“A Defense—and History—of Voice-Over Narration” by Sarah Kozloff

The part about “lecturers” is interesting. I always thought the first silent films had intertitles. I did not know “lecturers” existed.

Kozloff’s use of the narration in Bladerunner is an interesting example. I watched part of it (maybe all of it-I can’t remember) when I was in middle school, and I was somewhat lost. I wonder if it was the director’s cut.

Invisible Storytellers: Voice-over Narration in American Fiction Film by Sarah Kozloff

“downright quirky” (p. 2)

When I read Kozloff’s description of “authorial” and “character” narration, I thought of the booming voice in Transformers,  “BEFORE TIME BEGAN…” And then that made me think of the narrator in the opening seen of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. I am not going to make a statement about the quality of these movies, but I think critics of narration get there ammunition from movies like these.

The fact that Kozloff wrote a book about voice-over narration means she must be passionate about narration. She writes in “A Defense—and History—of Voice-Over Narration” that more people have attacked the use of voice-over narration than have defended it. Maybe she wants to remind people that filmmaking is not all about the visual aspects.

From what Kozloff writes, it seems like people object to narration because of their ideas of what film should do. A director who is all about the visual aspects of filmmaking might view narration as a cop out, as Kozloff shows with the quote of McKee’s Story. If a director thinks that a film should tell an engaging story, he or she might use narration when it helps this purpose.

I have watched countless movies with voice-over narration, but it is hard for me to remember whether a particular movie has voice-over narration or not. I did not even realize that Dr. Strangelove has voice-over narration until I saw it on Jentery’s list. I forgot that Fightclub is narrated by the protagonist until I read the reference to it in Kozloff’s article. It is so common I never think about it.

Right now, I have in my possession three movies with voice over narration: Dr. Strangelove, American Beauty, and SLC Punk. I have only watched Dr. Strangelove so I do not know which one I want to analyze yet.

When reading these two texts by Kozloff, I can say that I learned a lot about the concept of Voice-over Narration. Of course, I have seen films that use this technique, but I have never really thought that deeply about the artistic side of it, and how it could essencially ‘make or break’ a movie. Here are some notes I took as a general overview of what I found important in the texts:

• “Adding voice-over narration to a film creates a fascinating dance between pose and actuality, words and image, narration and drama, voice and ‘voice’” <<This quote gives the concept quite a dramatic twist, something good to think about.

• “By applying ‘literary’ narrative theory to film, I hope both to further our understanding of cinematic narrative’s specific characteristics and to test the universality of several key types of contermporary critical lore”<< I think that this demonstrates Kozloff’s position on the idea of voice-over. She wants for us to not only understand it, but also embrace it.
• Definition of Voice Over Narration: (Gives me a deeper understanding of what it really means!!)

  Voice– the medium, we must hear someone speaking

  Over- pertains to the relationship between the source of the sound and the images on the screen. The voice comes from another time and space

  Narration- Relates to the content of the speech: someone is in the act of communicating a narrative—that is, recounting a series of events to an audience

• “Verb tense provides crucial clues as to the difference between a narration or simply thinking out loud (these are two different things)”<<I think this is a very valid point. Simply thinking out loud shows a less artistic side in my opinion. With a narration there should be a purpose or motive behind the words, not simply to fill time or awkward transitions.

• Complete Narratives break down to six elements: (This once again helps me to understand the concept in a more organized way)

  1. The abstract- a short summary of the story that is about to be provided
  2. The orientation- identification of time, place, characters, and activities
  3. The complicating action- the unfolding of the story’s events
  4. The Resolution- the climax
  5. The evaluation- commentary of the point of the story
  6. The Coda- and epilogue, often bridging the gap between story time and the time of narration

• Argues that voice over can convey important information or creates a special, intimate relationship with the viewer.<<This is a great argument by Kozloff. I agree that it is easy to have a more intimant relation to the character if we are hearing what is “inside their head”. This is a great way for a film-maker to draw an audience in and really get them submerssed in the film in my opinion.

• “The technique would not have been used so often and would not be so worthy of our attention if it never soared”<<Once again great point. I have seen many successfully made movies that I enjoyed involving the voice-over technique. Why then do so many people argue it? I dont understand this. Like my last comment, I believe it is a great way to connect an audience to a character when done correctly. It has had success, so therefore it can’t be all that bad can it?

