"Voiceover is the crutch of a poor screenwriter"

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I have a film critic friend who says this. Agree or disagree? When has voiceover worked, and when hasn't it?

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:11 (twenty-one years ago)

obviously Blade Runner is an example of poor use of voiceover.

― hstencil, Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it's a bit of a film rockist cliché. When used well, it's very effective. In 'Badlands', for instance.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:16 (twenty-one years ago)

N. OTM ("notm"??). If it's just used lazily for exposition it's a dud, but otherwise it is as valid as any other creative tool that a screenwriter has at their disposal, to be (ab)used as is seen fit.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:18 (twenty-one years ago)

"Voiceover is the crutch of a poor screenwriter" is a cliché, I mean. Not voiceovers themselves.

x-post

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:19 (twenty-one years ago)

'Kind Hearts and Coronets' is probably the best voiceovered movie i've seen. 'Raising Arizona' is good too. If you took the track off the film they would tell their own story without missing the images too badly, tho i'm not saying that's positive criteria.
'Goodbye Lenin' was a good recent example.

― pete s, Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:19 (twenty-one years ago)

say this thread title to terrence malick's face, i dare you

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:20 (twenty-one years ago)

(if you can find him)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I can't wait to see Goodbye Lenin. It looks like it was made just for me.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:20 (twenty-one years ago)

anyway, VO can be awesome, expositional VO not so much though i agree.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:21 (twenty-one years ago)

(narrative expo i mean)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Billy Wilder was right when he said that it's great as an introduction but really should gradually go away as the viewer is, hopefully, into the story and no longer requires guidance. Some movies get away with it (High Fidelity, IMO) by providing information that wouldn't be able to be delivered on screen otherwise (of course this can be annoying if you find the info worthless - see the dozens of shitty mockumentaries out there). The ones that kill me are the movies that have gratuitous narration. I hate that scene in the Royal Tennenbaums when Alec Baldwin notes that Royal meant it when he said the last week was the best of his life, dude it's GENE'S JOB to make us see that (and he did!).

One movie I saw not too long ago that was really guilty of this horseshit was Wonder Boys, where the narration was either gratuitous (do you have to say where you are headed if I can see you pulling into the goddamn DRIVEWAY???) or a cover-up (let's have Douglas say how much he loves McDormand in voice-over cuz frankly no one would be able to tell from their non-chemistry).

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:21 (twenty-one years ago)

is this in response to the "Royal Tenenbaums" thread? 'cause someone's fixin' to get their ass kicked, possibly by Alec Baldwin :)

― Donna Brown (Donna Brown), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:22 (twenty-one years ago)

It's great in 'Goodfellas' too, and yeah 'The Royal Tenenbaums'.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I will admit the narration in The Royal Tennenbaums really works in the beginning. I just think it's intrusive in the later parts of the movie.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:24 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm with Miccio re: Royal Tenenbaums. But I'm with N. re: Badlands. The flat affect of Spacek's VO is totally integral to the film.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe you're right about TRT. I'll watch it again.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I hate that scene in the Royal Tennenbaums when Alec Baldwin notes that Royal meant it when he said the last week was the best of his life, dude it's GENE'S JOB to make us see that (and he did!).

actually this works because the audience would take him at his word without the narration, because of the acting, etc. But WITH the narration we realize that he didn't realize he was tellign the truth until he said so. I dont think the effect would be quite the same without the voiceover.

― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Worked in 'Goodfellas', as you could imagine the whole voiceover script as being Henry's witness box confessional.
Didn't work in 'C@sino' as it was too split between several of the main protagonists, and err, you can't imagine Pesci's character telling us anything in hindsight cos...he's dead.

