Narratives?

Uncool.

The audience is smarter than you'd think. Mamet says to let them figure out where they are and what's going on by the situation and the surroundings. As long as the situation and its conflict are interesting, the suspense of not quite knowing what's going on will hold them for a little while. Then you have to feed them just enough information to make them want to know what happens next.

And Billy Wilder said let the audience put two and two together to make four, they will love you for it. Or words to that effect.

If you know me so well, you would already know my take on it..

In case you don't...

Just like telling a joke. If you have to explain it, it ain't working.

Have you broken

a leg?


Seriously, answer the question.





(and I'll just die if they have.)




No?
WELL THEN DITCH THE CRUTCH!!!!!

Seriously.
Look yourself in your writer's eye and ask WHY am I considering VO?
WHY do I feel the audience needs to know this stuff? Can they figure it out any other way? Is it VITAL to the story? What does it actually change in act 2? In act 3? Does it have anything to do with the inciting incident? Or the twist? Does it change how my characters will react to anything? IF I take any of that info out do I actually lose anything VITAL?
Imagine the sound goes bad right as the movie starts. BLURP, first three minutes of your film, SILENT. Your VO gone. Have they actually lost a part of the story?

Just like in the Flashback thread, most of the time what matters to the story is how people are living NOW, at that moment. So, what may have been going on three days before your story REALLY starts is in the past. Leave it there. If it is VITAL to the story then reference it a bit later when it can REALLY pack a punch.

Like maybe if a Husband and wife are arguing and she says "I'm done. I want you gone." and he says "Baby, I was gone three days ago. It's just taken me this long to pack my DVDs."

(Okay, that was really lame, but) hopefully you get the point.

Are you thinking, "Stand By Me," or old black and white detective mysteries which illustrate what the character is thinking? Those don't only use it for the introduction, though. You may want to remain consistent throughout, if you're going to use it. Look to other projects that used it effectively, and did not, if you can. Is there something similar that has been done before and worked well?

dawg - your first question should have been - should i be writing and setting up the sequel now?

my answer:
hello, NO!

and 2nd, is that a good reason to have VO?

again... hello, NO!


p.s. - not only are westerns a hard sell the sequel has got to be 100 times more difficult to sell. you'll have to write the best you possibly can with this one. and how many westerns are good enough to have sequels? and those that are good enough know to leave it alone!!!

anyhoo - sequels are for tentpole flicks

Some of the greatest movies of all time have started with voiceovers. The Big Lebowski's opening monologue is a superb introduction to the rambling nature of the film. Fight Club kept the voiceover running all the way through but used it to very good effect in the opening scene. Casablanca opened with a voiceover explaining the background. Adaptation, written by one of Hollywood's greatest living screenwriters, not only started with a voiceover but featured this exchange:

KAUFMAN (V.O.)
It is my weakness, my ultimate lack of
conviction that brings me here with all
these desperate idiots lapping up
everything this bag of wind spouts. Easy
answers. Rules to short-cut yourself to
success. And here I am, because my jaunt
into the abyss brought me nothing. Well,
isn't that the risk one takes for
attempting something new. I should leave
here right now. I'll start over --
(starts to rise)
I need to face this project head on and --

MCKEE
... and God help you if you use voice-
over in your work, my friends.

Kaufman stops, looks up, startled. McKee seems to be looking
at him.

MCKEE
God fucking help you! It's flaccid,
sloppy writing. Any idiot can write
voice-over narration to explain the
thoughts of a character. You must
present the internal conflicts of your
character in image, in symbol. Film is a
medium of movement and image.

Click to expand...

That, right there, is genius. But then, I think that whole film is genius. If I ever write half as well as Charlie Kaufman I'll be a happy man, I don't care if it sells.

So in summary, I think the evidence suggests there's absolutely nothing wrong with using voiceover as long as it tells the story. There's also no reason to use it if it doesn't tell the story. Don't worry about what's cool and what isn't. Tell the story.

It's not a question of never using VO. It's a question of using VO to explain something that doesn't need to be explained. It's precisely this use of VO that's discouraged.

Other uses can be taken on a case by case basis.

In a western, because it's set historically, it would be a simple matter to set time and place.

How 'bout the main character passes a rustic sign post pointing the way to Deadwood, etc. to set place. Mention of one of the several wars ending, or Indian Chief's death should set the time.

