When Voice-overs Attack

If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing.
W. Edwards Deming
(1900 - 1993)
I have been thinking seriously about why I don't believe voice-overs are appropriate for inclusion in a Human video. This is what I came up with: "it makes for a weaker performance." I want to to be clear, so I will explain my answer.

The business of writing and performing a Human Video script is esscntially the same as writing and performing any other piece of theatre. In order to be effective, you have to pay attention to the rules and theories that govern the art form, even if you wish to subvert them; especially if you want to subvert them. You have to have a point of reference. Even the artists throughout the centuries who have raged and rebelled against the then "current" standards in theatre, had those standards as a beginning.

So, what is it exactly about voice overs that I dislike? I would like to begin by saying not all voice-overs are created equally. Some are actually good. Shocking, I know. They are good when they are used to set a mood or recall events which are socially significant.

Most of the time, however, voice-overs are used to clarify a poorly actualized storyline. In order for the audience to follow along and understand what is happening on the stage, they "need" these voice-overs. Why would this be weak? Does that help the audience figure out what's going on? How could that possibly be bad?It is weak because rather than balancing all nessissary elements, some are neglected.

Most often the element that is neglected is characterization the foundation of the modern acting process. When you are talking about the acting process in the western world, the most recognizeable name is Stanislavski. "Stanislavski developed his own unique system of training wherein actors would research the situation created by the script, break down the text according to their character's motivations and recall their own experiences, thereby causing actions and reactions according to these motivations. The actor would ideally make his motivations for acting identical to those of the character in the script. He could then replay these emotions and experiences in the role of the character in order to achieve a more genuine performance."

Capturing that kind of "genuine performance," should be the main goal of an actor. Everything I have ever learned about theatre reminds me "everything on the stage is done for a reason." Everything must support the plot. That is why Kate Reid said, "Acting is not being emotional, but being able to express emotion." Expressing an emotion is very different from merely emoting (I am speaking now of those who rely on violent actions to carry their lack for real characterization). Simply repeating one flat stereotypical emotion is not going to cut it. In the theatre we must walk the line between universally understandable and stereotyping. It would be very easy to paint all villians in the same way, with the same brush and same color, but this would be boring. How often did our mothers remind us of this when we were children? "If everyone were the same, life would be boring." The same is true for characters in any drama. Their differences, their complexities are what make them engaging. We must look at each character as a unique individual, just as we look at each person around us.

We must also remember that characterizations cannot be blown off simply because it is not as important as some "cool moves." The moves, characterization, song selection, and emotion all become subservient to the plot. In the pursuit of looking cool and flashy, some have lost the simplicity of telling a story. They have made it into a syrupy, bubble gum, watered down version of what it could be.

Think about it. Which is more appetizing: a meal made entirely of cotton candy, or a small meal of properly cooked steak, lightly steamed vegetables, and garlic mashed potatoes? Most anyone over the age of 10 would chose the well balanced meal, and I think anyone who has an ounce of common sense would see the difference between cotton-candy fluff, and a real and impactful dramatic presentation.

I may have lost my train of thought as I am very sleepy at the moment. Perhaps I will edit this when I am more rested.

I will leave you with this last thought about learning:

'I wish life was not so short,' he thought. 'Languages take such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about.'
J. R. R. Tolkien
(1892 - 1973)
The Lost Road

Pretend I wrapped this up in a really interesting and profound way. ;)