Screenwriting : How to use (V.O)s in screenplays? by Conrad Ekeke

There are several ways to use (V.O.) 1. When Narrator explains things over series of shoots, like in Casino with Robert De Niro. 2. Phone conversations - When character picks up on the other end (usually it's followed by INTERCUT and both characters are visible. Sometimes it's just the caller but the other character only says 2-3 sentences (usually a very short conversation between characters) 3. OVER BLACK - Imagine 2 or 3 characters talking to each other in a room at night and the lights are out. (I would use this only if the characters talk about why there's no light or why did the lights go off) 4. When character is heard but not seen in the scene then (O.S.) is used. I hope this helps but you can combine any of this, it all depends what is your screenplay about, it's up to you.

Very helpful Oliver. Thank you. Gone through and I saw there were contradictions but I think Shawn has a better view about phone conversations to be represented as VOs. Filtered is cool.

Agree Jim

V.O. has nothing to do with is someone is in the entire movie. Voice Over film (V.O.) is used when the actor is not present when filming the scene so their voice has to be added to the film later on. When a character is in a scene, is speaking, but is not visible, they are considered Off Screen and so you put (O.S.) next to the character’s name instead of (V.O.) because the actor is present while they are shooting the scene. This does not mean that when two people in a room are having a conversation and the camera is on one of them that you put (O.S.) next to the person that is not shown. It is used more often when a person is speaking off camera. One way to determine when to use (V.O.) or (O.S. is if your actor’s car is not in the parking area you would probably use (V.O.) because the actor is not around when filming the scene. If the actor’s car is in the parking area that means he had to be their while they are shooting so the odds are pretty good you would be using (O.S.) Obviously that doesn’t seem to work all the time but it is a good indication which one you should be using.

Expert way of putting it Dan. Gr8!! :D

There are so many different ways to use V.O. it's really only limited by your imagination. Apart from those already mentioned, there is also the option of the internal monologue when your character IS on screen, as a form of delivering exposition. But be careful with V.O. if not done well and/or overdone then it can be very bad for your story.

Pierre is right. If you use it too often they might think you are telling the story instead of showing it and label you an amateur. That is the last impression a screenwriter wants to make.

I'm writing a biopic where the protagonist does VO. But it's seasoning, reflects his particular way of seeing things, but is NOT and does NOT tell the story

God help you if you use voice over in your work my friend. God help you. That's flaccid, sloppy writing. Any idiot can use voice over to express the internal thoughts of a character.

I too wouldn't use voice over to express internal thoughts of a character. That would be considered amateurish in the eyes of most.

Hahaha, I wish you prayed for us all Christopher. I won't advice, Pablo, that you use that. I think in a narrative way, using VOs, you can still express a character's thoughts. But more of that should be in the description/action lines. Have you heard of this saying: "A man's actions depicts the way he thinks". Heard that before? Well, that how much I can contribute but take Dan and Christopher's advice. :)

Thanks, guys! Appreciate the advice, even as colorful as Christopher made it with his choice of words (any idiot... etc). This VO are not his thoughts about what he sees or does. It's a man with PTSD who hears voices, sees things. It's part of what happens to him. Not the usual brainless cheesy approach.

Voice Over (V.O.) may be used in any situation when the dialogue doesn't come from a character speaking in the scene. What we hear as dialogue is not coming from the character's mouth, we don't see his jaw and lips and tongue moving and hence sound coming out. We also might or might not see the character in the scene. The most common use of V.O. is narrators. If, a character is in the scene, and speaks, but we don't see him/her in the shot, then Off Screen (O.S.) may be used. If the character is in the scene, and speaks and we see him/her speaking, then neither V.O. or O.S. is necessary. Now, telephone conversations are tricky, because the characters are part of the scene, but we may not see one of the parts at certain moment or all the conversation - V.O. or O.S.? Strictly technically I think it would be V.O. when the character is not seen in the shot. My two cents. P.S. In my opinion using V.O.'s heavily, narrators or not, should not be ever frowned upon, condemned, or even avoided. Here's all the great film using a lot of V.O. that come to my mind: - Usual Suspects, Clockwork Orange, Things I like and I don't like (short by Jean Pierre Jeunet), Adaptation, Fight Club, Fear and Loathing in las Vegas, Tree of Life, pretty much every Wes Anderson film, Apocalypse Now, Trainspotting... can't think of any more right now. But I'm sure there's so many more good ones I'm forgetting about. Many will say, "oh, but you have to a genius like Kubrick, or Kaufmann, or (...) to pull it off". I think you have to start trying it at some point in order to become as good as them; and being afraid of doing it because a great marketing guru writer of the 'screenplay bible' says it's a sin won't lead you anywhere.

Best way to learn is read lots of scripts.

Exactly, Martin! Robert McKee, who Christopher quotes without giving proper credit, is right in many, probably most cases. But there are cases when writers use it because it works well with their genre, style or mood of the film and you've pointed out some great examples.

Shawshank Redemption is another one. Frank Darabont is not exactly a slacker.

Martin I do agree with you but it is frowned upon by many readers. If someone writing on spec does things that a reader was taught you shouldn't do then the script will have to work that much harder. I don't like it but it's a fact that new screenwriters do face.

That's a good point, Dan!

Am I completely out of touch with how things are done nowadays? In this entire thread no one has mentioned (o.s.). I've always used (V.O.) exclusively for narration and (o.s.) for a character in the scene, but off camera. Am I old fashioned?

No your not Aldine. From everyone's POV, it's that's the tradition when handling VOs and SOs. You're "new born fashion". :)

Excellent Martin, "chapeau". I think Dan sees the future for a better screenwriting practice. Makes it a lot more simpler and friendly. You guys are wonderful ;)

O.S. has been mentioned and acknowledged in this thread Cm but most of the discussion is around V.O. and you're certainly not old fashioned because it's common usage.

C.M. You aren't old fashion. OS and OC are used if the character's voice is heard when they are off camera. VO is used when the actor isn't present and their voice is added later.

I would just add that (O.S) is usually used maybe up to a half dozen times in a script. It is to identify significant moment when a speaking character NEEDS to be off screen intentionally, not to control the general dialogue back and forth. Any use need to be special because almost any but the most economical use looks amateurish...

Like Mark said.

What did Mark say? Lol, yeah Mark's totally correct. ;)