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.