― pete s, Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Royal Tenenbaums also has that whole storybook aspect running throughout the whole film, so maybe a "narrator" makes sense.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:29 (twenty-one years ago)

frankly, ryan, I would have prefered some ambiguity at that moment (and I think Hackman's silent self-registering beat after saying it makes it clear enough that he means it). but I'm guessing Anderson wanted it as blunt as humanly possible.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:31 (twenty-one years ago)

and, while I don't think it burdens the movie tooo much, I think Anderson's whole book conceit was superfluous to what was most effective in the movie. Sometimes those initial inspirations should be jettisoned.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I've just been reminded of Adaptation's riff on voiceover snobbery.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:36 (twenty-one years ago)

(x-post)
This is the same feeling I have about the St. Valentine's Day Massacre stuff in Some Like It Hot (evidently Wilder wanted to make a comedy with the murders in it BEFORE he even thought about the cross-dressing stuff)

I haven't seen Adaptation, N. What did they say about voiceovers in that?

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Nic Cage's screenwriting character is very anti-voiceover. The film uses his voiceover.

I'm not sure if it's a failing in L.A. Confidential or not.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, how could I forget Jules et Jim and... Babe?

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:42 (twenty-one years ago)

everything about la confidential is a failing!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:48 (twenty-one years ago)

anyway, voiceover is basically the same thing as dialogue in terms of what you should and shouldn't use it to do

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:48 (twenty-one years ago)

i should've signed that one "david mamet"

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I didn't want to say that because so many people I respect like it, and I've only seen it the one time, but yeah - it didn't do much for me.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Here's a rec.arts.movies.current-films thread on the same subject.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:57 (twenty-one years ago)

you know it's bad voiceover when it starts the movie, dissappears, and shows up late enough for you to go "oh yeah, this movie has a voiceover!"

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 00:58 (twenty-one years ago)

S: Raising Arizona
D: Dances with Wolves

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:02 (twenty-one years ago)

watching Badlands and Days of Heaven as a double feature on the big screen(or as big as the Film Forum is...) was not only one of the finest afternoons of my life but really educational in the similarities of Sissy Spacek's voiceover and Linda Manz, how they're used, what they're saying, what their viewpoint is, you could probably draw parallels between Martin Sheen and Richard Gere as well, now that I think about it. Thin Red Line was a variation but more of the same. All three movie's voiceovers equals disassociated and naive observers in the midst of the action?

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I like the voiceover in Blade Runner... it gave it sort of a hardboiled, noir feel: "It didn't make me feel any better about shooting a woman in the back..." etc.

I missed it when they took it out. But I think that whole director's cut was a sham. So is metric, and so is stereo: sham.

― andy, Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:13 (twenty-one years ago)

but what about the beautiful unicorn

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:14 (twenty-one years ago)

What about gratuitous use of asides, though? Like "Malcolm in the Middle". Serves the same function as a voice over, but seems kind of wacky too. Brutally overused these days.

― andy, Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I saw Blade Runner's director cut first (haha I saw BOTH versions in film school for different classes, the studio version in a class about DIRECTING, reaffirming how ignorant that place could be). Maybe it was in hindsight, but I found a lot of the narration gratuitous. It did give the noir feel, but it was chock full of "so we went to the place that you see me walking into right now."

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:16 (twenty-one years ago)

malcom in the middle is gross and wrong

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:16 (twenty-one years ago)

even when I thought the show was decent (saw like 4 episodes, the last being the only horrific one) I thought Malcom's asides were totally unnecessary. Plus the kid's got face-scrunching issues.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:18 (twenty-one years ago)

He's going through his awkward phase. Extremely highly-paid awkward phase.

― andy, Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:21 (twenty-one years ago)

that's spelled face

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Wonder Boys, where the narration was either gratuitous (do you have to say where you are headed if I can see you pulling into the goddamn DRIVEWAY???) or a cover-up (let's have Douglas say how much he loves McDormand in voice-over cuz frankly no one would be able to tell from their non-chemistry).

See, I disagree with both of these. Douglas' character is a writer (cue Rip Torn: "I... ... ... ... am a WRITER.") who clearly takes himself a little too seriously (see 'under the influence' preaching to the choir, or Katie Holmes, schpiel) and is used to having Godlike monologues make sense of things in his head. Of course, nobody can hear these monologues but him, so to everybody else he just looks like a ridiculous fuckup. Which he is.

