great?)
In most of those 45 movies, the VO is not strictly necessary. But in all of them, it adds to the quality of film. Not all movies can be improved with a voice-over, but some can. It’s a question of tone and choice.
So, I’m going to come right out and say it: Voice-over is a valuable tool. It can make a good script great. Aspiring writers would do well to master its use.
Debate away.