• “A fallback charge against voice-over narration is that using it is insulting to the audience. Voice-over narration is suspect because it is a means of “telling” rather than “showing.” “Telling” is judged as a mark of laziness and/or condescension.”<< This is a contrasting point that I can also agree with to some reasoning. All through school so far, all of my english teachers have stressed the point that when expressing our ideas we should show and not tell. On the other hand, in a film, we have the visuals to go along with what is being said, which I think could be enough to get the point accross. This is a point I would be interested to hear others opinons on.

After taking all of these notes and analyzing the reading, I have to say I found this concept of voice-over narration to be quite interesting. At first I could not think of specific movies that fit the criteria, but after reading there are a few that jumped out at me. Clueless is a movie I have always loved, and so I think it would be interesting to work with. Although the main character Cher is a prissy valley girl (a stereo type many are disgusted by) I think this is what makes the movie interesting. Her mindset is completely different than most, and it would be fun to uncover more behind this movie. A couple others I am considering are American Beauty and About a Boy, two other great movies in my opinion.

The first text by Kozloff, the introduction, attempts to define voice-over narration at both a literal and exemplary standpoint. The ‘voice’ quite simply means spoken by a human. ‘Over’ is defined by the fact that the ‘voice’ cannot be seen on camera in that scene or any scene by that matter. The ‘voice’ is speaking from another “time and space”, so it is technically reviewing ‘over’ the scene. Finally, narration involves describing the scene, usually done before the scene takes place, to provide context for what the viewer is about to witness. Also, the narrating usually involves using the past tense, the past tense conveys an assurance, and not a possibility.

It is interesting to note, that in the introduction, Kozloff states that the cinema is the youngest form of storytelling, while oral anecdotes are the oldest, most commonly used forms of storytelling. The combination of the two provide a link from one generation to the next. The voice-over technique began in the thirties so it is by now means a new idea. It also points to the fact that a large number of movie-goers don’t realize it’s there until someone brings up it after the movie, or in our case, we have to study its prevalence and siginificance in a class!

The way I reacted to these two texts was mainly with compliance and epiphany. There were many parts of her text, where I found myself saying “Oh yeah!” or “Is that what it is?” Two shows that came to mind while reading Kozloff’s work were “The Wonder Years” and “Arrested Development”. Aside from the humorous nostalgia that came to my mind, I asked myself a question that Kozloff asks in her text: “If I took the narrator out, would the show change? And if it did change, would it be for the better or for the worse?” I found in both cases that the show would be much worse. There are parts when the narrator will complete a sentence that a character begins, simply because the character in that scene chose to halt his or her sentence on the basis of either a brain fart or a desire to hide something. In that situation, when the narrator finishes that sentence off with the truth, there is a moment of brilliance, and it can make any viewer laugh or cry depending on the scene, because you know, but several characters within the scene do not know.

So what does it come down to? Why debate the presence of voice-over narration? Kozloff defends voice-over narration because there are so many critics opposed to its use. They feel that the technique draws away from the art of cinema, saying that it is “a cheap shortcut, the last resort of the incompetent”. How voice-over narration taints the art of cinema is by “telling” the viewer of certain emotions or events that “should be shown” through methods such as point of view, editing, pantomime, or facial expressions.

I see cinema as a culmination of many major art forms such as photography, literature, music, theater, dance, etc. In that respect, it is an enhanced art form borne from the previous art forms. Therefore, applying the ancient art form of oral story-telling can only help the objective of the modern movie. If the deception and creativity of the director or screenplay writer is questioned, the discretion of what they put it in or how much they reveal to the viewer should be the point of debate.

Does voice-over narration affect your interpretation of the film piece? I feel no, because the point of voice-over narration is to enhance, either through providing context or adding entertainment value. However, how you watch the movie depends on who is telling the story. Two major methods of voice-over narration are first-person reflection and third person omniscient. In the case of the former, I tend to always look beyond what the main character is saying, simply because the movie is geared towards his or her perspective. Regarding the latter method, I see the “all-knowing” narrator as only giving me the right clues to basing opinions on which characters I like or dislike. Kozloff supports this argument when she says the voice-over narration creates “a special, intimate relationship with the viewer”. A movie should immerse its audience. That’s why I think people made inventions like the IMAX, or surround sound; people want movies to be increasingly more of an experience. The narrator adds that feature, and while it’s not included in all movies, its purpose is to make us feel more important, like we are really there, and the story-telling does cinema justice.

