Narraration in movies needs to be banned - Little Children (2007) Discussion

[–] geoffrey-jackson 12 years ago

I thought the narration worked well. Gave it a book-like quality.

The story was quite complicated. The narration steered the viewer along the intended interpretation.

By the way, couldn't quite make out the meaning of the title. It was a little too subtle and ambiguous. Various sub-plots to juggle. Interesting though.

For the record, 8/10 - very good as a film. Some repulsive characters though; and poor decision-makers of life.

reply

[–] Zvoni 12 years ago

maybe they feared modern viewer would bore if theres not someone babbling all over at quiet moments at the background, hey thats what they used in succesful series ally mcbeal and sex & the city! and this one is looking for same segment of viewers.

what did they say about narration at film school, mr Todd Field?

reply

[–] jordywalnuts 12 years ago

You've seen Adaptation too many times. Try thinking for yourself.

reply

[–] ValeriaMessalina 11 years ago

Hah, I was curious if someone had mentioned this. Narration has been done very well in some classic films, there is no "rule" that narration is always bad, it's only a rule for people who *need* rules in writing and directing. Personally, I enjoyed the use of narration in this film.

reply

[–] mikema74 12 years ago

I loved the narration in the film.

reply

[–] pfuepfi74 12 years ago

The only thing that needs banning, is people that think certain things should be banned from moviemaking. And always with the phrase: rely on this crutch is a sign of weak blah blah blah..... Yeah right, Orson Welles was a weak storyteller :-)

My advise to you, inform yourself if there's any narration in the movie and than skip it.

reply

[–] JonahVarque 12 years ago

I loved this film. Except for two things. The needless and annoying narration and the haphazard ending.

The narration was so grating at the start that I was a the verge of walking out. It was as if someone was trying to adapt a book, but couldn't convey everything on the page by the First Commandment of Film: "show don't tell", and couldn't fit in some other kind of exposition, so decided to take the cheap and sloppy way out and use a narrator.

Then, thank god, the narration mostly disappeared and we had a real film for the middle 90%. A story that touched on a whole bunch of the issues young couples deal with and that I got into 100%. Then the story sort of fell apart for the multiple denouements at the end, and guess what -- someone let that ridiculous narrator back in the room to tell us what the characters were thinking. And what an annoying voice! Alvin the Chipmunk or The Incredible Hulk weren't available?

I'm never a fan of narration, but if this crutch must be used, I much prefer the detached third person observer (Sarah's book club big sister Jean would have served perfectly) or one or more of the main characters. Who better to explain what's going on in their minds than them themselves?

WARNING!
Objects under T-shirt are larger than they appear!

reply

[–] sigu828 12 years ago

totally agree. hate narration

reply

[–] cinesimonj 11 years ago

Nonsense. It worked.
Rules in film making are for those without creativity.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] heynow123 11 years ago

It wasn't the actual narration in itself, it was the narrator. He was robotic, weak. 'An afterthought.'

reply

[–] theunopeneddoor-697-442391 8 years ago

That was the freaking point. It was used to show the monotony of suburbia. Sorry you didn't "get it."

Never Drumpf! Never Hillary!

reply

[–] MarshallStax 11 years ago

Narration is horrendous, and wreaks of extremely poor film-making. God help any producer or director involved in movies that rely on this tactless crutch.

I often feel that voice-overs are used as a crutch because either the storytelling wasn't strong enough or there was a fear the audience wouldn't understand what was happening.

But for every bad "Blade Runner" narration, there's an "Apocalypse Now" that makes up for it.

I liked the narration in this movie. I haven't read the novel it was based on, but I have a feeling the lines were lifted directly from the text. I found the voice-over darkly humorous and it helped underline the quiet absurdity of the lives and struggles of these characters.

I loved the voice of the narrator and the droll, arch tone of the words. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the V.O. puts a distance between the viewer and the characters, allowing us to look with detachment and judgement at their activities. this helps us feel superior to them and see them as trapped (as they think themselves to be).

It was a choice that was made for the film and I think it was the right one in this case.

Oh, and the word you meant to use was "reeks", not "wreaks".

All Art is pretense.

reply