The narrator debate

[breakinglight11]

Bernie and I are having a disagreement about using narration in Dream Machine. Since we’re working in the Zoom+ form, which is limited in what we can visually depict, it seems like it might be necessary for a narrator to explain some of the action in order to be clear what’s going on. I concede that might be the case, but I’ve been making an effort to find ways to depict things as clearly as possible, to maximize the chance that we will not need to use one.

I am not a fan of narrators in visual media, film in particular. I feel like it’s often a crutch, used to explain to the audience what they should be thinking and feeling in the failure of the greater narrative to convey that using more elegant or more inherently cinematic means. My hope is that with my filming choices, the right editing, and well-placed sound effects, the action will be parsable without it. But not only does Bernie not believe that will be possible, he actually likes narration, or at least has no problem with it. I think he might actively prefer we include it here.

My current preference is to edit the piece together and see what it needs. We can always add it in, even if it means adjusting the editing slightly, with any necessary rewrites. But I’d like to see how it works without it first, just in case.

At the very least, I think if we use the narration, it needs rewriting. I think it needs to have more of a character to it, like an Arrested Development kind of quality. More snark, more irony. That might bring me around to the concept a little bit more.

Comments

[desireearmfeldt]

I'm with you: avoid narration as much as possible, it's much less necessary than a lot of movie makers seem to think!

[breakinglight11]

Thank you! I will keep this +1 in mind. :-)

[jducoeur]

Yeah, agreed. In some cases it's a necessary compromise, but it violates "show, don't tell", and is too often a net negative.

[breakinglight11]

That is exactly what I’m afraid of! Opinion noted. :-)