Two movies I think would be interesting to analyze are “Fight Club” and “L.A. Confidential”.

Notes on movies:

-Captions: a narrating device

-Flashbacks: off screen speech or interior monologue

-Voice-over narration: viewers hear someone recount of series of events from a time and space different from that simultaneously pictured

-Narrators: They can be a third person voice outside the story of events or a character/participant in the story world

 

                People might object to the use of voice-over narration because it takes away from the “cinema.”  The argument seems to be that movies have been trying to separate themselves from theater and literature and they do so by showing rather than telling.  The haters of narration think that it is the lazy way out.  That a producer or director that decides to include narration is not using their most artistic and creative abilities and is rather taking the easy way out.  I think in essence, the disapproval of narration stems from directors who are trying to turn an amusement, cinema, into an art.

                 Kozloff feels the need to defend voice-over narration because she sees how much it can add to a movie and not detract.  She says that voice-over narration is “no more or less inherently valuable or cinematic then any other element of film. And when this device is well-executed, it opens up inimitable avenues for filmmakers.”  I think she has a great point.  Narration is no different than great camera angles or intuitive lighting.  All of these elements are what make a good movie great.  Also, she explains how voice over really does add to a movie’s content especially historically.  A narrator is able to set the historical scene for the listener with the listener having to do background research just to watch their $13.00 movie.  In terms of business, the average customer does not go to the movies to see a work of art, rather they go for entertainment and escape.  They also don’t want to pay $13.00 to see a movie where they are lost because they don’t know the historical context. 

                I wouldn’t say that I am very familiar with voice-over narration.  I actually don’t really notice it and I am going to have to spend a few minutes thinking about movies……hold on…………. “Simon Burch,” “Clueless,” “Forrest Gump,” that’s all.  Kozloff’s writing did not really intersect with my familiarity except for her saying that most people don’t really think about narration.  I think that I am going to analyze “Simon Burch.”

In Sarah Kozloff’s text she explains the details, thought, and process of voiceover narration. Exactly how voiceover works and how it is more of an art in cinema than just a narration. The other text disagrees. It considers voiceover the least cinematic thing in movies. It states anyone can do voiceover. It’s really nothing. I think Sarah feels the need to support voiceover because she is adimate about how it adds to movies. She kind of explains it first and builds up to explain its importance and help in cinema. I have heard voice over but like she mentioned in the text we often don’t think of it. I’ve listened to seabiscuit, christmas story, the war and i can’t think of anyone else. Those are about the only ones and I really dont pay attention to it in movies.

I noticed an interesting connection between the two readings: both support the argument that voice-over narration (VON) is a return to tradition, a return to what was necessary before technological advances and creativity opened new doors. In the book introduction, Kozloff makes this observation explicitly when she writes, “Cinematic storytelling is one of the youngest, most technologically dependent, and most expensive forms of narration; oral storytelling, the most ancient, fundamental, and widely accessible. ‘Narrated’ films are hybrids – almost implying a mix of centuries and cultures. . .” In the article, she doesn’t directly address VON being a return to old methods; however, she discusses how “lecturers” narrated magic-lantern shows before film was invented, then narrated early films before movies had sound. The use of an off-screen, displaced narrator is a throwback to the original, live narrators.

This could be a reason film snobs reject VON: it’s too primitive. Kozloff writes, “What makes film distinct and special, these theorists argue, is its capacity to convey information nonverbally—through mise-en-scène, editing, camera movement, POV, facial expression or pantomime.” Because VON has its roots in a very basic and timeless medium, whereas so many of film’s visual techniques were never possible with live-action entertainment, technophiles may blindly conclude that visuals must be superior to VON.

Kozloff’s article lists many other reasons people reject VON. Film is inherently visual and has unique potential for subtle visual cues; as such, some critics feel that it should rely as little as possible on audio to relay information. Similarly, they believe that VON, by conveying information directly rather than subtly and indirectly, is crude and unartistic compared to visuals. They also feel that successfully using visuals to express information shows skill, requiring careful planning and coordination of scenes; VON is a cop-out, a means of getting away with choppy visual work. The VON opposition also complains that the technique perpetuates “ideological biases” by planting a certain image in the audience’s head.