― Dave M. (rotten03), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:27 (twenty-one years ago)

The voiceover in Y tu mamá también is easily the most effective I've seen/heard. I love the way the sound drops out a second before the voiceover begins. It takes you halfway out of the present scene before returning you there with a different knowledge of it. The first time I realized this wasn't the movie I thought it was going to be was when the voiceover detailed the accident the characters would have seen had they been on this certain stretch of road sometime in the recent past, just as the roadside crosses come into view. And the voiceover is why the last scene just kills me.

― brian patrick (brian patrick), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Ach, the last scene. I hate that so much.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:31 (twenty-one years ago)

the last scene is what completely killed that movie for me. (xp)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:31 (twenty-one years ago)

seriously though, it's like "surprise! this movie you thought you were enjoying has actually sucked all along!"

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:32 (twenty-one years ago)

SPOILERS YOU MFUCKERS AAARGH

― Dave M. (rotten03), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:38 (twenty-one years ago)

What was wrong with the last scene? At the diner, you mean?

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:43 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the Blade Runner voiceover is grossly overhated.

― captain gay, Tuesday, 23 March 2004 01:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Skipping 37 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

What movies besides The Big Lebowski do the at-first-invisible narrators make actual physical appearances?

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 21:45 (twenty-one years ago)

tony wilson talking to the camera in "24 Hour Party People" was fun, too.

xpost -- Days of Heaven?

― Kingfish Cowboy (Kingfish), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 21:47 (twenty-one years ago)

ha ha good one

I think the VO work in Lebowski actually sorta set the scene like an old-timey cowboy movie with The Dude as the loner hero, Donnie as the scrappy kid, etc.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 21:49 (twenty-one years ago)

oh wait retract that ha ha I thought you said Days of Thunder

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 21:50 (twenty-one years ago)

PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE THOSE TWO FILMS AGAIN

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 21:51 (twenty-one years ago)

IT WON'T BE HARD.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 21:52 (twenty-one years ago)

oh, haveing Tom Cruise being followed around by his little incoherent sister would have made the flick BETTER!

"Locusts! There's locuts on the racetrack!"

― Kingfish Cowboy (Kingfish), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 22:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I liked it when N. mentioned the film Babe.

― the babefox, Tuesday, 23 March 2004 22:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Sterling made this point about certain scenes in "Trainspotting".

"as i recall those were played like he was telling a story he had heard."

Except, the narrator fell silent in those scenes. And how would he know that much detail? For me, a voiceover by an onscreen character implies that he or she sees and is present at what occurs.

― Bunged Out (Jake Proudlock), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 22:24 (twenty-one years ago)

What movies besides The Big Lebowski do the at-first-invisible narrators make actual physical appearances?
Again, It's A Wonderful Life maybe?

How about movies where the narrator is an incognito celebrity, i.e. John Malkovich in Alive or John Larroquette in Texas Chainsaw Massacre?

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 22:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Or Alec Baldwin in Tenenbaums, for that matter.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 22:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Ooh, Christina Ricci in "The Opposite of Sex". I liked that one (I am going to be piss poor at explaining why though).

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 22:42 (twenty-one years ago)

As the critic friend who actually said such a silly thing, allow me to clarify.

Good screenwriters can use voice over appropriately. Malick would be a good example. But poor screenwriters use it as a crutch when they have no other way to get across their ideas. When I hear a voice over nowadays (and it's far more common than you think), it immediately raises a question in my mind -- why? And that can be a huge hurdle for a film because it allows for little critical middle ground. It's rare to find an "OK voice over". In other words, the answer to the "why" question is almost always going to be "because it's a poor screenwriter using it as crutch for his inability to show and not tell" or "it's a great writer using it delicately and carefully to elaborate on his ideas". VO puts me in a defensive state ready to love it or hate it. Maybe I should just try and ignore it more.

