Unreliable Narrator in Storytelling
The first thing that came to my mind when I heard the idea of Unreliable Narrator from Olivia Wilde’s character in Dan Fogelman’s Life Itself was Akira Kurosawa’s Rashomon.
Before Dan Fogelman wrote and directed Life Itself, and even before the fame of This is Us, I chanced upon his work Danny Collins. Now Danny Collins is a movie which may quite easily become a guilty pleasure for any artist across any field. Me being a huge, huge, and huge fan of John Lennon was more than enough for me to watch Danny Collins. Dan Fogelman by the sheer attempt of Danny Collins was in my good books. This is Us pumped it all up a notch. And thus, I was excited to unearth Life Itself.
Life Itself, is a movie which becomes the culprit of the Art form it is trying to emulate – literature. The only thing is life so far has made me shed tears is Art, and what a tear jerker Life Itself could have been. I did not find the film melodramatic at all. Maybe the non-usage of constant voiceover of the narrator, who happens to be the third generation in the series of family tragedy, could have made the movie more real, more raw, more earnest. I feel, the narrator – portrayed reliably in the film kills the game. But hey, every failure teaches us. And this is about what I took away after my viewing of the film.
I come from the school of show, don’t tell. Pretty Hemingway-esque way to show. I mean Hemingway did it in writing, can’t filmmakers do it on a visual medium which in principle is meant to show, not tell. But before we move forward on our probe, I must also confess – there have been really good examples of narration in the past which move you during your film viewing experience. Case in point – Pear Cider and Cigarettes, a 2016 animated short nominated for Oscars in the same category.
As an auteur, it is important to understand what is the difference in a voice-over and in a narration. The way I see it is that a narration is a subset of voiceover. A voiceover may only be a part of a film in a scene where suppose a character is writing a letter or reading a letter to not only move the plot forward but also to express something which is hidden inside him and he needs to confess. First Reformed by Paul Schrader does this exceptionally well when a lost Church Priest sets down to write a diary about partly his insecurities and partly about his observations on life. Another great examples can be found in almost all of French New Wave films by Godard and Truffaut.
In case of being an Auteur, it is extremely easy to fall in the trap of narrations and voiceovers. The psychological reason behind it is that an auteur himself is telling the story from his perspective, from his vantage point. Auteur is the narrator, and often the characters he writes have shades of him in them. It’s difficult to make the distinction between the maker of the cinema and the characters in the cinema. David Mamet, in his book On Directing Film, in first few pages makes it clearer when he questions his students about showing a woman waiting on a railway platform for 30 hours. Hoe do you show it on film? In literature there are countless ways to do it. In film, it’s tricky. One of his students responds we can juxtapose with the visual of a clock and its needles moving to signal passage of 30 hours. Another one suggests a voiceover. Out of the two which would you choose, out of the two which you think makes great Art? To me neither. The idea is to always juxtapose the emotion of waiting for 30 hours with another visual. A lot of films use exposition to silly extent to make it loud and clear. Had I been present among those students, my answer would have been this - In the same scenario, we can have another passenger sit next to the women impatiently waiting for 30 hours, the new passenger tries to make a small talk, and she retaliates in extreme anger blurting out in one of her dialogues that she has been there since past 30 hours. I don’t even like this solution but at least it tells something about the character and her impatience or tiredness depending on the dialogue. But what I would really do to film it is show that women on the railway platform falling asleep in boredom and then being woken up by another stranger. This too necessarily may not be the best solution to our problem but it is one that is close to my own being. This is what after all the auteur theory is about. The director is the author and the emotions and the motions projected on the screen are his.
Since I earlier mentioned Godard, my favorite movie by him solves a lot of narration issues which at very much present in Life Itself. Vivre Sa Vie by Godard is a film or literature. I haven’t been able to figure it out myself. Vivre Sa Vie is told in 12 chapters. Something similar Life Itself aspires albeit unambitiously. But Vivre Sa Vie allows us to explore those chapters on our own terms without ever feeling that we are watching a film or even listening to a book. Life Itself, felt if Audible with Video snippets. However, I totally understand what Dan Fogelman in his brave attempt was trying to do and every failure is a miracle for any auteur. But I learnt an important lesson which perhaps I could have never understood if not have watched Life Itself. The importance and usage of narration and voiceover. The indie scene usually is too reliant on voiceovers, in my case that has always been due to budget issues. There’s no harm in using voiceovers as long as they make the story progress or simply aid the visual. Since cinema is a visual medium, everything an auteur decides to use should be focused towards on one objective – Aiding the visual medium not vice-versa. Life Itself, with all its bravado felt to me like it was aiding Dan Folgelman’s script. Actually, you know what, I am now more excited to read the script. I’m sure it makes for a fine reading. No, no, actually I want to read the thesis that Olivia Wilde’s character wrote in the film about Unreliable Narrator. Touché. I can’t help but imagine if only, and if only, Fogelman had taken the same approach in telling the story of his film through the eyes of an Unreliable Narrator.
Coming back to our ageless auteur Kurosawa and his Rashomon. The chances are remote for anyone interested in films to have not heard of Rashomon Effect. A story told by characters through their eyes, and each character crafts a world so distant yet so unique to their emotions and experiences. I can also empathize with Fogelman’s dilemma to not copy a master. It’s a conflict each artist deals with. Can you top Rashomon when we talk about the Narration of events, of life, of a story? Yes, you can, but there is a price to pay which perhaps maybe Fogelman is prepared to pay the Studio system which finances his films is not ready to pay.
All this discussion leads us to another topic. As much I hate to categorize auteurs, it ultimately is inevitable. Two basic types for starters: the writer-director or the photographer-director. Auteurs are of both types, after all. To make it simpler – Ingmar Bergman: Writer-Director, Andrei Tarkovsky: Photographer-Director. Fogelman falls in the writer-director category which may have a lot to with his great writing capabilities, and him trying to find the balance between writing scripts and visualizing them on-screen. Yet, in all anticipation I still look forward to his next feature, which hopefully should come out sooner than later. I am quite sure, Fogelman realized this before me that how the use of a narrator whether unreliable or otherwise jeopardized the beautifully acted film. But maybe, just maybe, that was the point he was looking to understand himself with this film, how do narration and voiceovers work in tandem with visual images. I myself haven’t figured it out yet as I always keep experimenting with my short films. More than a stylistic choice, it is the expression of emotions meant to be conveyed to the audience.