Like Kozloff, I disagree with the anti-VON attitude. The viewpoint that film must emphasize visual over audio whenever possible, that using audio detracts from the real purpose of film, is very close-minded. In fact, it almost surprises me that, in a culture where people will accept just about anything as art, people would complain that using audio in film where visual could have been used is essentially “doing art wrong.” There is a place for films that rely almost exclusively on subtle visual cues, but that doesn’t mean there is no place for a different style of film that gives audio a greater role. As Kozloff demonstrates, VON has not only practical but also artistic potential – for instance, it can “add a level of poetry to a movie.”

Besides, film snobs may delude themselves, but cinema isn’t just about art – it’s about entertainment. Movies are like food or music: there are people who want to savor a very high-quality, subtle, artistic experience, and then there are people who just want cheap thrills. Many people don’t care if a director masterfully conveyed layers of meaning through the most delicate of visual cues. They won’t even notice that. If the movie doesn’t make them laugh and cry, they’ll call it a flop.

I also find the “ideological biases” argument odd. Yes, a fluttering, girly voice, for example, could perpetuate the stereotype of the weak female. But doesn’t regular dialogue accomplish this, too? So should characters just not speak at all? Besides, is perpetuating these stereotypes in a movie a bad thing? What if you’re trying to create a stock character? Voice provides one more form of characterization. And don’t try to tell me that visuals don’t “enforc[e] ideological biases,” either. A character’s appearance is even more important than voice. Finally, just as VON can support these ideological biases, it can also run contrary to them. Suppose you see a very helplessly feminine-looking character onscreen, but she speaks in a tough, confident voice. This contrast disrupts the stereotype associated with her appearance. Or, if she has a girly voice in dialogue and the tough voice only in VON, the VON shows from the beginning how she is going to change over the course of the story.

Besides, while many VON critics may advocate using as little dialogue as possible, they don’t seem interested in giving up dialogue altogether. Why not? Don’t many of their arguments about VON apply to dialogue as well? Why don’t we return to silent films, for the ultimate in conveying information through visuals? And let’s not stop at cinema – let’s expand into live theater. How about creating silent plays? Sure, we the audience may not know what’s going on, but that just means there’s more for us to analyze and interpret… and oh, how artistically it’s presented!

Kozloff has very valid reasons for trying to defend VON. She recognizes valuable practical and artistic applications of the technique, as she mentions in her article, and she has seen films where it is used very skillfully and effectively. At the same time, she sees critics advocating for its total elimination because of irrational biases reinforced by encounters with shoddy VON. Because Kozloff believes fervently in the value of VON, sees such a strong movement unconditionally opposed to it, and observes that “few have murmured in its defense,” naturally she feels compelled to speak up. She makes her argument by listing some of the benefits it can offer, frequently backing up these claims with examples of films. She also quotes other reputable sources for support.

I watched a lot of Disney movies when I was little, but I have watched few films since then. Accordingly, I’m familiar with what VON is but haven’t seen too many examples of it. I saw at least part of the opening to Seabiscuit and all of A Christmas Story. I beliveve I also saw The Age of Innocence in class, but I didn’t even remember that it had VON. I’ve seen part of Forrest Gump – does that count as VON? You see the narrator occasionally, but for most of the movie, he is in a different space-time. I also saw The Great Gatsby, and I seem to recall VON in at least the first scene. From my very limited experience, which includes what I read in Nordstrom’s e-portfolio and Kazloff’s works, VON is a perfectly acceptable technique. Nordstrom makes an effective case for its value in Seabiscuit, and Kazloff offers many other examples of its value. The one good personal memory I have of a film that uses it is A Christmas Story. I didn’t and still don’t see anything wrong with its use there. A film snob might feel otherwise, but that’s just the point: most people who watch films are laypeople and just want an entertaining film. Given the huge popularity of A Christmas Story, how could anyone argue that VON should never be used and is always a mark of bad cinema? Anybody who argues so evidently feels that their film-snob standards should be the only way to judge a film and that all of us laypeople, who have different criteria for judging movies, are wrong.