Jest a suggestion, there Jebediah.

My point is, we don't know that it doesn't need to be explained. The information might be better inserted into the narrative, but it might be perfectly suited to an opening voiceover. Voiceover is a stylistic decision as well as an expository one.

I'm with McDuff...do it if that's how you want to do it.

Like it or not, V.O. narration in a newbie script is taken as a warning sign of newbie-ness... 'cause more often than not, it's either done badly and/or is completely superfluous.

But if you insist--

It has to be interesting as hell (content, as well as character voice).

It has to tell us something we don't know (no need to explain what we're already seeing... we're already seeing it!).

It has to be short enough to stay within the audience's attention span.

If possible, compliment it with striking visuals. Just for example's sake, the V.O. at the beginning of Underworld is tedious as hell and totally unnecessary, explaining the war and recent history between the vampires and the Lycans:

imdb.com said:

The war had all but ground to a halt in the blink of an eye. Lucian, the most feared and ruthless leader ever to rule the Lycan clan, had finally been killed. The Lycan horde scattered to the wind in a single evening of flame and retribution. Victory, it seemed, was in our grasp, the very birthright of the vampires. Nearly six centuries had passed since that night, yet the ancient feud proved unwilling to follow Lucian to the grave. Though Lycans were fewer in number, the war itself had become more perilous, for the moon no longer held her sway. Older, more powerful Lycans, were now able to change at will. The weapons had evolved, but our orders remained the same: Hunt them down and kill them off, one by one. A most successful campaign. Perhaps too successful. For those like me, a Death Dealer, this signaled the end of an era. Like the weapons of the previous century, we, too, would become obsolete. Pity, because I lived for it.

Click to expand...

Good grief, will you just look at that steaming pile of horse poop! Yap yap yap yap yap, BO-O-O-ORI-I-I-ING! And most of this info becomes apparent during the film anyway so what's the point of choking the audience with a load of stuff that makes no sense? Then again, Kate Beckinsdale delivers this backstory -- ooh, nice seductive voice! -- and at the same time the audience sees shots of Kate (and her shapely butt) in shiny black leather, intercut with some dangerous-looking dudes looking alert and expecting trouble from the watching vamps. Interesting visuals which distracted from the overlong narration, is all I'm saying.

Anyways... you're writing a Western. What length of intro V.O. does a Western need? Maybe a title card would do instead? e.g.

imdb.com said:

Where life had no value, death, sometimes, had its price. That is why the bounty killers appeared. (For a Few Dollars More)

Click to expand...

Shrug, just an idea. Use the Force, it will guide you. (Do your own funky thing, don't let my opinion of V.O.s stop you.)

-Derek

A superimpose on the first scene will establish where and when.

SUPER: CACTUS GULCH, 1876.

First Movie-

ANGLE ON: CACTUS GULCH SIGN

"Cactus Gulch - Est. 1876, Population"

Population gunshot- there are distinctive shotgun holes where the numbers should be.

Second Movie-

ANGLE ON: CACTUS GULCH SIGN

"Cactus Gulch - Est. 1876, Population"

Population gunshot- there are MORE distinctive shotgun holes, still where the numbers should be.

For research, compare the dullness of the Underworld prologue to the opening of Casablanca:

With the coming of the Second World War, many eyes in imprisoned Europe turned hopefully, or desperately, toward the freedom of the Americas. Lisbon became the great embarkation point. But not everyone could get to Lisbon directly, and so, a tortuous, roundabout refugee trail sprang up. Paris to Marseilles, across the Mediteranean to Oran, then by train, or auto, or foot, across the rim of Africa to Casablanca in French Morocco. Here, the fortunate ones, through money, or influence, or luck, might obtain exit visas and scurry to Lisbon, and from Lisbon to the New World. But the others wait in Casablanca -- and wait -- and wait -- and wait.

Click to expand...

For a start it's shorter. Secondly it's much better written, much more lyrical. Thirdly it's the "correct" use of backstory, establishing the huge and epic backdrop against which the personal stories of the characters in the movie takes place.

Agreed, tho' that's from 1942 and "real world" content would resonate with wartime audiences. It's also got a map (or is it a globe?) as a visual aid, hasn't it?

-Derek