In a group interview with Hamilton College alumni comedians, I quickly learned that Justin Tyler was the only one of the bunch having what he termed “success” in the world of entertainment. Surprisingly, his break hasn’t come through a comedic artifice (Tyler is a member of the Upright Citizens’ Brigade Theater in New York City), but rather through voiceover work. Tyler is now unofficially the “voice of Comcast” (I quote Tyler himself here); he can be heard at the tail end of this recent 30-second television spot with Jane Lynch.
In an article I wrote about the interview and subsequent performance by Tyler et al, I ascribed Tyler's voiceover success to his “friendly voice,” comparing it to that “of a reasonable friend.” But how does Tyler's voice measure up to other voiceover work out there? Is one voiceover artist better than another? Are these scientific bases for liking Tyler's voice and not liking someone else's?
~
The reality is that there is very little surety about the human voice to be found out there in the scientific community. If there is any consensus, it has focused on the fact that attitudes towards voice—whether male or female, low or deep, gruff or smooth—are almost always culturally divergent. One culture will find a voice threatening; another culture will find the same voice pleasing. What I mean to say is that there's not much consensus at all.
And yet, if we can agree on little else, most people tend to agree that deep baritone voices communicate knowledge and authority more effectively than other pitches of voice. Anyone who has ever watched a film trailer knows this. Film trailers sporting a voiceover are fitted with that universally gratifying baritone that explains away the main plot points and (hopefully) leaves prospective audiences excited. For a long time, that position (mostly) belonged to voiceover legend Don LaFontaine.
LaFontaine was more or less the authority of professional voiceover for four decades. A number of people have referred to his voice as the “voice of God.”
One voiceover great, Joe Cipriano, characterizes the role of trailer voiceover artist as being that of a “seatmate leaning in and telling [the viewer] about this wonderful story.” But LaFontaine undermines that idea, pointing out that while people may laugh about hi “in a world where…” trope in regular life, but “they never laugh in the theater.” When you sit down in the theater, LaFontaine’s voice is not that of a “seatmate leaning in and telling you about this wonderful story” (fellow voiceover artist Joe Cipriano’s view), but that of God.
Having said this, it would be somewhat of an understatement to point out that his voice isn’t even in the same ballpark as Justin Tyler’s voice. While both men are hawking products, LaFontaine’s product provides a trickier sell. LaFontaine is never merely informing; he is immersing. He is creating a world where such and such good or bad thing happens, off of which he rather conspicuously lays out the blueprint of the plot. He has two minutes to do all this; in an eighth of that time, Tyler only needs to give a few sentences on Comcast’s latest deal.
~
Once these notions of voice move out of the realm of advertising and into that of art—particularly film narration—the propensity for theorizing is infinite. I could buy Tyler as the narrator of some longer piece, but I doubt that I would be able to take LaFontaine seriously. What if he narrated a feature-length Hollywood film? While the trick of settling the audience in the seats immediately with his authoritative baritone works for a few minutes, would the audience outlast him in the long run? How long would it take before the voice began to sound absurd?
What would happen if we switched out Robert Redford’s uncredited narration in A River Runs Through It for that of LaFontaine? Redford’s careful, pained voice of an older Norman MacLean would disappear…and leave us with God instead?
~
It’s worth thinking about how these voices affect us through advertising and commercials, particularly when they exert such command on our senses. While the idea of voiceover artists out there assuming “God” may be theologically alarming, it should also trigger some thoughts as to why—particularly in terms of how easy it can be for some people.
One need only to look at politicians today and listen to them. President George W. Bush was regularly characterized as unintelligent based entirely off of his speeches and public remarks. Without a doubt, Bush is one of the worst-speaking presidents in recent memory. Now think of Presidents Bill Clinton or Barack Obama—smooth, controlled, authoritative voices. Voice is often far more important than we give it credit for.
No comments:
Post a Comment