By Stephanie Ciccarelli
June 1, 2007
Just because a narrator is reading a script, does that necessarily mean that they believe what they are saying?
What happens when a narrator's personal beliefs butts heads with the content of a script?
If conflict arises, will the voice over be authentic enough to believe?
When you listen to a documentary or audiobook narration, do you believe the narrator?
In this business, narrators are required to be good word painters and also to be authentic.
While this statement may be true and to the point, someone once said that it takes veracity and honesty to make it in voice over (and, once you've faked that, you've got it made).
I'd like to pose the question of whether the authenticity of a read is essential to the successful delivery of a voice over or is it merely a component; a means to achieve an end?
Let's look at it this way:
Are the theories or beliefs stated in a script reflective of the narrator's personal views, and what are the implications, if any, should those conflict?
So, if you are a narrator and are handed a script that contains content or a few ideas here and there that do not jive with your personal ideals, could you fake or pretend (some people call this acting) that they coexist or are complementary to your own opinion(s) with any pseudo veracity?
This topic is a bit of an eyeopener.
It isn't everyday that a question like this comes along asking you to examine this aspect of voice over and interpretation.
In your opinion, does the integrity or interpretation of read suffer when a voice talent is not wholeheartedly in union with the concept, ideas or content presented in a script?
Let's keep this conversation going :) Leave a comment with your thoughts.
Â©©©iStockphoto.com/Marcin RychlyRelated Topics: union