Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Excessive Voiceover Gives You Cancer

Voiceovers in fiction need to be stopped. We hear voiceovers all the time in media, from an unseen newsreader speaking over video for a story, to Voice of God James Earl Jones pitching CNN and Verizon Wireless, to Daniel Stern going over his life story on The Wonder Years. It is this last type of voiceover that I don't like (although I'm not wild about Darth Vader pitching products either). Obviously, voiceovers in news, sports, and commercials are an integral element of their genres, but the VO in fiction is a symptom of lazy writing and acting.

In the memoir subgenre, (Wonder Years, Fried Green Tomatoes, My Name Is Earl), voiceovers are almost universally used. Here is a made-up example of what I'm talking about: picture a kid at a funeral. The camera zooms in on the kid's face as the narrator says, "The day my father died, I realized that I had to be the man of the house now. My mother and my younger brothers would need me, now more than ever. My childhood was over."

The writer is overexplaining a scene that we probably figured out already. Let the actors act. You don't have to beat the audience over the head with what you are trying to say. With the character's expressions and actions (and good point-of-view camera work), the audience will get the idea.

Also, voiceover speeches easily veer into the cloying, maudlin, Hallmark Card sentimentality that I despise with every fiber of my being. Watch an episode of Desperate Housewives (force yourself). The narration by the deceased character Mary Alice Young is sappy and wince-inducing. Now imagine the same episode without this jibber-jabber. You would still understand all the plot points. Rarely would a joke be diminished. The voiceover adds nothing to the enjoyment of the show. It actually detracts. Some might say that if the woman narrating (Brenda Strong) were a better actress, or if the dialogue were better, then the voiceover wouldn't be a problem. I disagree. Strong's acting isn't the problem, and the writing, while lame, isn't the worst part. Meryl Streep could be reading incredibly eloquent lines but it would still be a distraction from the sound and motion of the onscreen characters. Shut up and let the actors and director tell the story.

Blade Runner is a famous example of bad voiceover being excised from the director's cut of a movie. Director Ridley Scott and star Harrison Ford always disliked the omniscient dialogue Ford was forced to do. It overexplained things we already figured out, and sounded like a distracting parody of old detective movies. Removing this track from the director's cut, Scott proved the voiceover narration was an unnecessary element. Other lesser film and television producers should follow his example.

Am I saying that voiceover never works? Of course not. It is used to great effect in American Psycho, for example. The only filmmaker I can think of who consistently makes VO work is Martin Scorsese, who masterfully uses the technique in Goodfellas and Casino. But Scorsese is a genius. He also employs slow-mo and music montages, two of the most tired gimmicks in cinema, and makes them fresh and interesting, which is just short of miraculous. So my advice to film and tv creators, if your name isn't Martin Scorsese, give voiceover a rest.