Why is voice over/ narration so looked down upon in film?

[gwfa]

I recently took note of this issue in "adaptation" and also noticed it in this past season's episode of Prjoect Greenlight.  

They say it is sloppy film writing / making.  
Why is voice over / narration so frowned upon?

I see scorcese, ritchie, anderson, so many more use it?

When is it acceptable?

[Ernie]

Stupid people think it's fucking lazy or something, it's stupid, don't even worry about it. They think it's been done too much or that it's boring to listen to for audiences or something, I don't even know. They feel that it is a lazy writing mechanism because you should be able to convey the themes and the elements of a story and whatnot without any kind of voice over type stuff, which is just not right. Like have you seen Adaptation? There's pricks like McKee that feel this way, he's one of those people. There's people with all kinds of theories...I once read a screenwriting book by a guy who hated montages and believed they were hurting film...everybody that's written a book on the subject seems to have at least a couple dumb opinions. I just ignore it all.

Alexander Payne once said that voice over narration is the greatest gift cinema has ever recieved and I couldn't agree more with him. Like you said, two of the best filmmaker's of all time (and then Guy Ritchie somehow ended up among them) have used it beautifully...don't forget Kubrick by the way...Clockwork..."oh my brothers". Voice over will not be dead anytime soon, it's not frowned upon by everybody.

[Finn]

Narraration can be very important to the story or storytelling of a film. Probably one of the best examples of how important it can be is the way it was used in Magnolia. Can you imagine what the film would have been like without it?

[cine]

I don't even know. They feel that it is a lazy writing mechanism because you should be able to convey the themes and the elements of a story and whatnot without any kind of voice over type stuff, which is just not right.

Why is this not right?

everybody that's written a book on the subject seems to have at least a couple dumb opinions. I just ignore it all.

And I'm assuming you haven't written a screenplay, yes? If you have, do you always include a voice over?

don't forget Kubrick by the way...Clockwork..."oh my brothers". Voice over will not be dead anytime soon, it's not frowned upon by everybody.

Okay, so this whole Scorsese/Kubrick should be excluded from the discussion. Well, at least GoodFellas and A Clockwork Orange anyway. Those films used their voice overs because of they were film adaptations. Both of those narrations, I'm convinced, were inevitable if they were going to work for the film.

[MacGuffin]

Narraration can be very important to the story or storytelling of a film. Probably one of the best examples of how important it can be is the way it was used in Magnolia. Can you imagine what the film would have been like without it?

I don't think the VO in "Magnolia" was that important. It explained the theme of the film, not the story or storytelling. Better examples are "Citizen Kane", "Sunset Blvd.", "Double Indemnity", "Apocalypse Now", "GoodFellas", "Casino" and "Fight Club".

Also watch the two versions of "Blade Runner" and see the differences.

[Ghostboy]

It actually is very good advice, to not use voice over - it's not a rule that you have to follow of course, just like the three act structure rule, but there's a reason that it's use is discouraged.  It could easily become a crutch for a screenwriter, a cumbersome expository device. You have to be careful in your use of it, or else you'll end up with your character just describing what he's doing on screen.

[Pubrick]

yes, it's better when the voice-over is by a character. Casino is brilliant in that, haha like when Pesci gets wacked in the middle of his narration.

it's important that the voice has sum grounding in character, like the one in Barry Lyndon, the case could be made that the narrator himself was limited in his predictions and understanding by time itself, like the protagonists. and by basic deduction we become aware that we also are not so big, in terms of time.

does that make sense? i'm stealing music here by the barrelful.

[phil marlowe]

it's an easy tool to tell a story with and like all things it can be used good and can of course be used bad. the character thing makes sence to me, esp in a film like barry lyndon, which is all adventurous and barry shaping his caracter all the way through the film.

another cool voice over; fear and loathing.

[aclockworkjj]

I actually liked the voice over in fight club...which otherwise I am not as gun-ho over as most college aged males.  it was a decent movie, and I think the voice over worked well there.  I don't see a problem with it as long as it remains to be effective.  If it's a cop out, it will be noticable, if it flows, you won't think twice.  There are no rules...silly.

[metroshane]

It's one of those things where you can break the rule only after you know the rule.  The problem is that lazy writers sometimes use voice over when they could have shown the action much better.  That doesn't mean all vo's are the easy way out, just that it can become a crutch.  Some styles, like noir, really use vo effectively....I couldn't imagine Double Idemnety without it.

[Pedro]

it's good advice to not use it....as film's a visual medium, it's good to not rely on something like voice over to get a point across....but sometimes it needs to be there.  in that case, by all means, use it.  i personally, have not had to...yet.  but when it happens, ill make sure that it results out of the story really calls for it, and not because i'm trying to rush-write it.

[coffeebeetle]

Amelie's another great example I feel.

[Find Your Magali]

It's also important to have the right VOICE doing the narration.

Morgan Freeman's fantastic narration work propels "The Shawshank Redemption" into the pantheon of great movies.

[SHAFTR]

Voice Over should be avoided.  Do not use Voice Over if that information can correctly be told through the context of the story.

My biggest thing about bad writing, and the best do this.  When some kind of external event sparks a change in a character.  A lot of times drugs and alcohol are used for this, another example (which I'm stealing from my TA's example) is in Almost Famous, when they think the plane is going to crash.