Since A Christmas Story is the movie I’m most familiar with, I’ll probably analyze that.

 Edit: I just thought of another example of VON: the opening to Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, where a mysterious storyteller explains the background of the curse on the castle. I’ll keep this in mind as a backup to A Christmas Story. I don’t want it to overlap too much with Nordstrom’s analysis, though: both scenes are the introduction to the film, with simple visuals so that the focus is on the narrator.

Kozloff’s “Voice-Over Narration in American Fiction Film” starts out with the origins of storytelling. Oral-traditions, as stated, has been the most “ancient, fundamental, and widely accessible” methods of storytelling. In contrast, the youngest would be cinematic storytelling, but intertwining the two create a hybrid of “word and image, narration and drama, voice and ‘voice.'”

Most people do not even notice or pay attention to voice-over-narration in modern cinema. It is a major element of cinema and seems to have an infinite number of uses. To fully comprehend voice-over-narration, it must be defined via each of the three words. First, “voice” implies the medium. “Over” relates to the relationship of images and sound from the scene usually from a speaker off-screen or off-camera. Lastly, “narration” connects to the context within the scene, such as recounting events to the audience. Voice-over-narration is used in numerous ways, such as commercials or fictional films.

In the second article, voice-over-narration is described as something which has always had controversy. Many seem to find ways to bash at the idea, while few murmur the benefits. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the technique is popular and widely used. The explanation of voice-over-narration seems to be much clearer in this article than the previous, and even puts it in one clear sentence: “In voice-over narration proper, viewers hear someone recount a series of events from a time and space different from that simultaneously pictured on the screen.” Early voice-over-narration was done solely by the third person, but evolved as lecturers became more in demand. The radio, coincidently, turned into a great proponent of the style. Much detail and examples of films, such as Seabiscuit, like Nordstrom wrote in her portfolio were referenced. Numerous benefits can be created from voice-over-narration, despite criticism, such as “…add a level of poetry to a movie.” Another thing which stuck out to me was that voice-over-narration does create a sort of novel-like feel, where “…fundamentally, because voice-over refers to the most traditional of storytelling forms—that of oral storytelling—it reaches out to the audience in a singular way, making the filmgoing experience feel more “natural,” more intimate.”

After reading these two papers, it is clear that there are some definite cons to voice-over-narration. Kozloff’s article has a quote saying, “‘And God help you if you use voice-over in your work, my friends. God help you. That’s flaccid, sloppy writing. Any idiot can write a voice-over narration to explain the thoughts of a character.'” Some feel that the technique is simply sloppy writing and that anybody could do it. It could be a shortcut to what directors or actors cannot fully portray otherwise. Instead of clearly filming a scene and exemplifying the idea, one could just say a few words to get an easy way out. As stated, Kozloff defends voice-over-narration and does so by giving clear examples of films, and analyzes why they are beneficial and helpful. As shown earlier, voice-over-narration can add even a certain “poetry” to the film! After a clear definition of this technique, I now can relate to this because I have heard it numerous times in films. Whether it is to give some introduction to a film or explain something, I believe it seems to enhance the film if it is done correctly.

A few films which seem interesting to analyze myself are the following:

1. Lord of the Rings I, II, III
2. Lord of War (2005)
3. Stranger Than Fiction (2006)
4. Arrested Development (Television, 2003-2006)
5. Fight Club (1999)

            Both of Kozloff’s pieces were very interesting and complimented one another.  The first piece, the introduction of Invisible Storytellers: Voice-Over Narration in American Fiction Film, defined Voice-over-narration while the second piece, A Defense-and history-of Voice over Narration, discussed the controversy of voice over narration in cinema. 

notes: 

•  Voice over narration formally defined as “oral statements, conveying any portion of a narrative, spoken by an unseen speaker situated in a space and time other than that simultaneously being presented by the images on screen”
• narrators are usually: 1st person or 3rd person
• VON creates intimacy.  Personal Tone, historical information, and gives people who normally don’t have a voice, a voice (i.e. 1940’s women) 
• art vs. media; film=visual art
• insultin: telling=laziness and/or condescension

