Sarah Kozloff’s Invisible Storytellers: Voice-Over Narration in American Fiction Film begins by juxtaposing cinematic storytelling with oral storytelling to introduce voice-over narration as a combination of the two: the ancient oral style superimposed on the cinematic story. She calls narrated films “hybrids” and even though she calls them “half-retrograde, half-pathbreaking, and half dissembling,” she clearly supports voice-over narration as a “fascinating dance between pose and actuality.” Kozloff goes to great lengths to define voice-over narration, formally defining it as “oral statements, conveying any portion of a narrative, spoken by an unseen speaker…” Kozloff then concedes that there are different types of voice-over narrators such as “authorial” and “character” narrators. Towards the end of the introduction, Kozloff clarifies the purpose of her work: “for my readers to hear such films with my ears.”

    Kozloff’s other text, she begins with the claim that “voice-over narration remains an integral part of moviemaking—so common that we often overlook its contribution and ignore its development.”She then presents her definition of voice-over narration much like she did in Invisible Storytellers. Kozloff then proceeds to outline the history of voice-over narration from its first appearance in 1933’s The Power and the Glory to voice-over in modern films such as Fight Club. This long history of voice-over narration begs the question that Kozloff then asks: “So why are we still debating the legitimacy of voice-over?” Kozloff then provides some of the reasons why film aficionados don’t like voice-over narration, primarily that film is unique as a storytelling device because of its ability to convey a story nonverbally. Kozloff cites film theorists such as  Jeffrey Youdelman and Bill Nichols to support her warrant that “in many circumstances narration is a more forthright, honest approach to the subject matter than pretending that the represented scenes speak for themselves or that editing is noncoercive.” Kozloff then counters the film aficionados’ critiques by offering several reasons why voice-over narration is an important and artful component of film, such as that “when [voice-over narration] is well-executed, it opens up inimitable avenues for filmmakers.” Kozloff substantiates her argument with many concrete examples from well-known films such as Apocalypse Now and Seabiscuit.

     After reading Kozloff’s texts, I have learned that one objection that many people raise against voice-over narration is that it negates film’s unique ability to convey a story nonverbally in a way that theatre and other storytelling mediums cannot. I think that Kozloff feels she must defend voice-over narration because few people rise to defend it against the many criticisms it receives and that voice-over narration serves its purposes well and efficiently conveys important information to the viewer. I find Kozloff’s texts easy to understand because I am very familiar with voice-over narration such as in A Christmas Story, War of the Worlds, March of the Penguins, Arrested Development, Seabiscuit, Fight Club, and 300. I support Kozloff’s arguments because I believe these films would not have been as powerful without the voice-over narration. I am considering analyzing the use of voice-over narration in the film 300.