― Brian Tallerico, Tuesday, 23 March 2004 22:57 (twenty-one years ago)

APOCALYSPE NOW and CLOCKWORK ORANGE

― sexyDancer, Tuesday, 23 March 2004 23:09 (twenty-one years ago)

What movies besides The Big Lebowski do the at-first-invisible narrators make actual physical appearances?

Fellowship of the Ring

― juju, Tuesday, 23 March 2004 23:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Dreams That Money Can Buy

― otto, Wednesday, 24 March 2004 00:42 (twenty-one years ago)

the 4th wall/VO stuff in 24 hour party people is totally amazing, good call

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 03:38 (twenty-one years ago)

(I hate to generalize like this, but every time someone says that American Beauty is a great movie I lose all respect for them on every level. Is that so wrong, though?)

― Dave M. (rotten03), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 05:54 (twenty-one years ago)

naw

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 05:55 (twenty-one years ago)

"I ain't never seen the Queen in her damned undies, as the fellow says"

― Donna Brown (Donna Brown), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 07:01 (twenty-one years ago)

"True Romance" was on television last night, and th Patricia Arquette voiceover at the end is one of the most clumsy I've ever seen. It's bad for several of the reasons enumerated above. It deviates from the perspective established as the film's center, and the voice isn't heard until the wrap-up of the film. I don't know much about how many changes were made to the Tarantino script, but maybe it's one of those cases where the vestige of an earlier draft remains. But sticking it in the unsatifying end pulls the film down from mere mediocrity to dross.

― Dickerson Pike (Dickerson Pike), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 09:27 (twenty-one years ago)

More babefox please!

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 09:41 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm in the city.

― the babefox, Wednesday, 24 March 2004 14:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I never saw that, but sensed it was no Crocodile Dundee.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 15:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I think there's some truth to the love-it-or-hate-it use of VO, though the VO in Tenenbaums inhabits the middleground for me. I love the movie; I think the voiceover works but maybe could have been finessed to be a little less intrusive at moments.

This discussion reminds me of the beginning of Stephanie Zacharek's review of Big Fish on Salon and the old showing-vs-telling problem:

Why are people always gassing on about the power of stories when it's so much more effective just to knuckle down and tell one already? We don't need a shaman to inform us that good stories are powerful. But since the '90s, at least, in both books and movies, there's been a marked trend toward reminding us just how important stories are, instead of just laying them on us, the old-fashioned way.

We get wordy preambles -- often delivered by a wise elder, usually a Southerner -- about how stories tell us who we are and where we've been. In a state of innocent hopefulness, we wait to hear the tale: Who knows? It might actually be good. But more often than not it turns out to be some magic-realism baloney about a giant fish in a stream or some similarly numbing metaphor for the unpredictability of life, or the brevity of life, or the importance of taking chances in life -- choose your own larger meaning and insert it here. Maybe the story would have been OK without the big windup. Then again, maybe it needed the advance advertising campaign because it wasn't such a great story to begin with.

I'm not interested in starting a discussion of Big Fish, but I think her criticism here and the extent to which the audience is overtly made conscious of "telling" is one of the main problems with VO in general. VO often brings an omniscient narrator to the film or endows the narrating character with a little too much knowledge and wisdom to be credible when we'd rather just trust the camera lens to give us a window into the story. In print, we're more comfortable with a narrator, omniscient or limited, to serve as the primary mode of storytelling (and this is almost certainly why VO often creeps into film adaptations of novels as well as films with storybook frames). In film (unlike the narrator in a novel), VO is obvious and difficult to ignore, and, like almost anything that can be categorized as a "device," it can get clunky in the hands of anyone who isn't skilled.

― alexandra s (alexandra s), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 17:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Butcher Boy is an example of a good movie that suffers from excessive voice-over.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 17:27 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm actually in favour of telling not showing!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 17:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I love that Zacharek review, btw.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 17:43 (twenty-one years ago)

this is the part where i'm supposed to go "OOOOHHH ZACHAREK gnash gnash"

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 17:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I just remembered "Croupier", in which the VO details the fact that the character is essentially becoming a detached sociopath.

