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.