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)