MovieChat Forums > Days of Heaven (1978) Discussion > voiceovers ... good or bad?

voiceovers ... good or bad?


I guess the voiceovers added a literary quality to the film, but after a while I grew quite tired of them. Especially since the quality of the voiceovers were mostly of a monotone droning.

reply

Monotone? I thought her phrasing and accent were anything but. And a typical voiceover is "literary" in terms of sounding like an author's narration, but this was far from that.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

reply

nice spirited discussions. People either loved or hated her in this movie. I kept hoping Richard Gere would stab HER, but no such luck. Linda Manz got some work afterwards, and some of it was good, e.g. in The Wanderers, but she never took off. The studios probably thought she was too quirky.

reply

not true-she just kind of gave up interest on being in movies-she never goes to them

reply

Good when they're appropriate and effective, as in Scorsese's and Malick's films (other than 'The Thin Red Line'), bad when they're inappropriate, ineffective or incompetently executed, as in 'Adam Resurrected', 'Raising Arizona' et cetera. In the case of 'Days of Heaven', they found they just couldn't get the film to work without it. They just had Manz read a whole buncha stuff and took what felt right.

Over to Ebert:

'...the story is told in a curious way. We do see key emotional moments between the three adult characters. (Bill advises Abby to take the farmer's offer. The farmer and Abby share moments together in which she realizes she is beginning to love him, and Bill and the farmer have their elliptical exchanges in which neither quite states the obvious.) But all of their words together, if summed up, do not equal the total of the words in the voice-over spoken so hauntingly by Linda Manz.

'She was sixteen when the film was made, playing younger, with a face that sometimes looks angular and plain, but at other times (especially in a shot where she is illuminated by firelight and surrounded by darkness) has a startling beauty. Her voice tells us everything we need to know about her character (and is so particular and unusual that we almost think it tells us about the actress, too). It is flat, resigned, emotionless, with some kind of quirky Eastern accent.

'The whole story is told by her. But her words are not a narration so much as a parallel commentary, with asides and footnotes. We get the sense that she is speaking some years after the events have happened, trying to reconstruct these events that were seen through naive eyes. She is there in almost the first words of the film ("My brother used to tell everyone they were brother and sister,'' a statement that is more complex than it seems). And still there in the last words of the film, as she walks down the tracks with her new "best friend.'' She is there after the others are gone. She is the teller of the tale.

'This child, we gather, has survived in hard times. She has armored herself. She is not surprised by the worst. Her voice sounds utterly authentic; it seems beyond performance. I remember seeing the film for the first time and being blind-sided by the power of a couple of sentences she speaks near the end. The three of them are in a boat on a river. Things have not worked out well. The days of heaven are over. She says: "You could see people on the shore, but it was far off and you couldn't see what they were doing. They were probably calling for help or something--or they were trying to bury somebody or something.''

'That is the voice of the person who tells the story, and that it why "Days of Heaven'' is correct to present its romantic triangle obliquely, as if seen through an emotional filter. Children know that adults can be seized with sudden passions for one another, but children are concerned primarily with how these passions affect themselves: Am I more or less secure, more or less loved, because there has been this emotional realignment among the adults who form my world?'

reply

It's usually bad. I usually don't enjoy them, unless there is a literal quality. The writing for Captain Willard's voice over in Apocalypse Now is perhaps the best I've ever listened to.

reply

Bad.


I would probably give this movie a 9/10 or a 10/10 if it weren't for the lazy voice-overs. Days of Heaven is a movie where a lot of what is happening is told visually. If I can tell what is going on screen, you don't need to tell me.

The voice-overs are in direct conflict with the movie's style and tone. The movie tries to tell everything with as little dialogue as possible and all through visuals. However, when a little kid is explaining to me what the visuals mean, it defeats the whole purpose of the visuals.

Never explain something if it doesn't need to be explained.

reply

Actually, Manz's voiceover is the element that in a large part SETS the tone of the movie; it isn't there to flatly explain what is happening (which is indeed quite obvious anyway), but rather to offer a particular perspective on the proceedings, simultaneously naive and nostalgic.



"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

reply

But to the same degree that is like defending the voice-overs in Blade Runner by saying they give the movie a Noir feel and help make it stronger.

In general, voice-overs are almost always a bad idea unless there is something worth saying. In the case of Days of Heaven, nothing was learned from the voice-overs. If new information was gathered, or if it truly gave the movie an interesting perspective, then that would be cool. However, the movie could have just as easily had scene's of Manz silently taking in what was happening or through dialogue.

reply

"Nothing was learned from the voice-overs".

But providing information isn't the only possible function for the voiceover - for instance, in Taxi Driver, it is a means to really get inside the head of the troubled anti-hero Travis Bickle. In Days Of Heaven, it is about processing the events through the unique sensibility of the young Linda Manz character... and thusly working as a crucial tonal element, providing the film with a sense of unaffected, ethereal detachment which I find hauntingly beautiful. Consider the final lines of the film, for example "this girl, she didn't know where she was going or what she was gonna do. She didn't have no money on her. I was hoping things would work out for her; she was a good friend of mine" - without these words, spoken exactly as they are, these final frames wouldn't have nearly the same impact. But now, there's both the sense of looking forward and looking back - the latter reinforced by the mournful soundtrack - and it's pretty goddamn heartbreaking. Maybe you should give the film another go and it'll come together forya, idk.

And I actually like the voiceover in Blade Runner; it don't bother me, even though I understand why a fella would think it should.



"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

reply

The voice-overs in Bladerunner were added due to test audiences being confused, but the "final edition" has them gone, because the voice-overs are redundant "Hey, that conversation I had back there was in a different language!" "Hey, I don't trust this guy!"

And I understand that those last-lines are important, but they could've been done through, A: Dialogue, or B: those are one of the only voice-overs in the movie. The rest of the voice-overs in the movie do not add anything to the story.

Days of Heaven is a visual movie. Everything about it is told through visuals. If you were to cut all of Manz' voice-overs, you would not feel like you were missing anything, except for the possibility of the last lines, which could've been expressed in many different ways other than a voice-over.


All in all, unless the voice-overs are perfect, I think they are used too often to cut-corners. Have a concept that is too complex to show? Just explain it to us.

reply

voice-overs are almost always a bad idea
Sounds like you've been to one too many Robert McKee seminar, my friend.

reply

One of the best narration in a movie ever. People are used to kids sounding like The Little Rascals, so I kinda see why some people would be put off by her voice and think it's monotonous. For me, at no point she sounded like someone reading, which is what would be bad voiceover.

reply

Agree! The tone was very annoying and most of the things said bordered on nonsense.

reply