In Kozloff’s A Defense-and history of voice over narration, she demonstrates the various effects of Voice over Narration (VON) in the cinema world.  Some, like Spike Jonze, even go as far as to criticize the use of VON in film.  In Jonze’s Adaptation, a character attends a screenwriting lecture where Robert McKee, a real-life figure criticizes VON by saying, “And God help you if you use voice-over in your work, my friends. God help you. That’s flaccid, sloppy writing. Any idiot can write a voice-over narration to explain the thoughts of a character”.  Some see VONs as degrading, as they “tell” rather “show” the audience giving the narrator condescending persona.   While others object to VONs because they believe that film is a visual art and that the addition of media (i.e. voice over sounds) detracts from the art of film as Kozloff notes, “What makes film distinct and special, these theorists argue, is its capacity to convey information nonverbally—through mise-en-scène, editing, camera movement, POV, facial expression or pantomime”.  They want to separate the various forms of art, seeing each form as a threat to the others, “From the beginning, film aficionados have felt the need to defend cinema as an art and to do so by setting it apart from other media, especially theater and literature”.  People want to set defined lines between the various forms of art to keep each form true.  By adding VON’s to film, critics believe that the visual display of the films are tampered and biased by the narrators and limit the audience’s perspectives.

I think that Kozloff feels the need to defend voice over narrations because others refuse to do so and more importantly, she sees the importance of VONs where others do not as she states, “Many have issued pronouncements against voice-over, and few have murmured in its defense. Yet voice-over narration remains an integral part of moviemaking—so common that we often overlook its contribution and ignore its development”.  Kozoloff acknowledges the controversy with VON in the film industry and takes her reader through the negative and positive outlooks of using VON.  She tries to persuade her readers by taking a more “neutral” standpoint, stating why some critics refuse to accept VON while others believe VONs are crucial to the film industry.

            I have actually seen most of the movies Kozoloff mentions in her writings and like she said, “Voice-over narration has been a major element of cinema since the thirties; it is so very common that it probably passes the average moviegoer unnoticed” I too failed to realize the element of voice over narration in these movies.  I’m sure that while watching movies I acknowledge that there is someone, not in the visual, speaking.  The usual narrative structures “Once upon a time” and “So the story begins”, etc. are phrases that I subconsciously note as voice-overs but usually dismiss during the movies.   Considering our next assignment, I am leaning towards Amelie or American Beauty because I am familiar with these two films.

Notes

Distinguished from voice-off, interior monologues, voiced texts. Instead, voice-over narration is an oral recounting of a narrative whose source is not fund in the time and time of the scence being visually presented.

how do we recognize voice-over as narration? linguistic cues (simple past tense verbs, more by Labov?), “intuitive knowledge of narrative structure”, context in which speech arises – sound, movie, content of speech..

A purpose of voice-over narration identified by Kozloff : convey important events,info or create intimacy with audience.

The claimed familiarity with narrative structure may help create this intimacy, because regardless of the amount of speech done by the narrator, audience has identified it as a narration and may experience the rest of the film along the narrative structure introduced in Kozloff’s introduction, thus stimulating an intimacy to the film paralleled to one between oral storyteller and listener.

Points out a major division, though recognizes variations (based on level of narration and narrators relation to the story), between : “authorial, 3rd person” and “character, 1st person” narrators.

I enjoyed the history and defense article of voicec-narration more than the other one because it pointed out the role it plays in enhancing the audience’s experience and amplifying the content of the film. I know that I will now pay attention to the way a voice-over narration affects me and the qualities it adds to the film.

Against voice-over narration: hinders the growth of cinema as a seperate visual art, insults the intelligence of the audience, results in the diminished use of the creative visual resources offered by film, is authoritative and provides a single interpretation instead of allowing individual spectator interpretations.

For voice-over narration: deeper characterizations by introducing emotions, thoughts..; provides historical context and expositional data; the layering of the oral narration and the visuals provides a distance that may be utilized to bring irony into the film (presenting what characters do not know, “tribal blind spots”). Also mentioned the possibility of introducing poetic feel to the film.