― Gear! (Gear!), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 17:46 (twenty-one years ago)

good VO that.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 17:47 (twenty-one years ago)

s1ocki, I know you have issues with Zacharek, but that review (and the NY Times review -- I don't remember who it was by, A.O. Scott, maybe?) really nailed what I hated about Big Fish.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 17:49 (twenty-one years ago)

[ / beating a dead horse]

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 17:50 (twenty-one years ago)

i concede she & hubby occasionally have a point.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 17:50 (twenty-one years ago)

It was around that time that I realized s1ocki was a bright chap, and it would be wise to keep him on my side.

― Gear! (Gear!), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 17:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I still think he's a bright chap!

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 17:59 (twenty-one years ago)

alexandra s has a good point; there is a marked difference between the selfconscious voice over narration of "big fish" and even the sarcastic selfconscious voice over of "big lebowski", and the sort of voice over we find in "how green was my valley", etc. the former seems to go hand-in-hand with the metanarrativity of much recent literature, the latter is just the similar "here's what happened to me" from a million books. i think both styles can be used well, and i'm not sure zacharek is correct in noting a trend toward facile uses of the former type; i don't see enough new hollywood movies to agree or disagree honestly.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 20:37 (twenty-one years ago)

there's a type of modernist film, where--like in some calvino novels--the voice over is just one part of the film's move to confuse different levels of narration. like "the hypothesis of the stolen painting".

― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 20:38 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm trying to think if there are any movies where the VO is revealed to be the voice of one of the characters when all along you think it's an omniscient narrator (like in nabokov's "pnin")

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 20:39 (twenty-one years ago)

"The Wonder Years" VO:
DUD, DUD, A THOUSAND TIMES DUD!!!

― sexyDancer, Wednesday, 24 March 2004 20:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the narration by a character thing works well in "Amadeus" and "Ferris Bueller's Day Off".

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 20:43 (twenty-one years ago)

when all along you think it's an omniscient narrator

i meant to say "you've thought"

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 20:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Croupier! That's one of the most laughable pieces of tosh I've seen. That plodding voiceover. Dreadful. What's good about it, I've always wanted to know.

― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 20:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Like Last Year In Marienbad?

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm trying to think if there are any movies where the VO is revealed to be the voice of one of the characters when all along you think it's an omniscient narrator (like in nabokov's "pnin")

It would be harder to do that on film--voice recognition would make it too obvious if the VO is done by a major character (unless the character is silent until the end of the film or something). It could work if the VO is the character as an old man/woman played by another actor and the film is a flashback. A film adaptation of Atonement seems primed for that trick.

― alexandra s (alexandra s), Thursday, 25 March 2004 14:25 (twenty-one years ago)

the other hard thing about it would be that very few films have voice-overs that are supposed to be the voice of an impersonal, omniscient narrator (at least anymore, tenenbaums exempted). that kind of narrator stands out in a movie, unlike in novels, when the third-person narrator can be taken a little more for granted. in movie terms it'd be like discovering at the end of the film that the entire thing was SHOT in first-person!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 25 March 2004 14:50 (twenty-one years ago)

wait, doesn't Heathers have a VO, too?

― Kingfish Hypercolor (Kingfish), Thursday, 25 March 2004 15:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Isn't it just when Winona Ryder reads aloud what she's writing in her diary?

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 25 March 2004 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

five years pass...

http://www.avclub.com/articles/oh-im-chasing-this-guy-no-hes-chasing-me-34-essent,36890/

― Hoisin Murphy (jaymc), Sunday, 17 January 2010 16:19 (sixteen years ago)

The 1970s Ed Gein film Deranged actually had an onscreen narrator, he was great. Every so often he'd wander on in the middle of a scene to tell us what Ed was thinking, wearing a jacket with leather elbow patches as I recall it.

― Ork Alarm (Matt #2), Sunday, 17 January 2010 22:43 (sixteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.