Was anyone else bothered by the narrations?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Y Tu Mamá También
cracker82 — 16 years ago(February 02, 2010 12:51 AM)
Overall, I thought the movie was very good! However, the narrations let it down. For one, I didn't like how a conversation would be muted and then the narrations come in.
Second of all, the narrations often gave backstory which I thought was unnecessary to the story. So often I was like, "Why did I need to know that? I don't care that this character's mother likes to make cinnamon rolls for breakfast." (Ok, that wasn't actually said, but you get my drift)
Not everyone will agree, but I think voice overs are often a lazy way to push things forward. I'd rather see something happen between characters than for the narrator to simply say, "This is how the character was feeling, and this is what happened." It's the whole, "Show, don't tell."
Yes, some narrations were interesting, but I think they could have abandoned a lot of them. Very often I didn't really care what the narrator had to say and wanted to enjoy the moments between the characters.
Anyone else feel that way?
Very good movie, but I think the use of narrations is what stopped the movie from greatness. -
bdoliver11 — 16 years ago(February 08, 2010 09:57 PM)
My take on the commentary is that the writer was showing how there are a lot of things going on around the characters. Even if it wasn't particularly about the characters, there is still stuff going on. It was more of a way to make the landscape and the country basically another character in the movie. Cauron does that in Prisoner of Azkaban. He makes sure to show off all the scenery and made the scenery another character.
But that's just my take on it.
Because you are a character doesn't mean you have character -
jetwhite — 16 years ago(February 14, 2010 01:50 PM)
The narrations were one of the best parts of the film for me. It was all part of building a landscape, providing a reality beyond that of the main characters. In films we are led to believe that things happen up to the start of the film and once the film ends things continue. That's a given with every film. With Y Tu Mam Tambin, however, we're shown that things are happening alongside the film too. We don't just take for granted the things that happen before and after, we actually see what's going on in the world around the boys too. One shot of pigs running down a beach sparks a mini story about tens of people who became ill at a later date You thought this information was unnecessary? I'm sorry that you only want what's given to you on a plate. I, for one, was overjoyed that the narrations let us in on what else was going in in the world the characters lived in. It constructed a backdrop that few other films have managed to create in my mind.
I make mistakes, and you just say, it's growing pains -
bdoliver11 — 16 years ago(February 15, 2010 04:40 PM)
SPOILERS
The narrations hit me hard (in a good way). Once I found out about Luisa, what the narrator said while she was seeing the doctor hit me like a ton of bricks. And at the end when he said the two boys never saw each other again, I was just in my chair with my jaw dropped. And what the narrator said Luisa told the boys before they left her. It was so great of the director.
Because you are a character doesn't mean you have character -
cracker82 — 16 years ago(February 16, 2010 01:24 PM)
"Well, obviously the O.P. is American, as am I. Were so used to everything moving the plot foward in films that were not used to brilliant symbolism that is often used in foreign films."
I'm actually Canadian. Despite what others think, I actually do watch a lot of foreign films. I find them a refreshing change from cliched Hollywood movies, as they are usually more grounded in reality.
I still strongly believe that as much as you can, it's better to show than to tell, and I recall there were times where I would have preferred to see things actually happen than for the narrator to tell me. For examples of narrations used better, I'd point to a movie like Little Children.
But yes, the narrator does offer some interesting things to say, and some things I just didn't care about. This was not the worst case of narrations, as Vicky Christina Barcelona is an example of a narrator absolutely killing a movie. For Y Tu mama tambien, it took a bit away, but stillvery good movie. -
Bilwick1 — 16 years ago(February 17, 2010 10:43 AM)
The narration is better in the director's cut, although it's a little disconcerting that it's Al Godstein, editor of SCREW, who does the English version. At the end he gets pretty carried away:
"Look, lookshe's going down on them both! I mean at once! I know porn stars who won't even try 'the Double Header' but this babe looks like she could take a third in there, too! Mamacita, let me in on this! What a hooer!" -
Krustallos — 13 years ago(July 18, 2012 09:55 AM)
Vicky Christina Barcelona is an example of a narrator absolutely killing a movie. For Y Tu mama tambien, it took a bit away
If you'd watched
that
many foreign films you'd know that both of the voiceovers you mention are directly inspired by French Nouvelle Vague films, most specifically "Jules et Jim" by Truffaut, but also some of Godard's (Bande a Part for instance). If you watch those you might have a better idea of where both Cuaron and Allen are coming from.
Furthermore, if you think Cuaron's voiceover is lazy or redundant I'd say you weren't paying too much attention. The narrator gives us information which cannot sensibly be shown on screen but which tells us a huge amount about the characters and context. In good films, the thing which grates or seems out of place or incomprehensible is quite often the key to the movie.
I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity. -
barlowe2003 — 16 years ago(February 22, 2010 12:41 PM)
I honestly began to wonder if the movie had been adapted from a novel or short story that the director had so much respect for he didn't want to deviate from it at all. While the narration filled us in on some interesting things, there were times when I felt it was obtrusive and unnecessary as well. But at the same time, I'm not sure how else the movie may have handled its ending without it. Either way, it didn't stop me from enjoying the film.