Those against voice-over narration view cinema as an art form with a single medium of creation – the visual, and thus by ignoring the unique features of film and allow the complex intertwining of various techniques. Their argument the a voice-ver narration would limit the film to a single biased interpretation does not seem to be aware of the different ways of narrating and contents. A well introduced and written narration can efficiently add to the visual story so that the audience may have more factors to interpret. For example, knowing the historical context of the events gives them another layer of significance beyond the scripted drama. I especially value and enjoy the irony introduced by a narrator when they voice a “tribal blind spot” because it is a fact that probably would not have been evident without the narration and it submerges me deeper into the film by acknowledging me presence.

The movies that I can remember used voice-over narration are Transformers and War of the Worlds, and both had the effect of tying me emotionally to the movie – I felt like a child listening to a great storyteller recounting a great adventure. They both also provided a context that otherwise might have been boring or too time consuming to watch, yet added significance to the events in the film by situating them into a larger context. Stranger the Fiction used narration in a curious way since it played a more effectual role in the story being portrayed, yet even then I do not think that the audience was deprived from the chance to interpret characters’ actions, feelings, etc.

As to the film we must chose for analysis I am considering : Transformers, Grizzly Man, American Beauty and About a Boy. I haven’t seen Am. Beauty or Grizzly Man though.

This piece was interesting because it went over the different definitions of voice-over, its use through history, and why it is underrated and why it shouldn’t be. Someone could object to voice-over by degrading it like in the movie Adaption or writing a critique by saying that a movie isn’t good because it used voice-over narration. Such people object to voice-over narration because they believe it is taking away from the art form known as cinema. They see that combining other art forms with cinema degrades the whole meaning of cinema and they see other art forms as a threat to the existence of cinema. As Kozloff wrote, “From the beginning, film aficionados have felt the need to defend cinema as an art and do so by setting it apart from other media, especially theatre and literature.” Film critics and lovers alike love to separate art into different categories which, in my opinion is completely wrong. She even says that intellectuals and filmmakers saw “in speech the death of film art…film is a visual art, speech should never have a leading role.” I completely disagree. All arts are unique yet similar. One art can learn from another and to even extend this idea, art can learn from science and vice versa. No matter how different the subject matter there is something to be learned and contributed from every category. It is the same with people- no matter how different the person is from you, you can learn something from them. They can leave a mark in your life, just as different arts can leave their signature in cinema. In turn cinema leaves its powerful message to world through it’s medium of various arts.Kozloff defends voice-over narration because of its impact on movies and the audience. Voice-over helps us to learn more about a certain situation, about a certain character, or even the character’s thoughts. All in all voice-over can enhance the viewer’s experience if done right. Kozloff uses many examples to defend her point including the movies Cries and Whispers, Lolita, Taxidriver, Days of Heaven, American Beauty, and Fight Club. She describes the use of voice-narration from the time sound came into movies in the 1920s till the present.Seeing the vast use of voice-over narration one would think there’d be no need to defend it. Kozloff even says in her introduction that voice-over narration has become such an integral part of movies that us movie-goers of the recent generation don’t even notice its existence. I think this is true because personally I never really knew what voice-over narration was, and even if subconsciously I did, I never noticed it in movies. I believe that Kozloff has given me a better understanding of the different voice-over narrations, and now that I know what it is, I will be looking out for it in movies. Once you learn something new about movies, don’t you notice it when you go watch one? I know when I learned about the different english terms in high school, I started noticing them in books, and when I learned new vocabulary in dance, I would notice it when I saw a performance.Looking at the definition of voice-over I am considering Fight Club, The Notebook, and Memoirs of a Geisha for my analysis on voice-over narration. I am not sure if Memoirs of a Geisha and The Notebook can be considered as having voice-over narration but I believe that Fight Club has quite a bit. I believe The Notebook has a lot of voice-over narration as the story is that of an old man telling his his wife their love story. Memoirs of a Geisha is told through the eyes of the geisha herself, and although Kozloff says this isn’t a type of voice-over narration, I am sure there are parts in the movie that can be considered voice-over narration.Questions:Fight Club:“Which parts are good examples of voice-over narration?”“How does voice-over narration help us learn more about the characters and enhance our viewing of the movie?”  The Notebook: “How is the old man telling his love story to his wife voice-over narration? What characterizes it as voice-over narration?”“What some good examples of voice-over narration in the movie?” Memoirs of a Geisha:“Can this movie be considered as having voice-over narration?”“If so what are some good examples and how does it enhance our viewing?”