What does the narrator add?

[deleted]

I was going to say the same 'Show, Don't Tell' mantra.

An example of this was when one of the characters was supposed to have been studying for months in the library. The narrator had to tell us and nothing was shown other than a sillouette of her walking through some book stacks.

I found this to be very lazy storytelling and narrator wasn't there just to add flavour he was there to explain what was happening.

I feel, alas, that the direction was inspired by a bad episode of Sex in the City.

I found that what the narrator added was a distinct measure of annoyance. As another poster already stated, good movies should SHOW us what they want to show us; lazy movies TELL us, via a narrator. This movie is clearly in the latter category.

The whole world is a very narrow bridge. The key is to be fearless. R' Nachman of Breslov

This is well argued. I have found it fascinating to read critics' reviews and find that some hated the narration while others considered it a genius element of the film. I am torn and can't decide! It was clearly not "just ok" because its unconventional nature demands that it be loved or hated, somehow.

I wonder if he was going for a sort of "Arrested Development" vibe. Anyone else see the parallel?

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

Narration has a long history in literature, both in and out of film. To assume it is a weakness is to ignore that history.

As pointed out in another thread, the narration provides an air of detachment similar to Thornton Wilder's Our Town.

Narration can quickly rattle off a bunch of backstory or reference that would be inconvenient and unneccesary to depict thru the action of the actors....

The Third Man, Goodfellas, Apocalypse Now, A Clockwork Orange, The Shawshank Redemption.... these are some of the finest films ever made, and all make some use of narration.

To me, the narrator is simply just another character... Heck, sometimes he's a character who actually appears in the film, while other times, he's only a voice whom we never see.... Regardless, he is there to further the plot point.

Films are an exibition. They tell a story... What difference does it make if part of the story is told to you while other parts are shown to you? Its all serving the greater purpose.

Some of the funniest lines in this movie are by the needless narrator.

Like:

"Juan Antonio was friendly with all the whores and thought they would make wonderful subjects."

LOLOLOL How fun that must be for the whores to have Juan Antonio bring more American women to the red-light district for "art appreciation". LOL

However, I LOVED how Juan Antonio held Cristina in his arms laughing as she took pictures of the whores on the street. Hot damn. I'd like him to hold me that way - arms over mine and hands just above my crotch as he presses his body against mine while walking. My gosh, I'd melt in his arms.


I specifically reminded her - bedside table! On the Kangaroo!

i don't think the OP knows Woody Allen the way he claims he does. I'd say an overwhelming majority of his films contain narration. Thusly,,, how are you saying he's 'too good a film-maker to use narration'.... based on what? the one or 2 films where he doesn't use it, as compared to the majority of the times where he does?