Was anyone else bothered by the narrations?
-
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. -
boonjj — 15 years ago(February 25, 2011 02:16 PM)
the narration is one of the best things about the film
one bit that stood out to me for whatever reason was the narration over the man with his family, on his boat in the night time. "he would start his own business, but it would fail due to breaking new laws on owning a company. In 2 years time he will be a cleaner for a hotel. He will not fish again"
paraphrasing..
it really gives the film a whole new layer, showing that altho the story we're watching is about these 3 people, this is just 1 story and everybody has their own. it gave me a very strange feel, like nostaliga and beauty. it made me sad and happy at the same time
-
saucyminxx — 13 years ago(July 15, 2012 02:30 PM)
Though I usually don't like narrations, in this film I thought they were beautiful. Sometimes just nonsense but it gave us a better glimpse of the characters lives.
Like the one where he talks about what the boys do in the bathroom in the other ones house. It was important cause it showed us how they really felt about eachother. Julio possibly showing a bit more respect and Tenoch looking down at Julios family cause they are poorer. We wouldn't know about these things if it weren't for the narrator.
Also I can kill you with my brain -
GuyOnTheLeft — 13 years ago(November 04, 2012 01:55 AM)
I sort of cut the narration some slack (even though it didn't always work for me) because I think it would likely come across better for a fluent Spanish speaker watching without subtitles.
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc -
Suskis — 12 years ago(July 25, 2013 02:27 AM)
It took me a while to like the narration voice, but, in the end, it turns out being totally part of the story. It adds a deep layer that changes the value of many things we see.
Every time we are told about something "unnecessary", we are actually given proof of how in life things happen, just like how we see antything else in the movie.
'What has been affirmed without proof can also be denied without proof.' (Euclid) -
solatisa — 12 years ago(March 26, 2014 09:31 AM)
Although I found the muting of the scenes and narration to be a bit odd at first - if only for the reason that each time the sound muted before the narration began, it took me out of the movie because I thought there was a audio error. That being said.
I really enjoyed this unique method of film narration. It served multiple functions for me: the conversation was muted to show that although this is just one story, there is a larger world out there and the viewer gets an omnipotent viewpoint of the country, politics, and world. It was also interesting because the dialog conflicted with reality. As the characters said one thing, the sound of their world cut off and the reality of that scene and it's ramifications were introduced. I liked it, but I totally understand why other would not. -
ValeriaMessalina — 11 years ago(April 06, 2014 01:40 PM)
I was not bothered by the narration at all, in fact I thought that it helped the film show a whole different layer outside of "two teen boys go on a sexually charged trip with an older woman." In fact, I have found over the years that much of South American art has a class/social undertone to it and I thought the narration helped bring that to light, amongst other things. The migrant worker story, all servants being indigenous versus all rich/elites being light-skinned/European ancestry, the police used as a weapon in the class warfare against poor people, most rural people being indigenous (another example that comes to mind immediately is the Motorcycle Diaries, although I haven't seen that in many years). And this isn't just about Mexico, from what I have understood this holds true of many countries south of the USA. Two examples that I've personally come in contact with through family/friends have been Peru and Bolivia, they are stratified much the same way, European-ancestry/light-skinned elite/rich, indigenous servants/farmers/poor. Was it obvious to any South Americans/latinos/Mexicans? I'm Russian and this spoke volumes to me, maybe because I'm somewhat familiar with the history/context of the region, although I have never actually been there in person.
-
liv911 — 9 years ago(January 07, 2017 12:05 AM)
i really liked the narrations! but the way it was done bothered me.
i don't think it affected my oppinion of the film, the narrations made it more intresting if anything, but it was annoying cause i never got used to it so i would always think that the sound was buffering or something like that.