-
BlackHawkSaber — 16 years ago(March 28, 2010 11:06 PM)
I agree with you. The narration was the one downside to this movie - it was a lazy way to tell us the political/class landscape of Mexico and provided useless backstory that did not make the characters any more three dimensional. The only time I thought it was necessary was describing what Chuy's life was going to be like - a bathroom cleaner in a hotel. It was a disturbing foreshadowing of what Julio's life could be like, and that was good. Other than that, it took a few stars away from what was otherwise a great movie.
-
mariagcavallo — 15 years ago(April 06, 2010 05:38 PM)
It was a direct reference to the style of the Nouvelle Vague (France 1960s). In Bande a Part, Godard uses narrations to say the simplest, most inane things which we later find to be important. I loved the way they used it. I cannot think of another film on the planet that has succeeded in using the Nouvelle Vague style that wasn't from that time period.
-
-
huero1212 — 15 years ago(April 19, 2010 02:45 PM)
I've own this movie and have watched it five times since it came out in theatres, each of which I felt the exact same way about the voice overs as you did. I love the characters, the landscapes (I was born in California and spent many of my summers in central Mexico and I can tell you no movie has managed to capture Mexican culture like Y Tu Mama Tambien) yet I always felt that the voiceovers were a pretentious gimmick.
That was until I watched it this past weekend. I believe a great movie is one that you can return to over and over again and which will grow along with you. Granted, I was very stoned when watching it this time lol, but I think I understand what Cuaron was trying to do. Throughout the film the camera will leave the characters behind in order to focus on the land, we hear a narrative about some sort of horrible, or funny, or sad event that has happened there yet the only signs of these events happening are minor markers that have been left behind (I.e. the cross on the hillside where a man was killed in a car accident.) In essence, Cuaron is saying that life goes on, no matter what terrible events happen, the world doesn't stop to mourn for long. I think it's a beautiful message to convey when considering the character of Luisa. Life has moved on without her, yet her memory will always linger in the minds of Julio and Tenoch.
Watch it again, pay attention not only to the narration but also the camera work that accompanies it. It had been a year since I'd last watched this movie and it completely floored me all over again. -
-
cracker82 — 15 years ago(May 07, 2010 08:46 PM)
"Throughout the film the camera will leave the characters behind in order to focus on the land, we hear a narrative about some sort of horrible, or funny, or sad event that has happened there yet the only signs of these events happening are minor markers that have been left behind (I.e. the cross on the hillside where a man was killed in a car accident.) In essence, Cuaron is saying that life goes on, no matter what terrible events happen, the world doesn't stop to mourn for long. I think it's a beautiful message to convey when considering the character of Luisa. Life has moved on without her, yet her memory will always linger in the minds of Julio and Tenoch."
Hmm, I don't know what to say back. Very good argument from you. It's funny that you came to this realization after smoking a joint. Something about that drugit makes you think more abstractly and notice nuances you wouldn't notice sober. -
Flossieandflo — 15 years ago(May 14, 2010 07:38 AM)
Throughout the film the camera will leave the characters behind in order to focus on the land, we hear a narrative about some sort of horrible, or funny, or sad event that has happened there yet the only signs of these events happening are minor markers that have been left behind (I.e. the cross on the hillside where a man was killed in a car accident.) In essence, Cuaron is saying that life goes on, no matter what terrible events happen, the world doesn't stop to mourn for long.
The narration was one of the things I liked about the film, and on repeat viewings the relevance becomes clearer. I like the point made about the passing of time, and certainly death as part of life is a big theme of the film. I also think the narration is very poignant in how it emphasises how twists of fate can change peoples lives - most obviously with Luisa, Tenoch and Julio. -
There_Will_Be_Plainview — 15 years ago(July 28, 2010 12:07 AM)
Besides for the narration, I thought this was a brilliant film. Problems with the narrations: 1)For such a visual film, it's kind of a letdown to have voice-overs so frequently. 2)The best parts of the film were when the boys/woman were talking in the car. The narrations would take a well flowing conversation and interrupt it. 3)The muted sound felt weird. Taking the narration into account, this movie is an 8/10. Without it, the film would be 9/10. Either way, it's a really good movie.
Check out my film reviews:
www.paleyfilms.net -
moiestatz — 15 years ago(September 19, 2010 01:48 PM)
bdoliver11:
"My take on the commentary is that the writer was showing how there are a lot of things going on around the characters. Even if it wasn't particularly about the characters, there is still stuff going on. It was more of a way to make the landscape and the country basically another character in the movie."
I agree. As adolescents (or even adults), we can be so oblivious of everything around us.
The narration and the cutting off of the sound also emphasizes the secrets that the characters don't want to get revealed. The VO explicitly says this in certain parts. I love how this technique is used in the three main characters' conversations in the car.
In real life, we are not aware of a lot of things, either because we (un)willingly ignore them or other people don't want certain details shared.
I understand the consideration of "show, don't tell." In conjunction with yap613: "For such a visual film, it's kind of a letdown to have voice-overs so frequently," I have this personal belief in filmmaking that it's okay to show AND tell. The film is indeed visual. For me, the VO adds another dimension. Honestly, I was bothered by it at the beginning, but I found the VO justified by the end.