Voice over or character talking to camera?...

[Ted Smith]

First of all, I'd just like to say hi to everyone and that I just recently disocovered this board (along with Done Deal) - and I hope to contribute as much as possible in the future.

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 doesn’t need an audience. Instead, he finds himself a member of one.

ED’S 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.

ED’S 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.

ED’S VOICE
And if this hope is rewarded...

He can’t help but look back.

ED’S 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 ‘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

[maestrowork]

Either way, as long as you're consistent.

In "Scrubs," they use V.O. almost incessantly.

Talking directly to camera is a little unusual, and reminds people of a play, when the character directly addresses the audience. It might not work too well if you're trying to tell a story here, then at the end reveals that it was a "flashback." It's more intrusive, I think, then V.O.

[Ted Smith]

Thanks, very helpful. I forgot about how Scrubs uses the VO so frequently. I'll pay attention more now and see how they use it effectively. And yeah, I've always been wary of a character talking to the camera. Just trying to a confirming opinion. Thanks again.

[Writing Again]

I'm personally leery of the premise.

The "It was all just a story" ending smacks too much of the "It was all just a dream" ending that angers me.

And no, it did not work in the Wizard of Oz either. That made me angry even as a little kid. Ruined the movie for me.

[maestrowork]

I didn't have a problem with the Wizard of Oz -- the story itself was riveting and full of "good morals." But Alice in Wonderland? I wasn't sure what the whole point of the story was... even when I was a kid. I was actually scared of that movie.

[Ted Smith]

It's not like the big surprise of the script is that the whole thing has been a story. There's not some big revelation where we go, "And GET THIS... this whole thing was just a story!" The script simply deals with someone recounting the last month of his life to a class of students. It's going to be obvious from the get go he's narrating his own story. It's just that WHO he's narrating to can't be revealed until the end - it's crucial to his ultimate character development.

Sorry it "angered" you, Writing Again. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go get "mad" at other people's ideas...

[NikeeGoddess]

this is what's called THE FOURTH WALL
it's been done on Ferris Bueller's Day Off
and Bernie Mac does it

[certified instigator]

Several fine example of produced movies and TV shows.

But what about a spec script? I, too, wonder if something like this is best left for the second script AFTER the first is sold.

[joecalabre]

I found that the rules governing spec scripts are very much different than reality.

Sure, many produced films have voice overs, flashbacks, long tracks of dialog, but in a spec script, readers seem to think they are signs of an amateur. This is because most new writers do them in place of good storytelling. The just don't do it for the right reasons.

Unfortunately, this puts up a red flag and from that point on, the reader may be reading your work with a suspicious eye.

Does this mean we shouldn't do it?

No. Of course not.

If it is the best way of getting something across and it doesn't't look like a cheap cop out, then do it. If it's good, it will shine through.

Keep in mind though that some readers (especially contest readers and agencies) may be turned off to your story before you get a chance to wow them. Prejudice goes a long way in this industry.

[Ted Smith]

I appreciate the feedback guys. We're still trying to figure out which way to go - whether to use the VO or not. But this helps a lot. Thanks.