First off, this is not a negative article about the use of voice-over narration in screenplays. I am not here to tell you not to do it. This is more of a “Be sure you need it” write-up. To back those gurus who have spoken/written against it, what they really are doing is discouraging its use as a default. Jumping on the bandwagon can often yield poor results.
Looking at the copious discussions across the internet, I think many are missing the point. There isn’t a huge list of poorly produced movies with irritating voice-over narration. There is, however, a massive submission of screenplays from new writers who don’t hit the mark.
So why do many new writers lean towards using narration?
I believe it is to get over the hurdles of clever exposition. Knowing that you have a story which harbors information seemingly impossible to deliver through action and dialogue. Thus, narration presents as a “Get out of jail free card.” It may well be so that you need narration, but the problem comes in the delivery.
There aren’t many movies to single out as really bad examples, particularly as the wealth of “bad narration” is found in the screenplays that never make it. All the negative discussion around use of narration is aimed at the spec screenplays from new writers.
So what's the issue?
My take is that the moment the audience hear narration, a separate relationship is setup. You have the screen characters, and then “the voice.” In some stories, that “voice” may never appear on screen, but in others, the “voice” could be an onscreen character. This is the difference between first-person narration and third-person. One has more of a relationship, a directness, with the audience than the other. The audience will either feel distracted or they’ll accept it.
If you’re not careful and seamless, narration can be jarring and bring us out of the story. Consider this really annoying scenario: You are sitting with a friend, tablet screen in hand, watching a video clip and having the friend nudge you and say, “Here it is, this is the funny bit. Look!” It is unnecessary. It ends up as a labeled event, rather than being a seamless experience.
If what the narration says interferes, then that is a problem. If it duplicates, then it is redundant. Narration needs to bring added value to the story and work in a transparent manner. You don’t want the audience adjusting themselves in their seats every time “the voice” chimes in.
The big negative of narration is that it contravenes the generally accepted rule of ‘Show, Don’t Tell.’ This is a screen based medium, and so it is rather about activity and not listening to a recount of events. Don’t spoon feed the audience.
The danger is that narration describing the action will become more of a documentary.
Take a look at this scene where Bob returns home and a narrator echoes the action. You can view the screenplay page below the video:
This example shows that the doubling up of narration over what we already can see and hear from the dialogue, is superfluous and adds nothing to advancing the story or giving us any further insight into Bob's character.
So what do you do?
Good narration is an extra layer which complements the onscreen action. It isn’t replication. Let the visuals show one thing whilst narration adds another train of thought or observation.
If you are embarking on a biopic or book adaptation, then the vast passages of time and backstory can be managed via voice-over narration. Your task will be to layer it in seamlessly.
Examples of Good Narration:
“The Haunting” (1963), has internal monologues from Eleanor, and are the only character’s thoughts we hear.
“The Shawshank Redemption.” Very much a recount and observation from the character of Red.
“The Princess Bride.” A story within a story! (Frame narrative). A grandfather reads a book to his grandson.
“Stand By Me.” Evolves to be Gordie writing the story of his childhood in the summer of 1959.
“American Psycho.” The inner thoughts of the protagonist, by the protagonist. A good example of the ‘Unreliable Narrator.’
Case Study - The Shawshank Redemption
There is something nostalgic and comfortable about sitting around Grandpa’s slippered feet by the fire and listening to a story. In the same way, it feels like Morgan Freeman’s narration is a comfort and an easy way into the story.
It is worth noting that The Shawshank Redemption does not begin with narration. In the first few scenes, however, we do hear voice-over as the character of Andy Dufresne explains in the courtroom what went on the night of his wife’s murder. This almost serves to ease in the acceptance of a voice talking over the picture.
Narration can be intrusive:
One sentiment against the use of narration is that it can intrude upon the experience. Morgan Freeman’s additive storytelling to The Shawshank Redemption sits beautifully on top of the visuals. In no way is the narration doubling up on the action, and the telling almost exclusively comprises of thought and reason, attributes of the novel, usually impossible in the screenplay medium without voice-over.
It helps greatly that Frank Darabont’s screenwriting for Red’s narrative is poetic. This smooths the experience, and the fact that the words are additive, rather than essential, makes for more than complimentary narration. Thus, the audience accepts the ‘intrusive voice.’
Even when Brooks narrates his letter to the guys back in prison, it works beautifully and bolsters the emotional content that much more. We feel more for the “nice old guy” because the letter reading is personal. His unfortunate end hits us and the characters with greater depth.
The final narrative from Red at the end carries us through with his feelings of hope. The narration builds that hope in us, the audience. We are on the journey with Red, on that bus. We can’t wait to meet Andy in Mexico, too. Without narration, the impact would just not have been as massive.
In this film, narration was in no way intrusive.
So is the narration just about Morgan Freeman's iconic voice?
His voice certainly helps, but is it just a gimmick? No. The narration gives us Red’s observation of Andy. It also helps us understand the prison system. More than that, the narration manages the passage of time without having to dramatically lengthen the film with boring scenes to reach the key plot points.
Does your screenplay need a narrator?
Is your screenplay (currently without narration), failing at some level? You need to work out why it isn’t working first. For narration to be the answer in rescuing your struggling story, you will need to see that your work is missing essential exposition which would round out the narrative. This would most likely be thoughts and observations, or dealing with the passage of time.
If you are at the concept stage and ponder as to the use of a narrator, then ask yourself why you think it necessary. The result must not come across as a band-aid. Nor must it be an excuse to use a specific actor’s voice.
The only reason to use voice-over is to augment your story. Charting the life of a historic figure would benefit from the insight a narration can provide, for example. The recounting of experiences also qualifies, as can the presentation of thoughts from a cerebral character. Again, Dexter’s character necessitates his narration to provide his internal dialogue; the mind of a serial killer. Take a look at the video below to understand how this couldn’t possibly work otherwise:
The Bottom Line:
Don’t get this article wrong, use of narration is not a bad thing, however, the evidence against narration is in the submissions. As often remarked by the industry, most submitted screenplays with narration are terribly put together. These are the scripts which never make it past the first hurdle. The voice-over simply comes across as a desperate gimmick to patch holes in the plot, and interferes with the story. At its worst, voice-over dialogue is so lean and sporadic that it stands out sorely when it does speak up.
If voice-over narration were encouraged and lauded by all, then we would probably be bombarded with it and the technique would no longer be special (when properly handled).
It CAN work when written well, as a number of successful movies prove. So don’t shy away from it, but respect the technique and be careful in its deployment.