Oct 21 2007
PUSHING DAISIES Debate: Jim Dale’s Narration
Howdy PUSHING DAISIES fans, Ned (dan.) here with something for all of us to chew on for a while. It’s our first Pushing Daisies Debate.
The topic of debate is the NARRATION and whether it adds or detracts from the brilliance of the show. I bring it up because Chuck (Kath) and I realized that we’ve had this discussion with numerous people over the past three weeks who are either in love with or turned off by the narration.
I’m typically a person that doesn’t want much narration with my narrative. It’s often used for exposition or to cover something that the actor or the writer couldn’t achieve on their own within any given scene. It’s often a sign of laziness or more commonly to dumb it down for the masses.
I in no way think this applies to Pushing Daisies. To me, the narration is an additional character. It adds layers to each character, it often takes a scene and moves it from fantastic to surreal while always accentuating the heart of the show. The language, the pattern of speech, the choice words used makes my mind explode in its eloquence and enormity often putting me into a sugar coma from it’s sweet googly goodness…
Most of the time...
While watching the third episode, The Fun in Funeral, my partner Jon had finally been pushed too far with the narration. He understood it in the pilot and found it charming but as the weeks have gone on, he’s felt it takes over a scene and often detracts from what the actors should be conveying. To quote him this past Wednesday, “Let the actors ACT — they have all these incredible talents but refuse to let them do their job.”
This made me sit back and think for a second. I rewatched the episode and realized that there are moments when the narration does take over a scene. There are times when Jim Dale cuts into an emotional beat to tell us what Lee Pace or Anna Friel are conveying at the same moment without words. Every actor on the show has been granted to gift of incredible facial expression which also includes impeccible use of the pause. There’s something to be said about letting the scene sit and breath; letting the silence do the talking which often can take a scene from great to frak-tastic!
Sadly, sometimes those are the exact moments where Jim Dale’s narration comes in. As much as I hate to admit it, there are moments in this almost flawless show where less is more.
This hands down is the #1 conversation I have about Pushing Daisies with my co-workers and friends. I’m wondering what you guys think and if you feel that while you still absolutely adore the narration, there are moments when they could dial it down?
Discuss in the comments please.
I love the narration, but absolutely there have been moments where I thought it wasn’t needed. At the end of Dummy when Chuck and Ned were in the car talking about the glove in the car, I was annoyed by “He lied, She lied” it was a really cute moment and the voice over ruined it a little for me.
Of course with that being said I really think that it makes a lot of the scenes so much better and funnier.
I agree that sometimes the narration becomes too much. I don’t have any specific scenes to point out, but I do remember that I made this observation during “Dummy.” It was almost like the show was just aurally…crowded. There’s SO much to absorb in Pushing Daisies: the gorgeous and quirky visuals, the whimsical music, the fantastic dialogue (which is cleverly delivered rapid-fire), the acting…they could definitely dial back on the VO.
I, too, am pretty sensitive when it comes to voiceover. In my opinion, the only recent show that did it consistently well was Veronica Mars, and even they were forced to use it poorly as exposition sometimes. I’d say it works 75% of the time in Pushing Daisies.
Nikki, the “He Lied, She Lied” moment is a perfect example. I completely forgot about that.
Another was the Knight in shining Armour moment in “Funeral”… the visual was so obvious that the narration spoiled Chuck’s beaming down at Ned swathed in the curtain. It took it from cute to borderline cheesy.
I think that Jim Dale is such a talented narrator that you want to hear him talk a lot, and he does add a lot to the show - I’m kind of worried that the network or whoever holds the strings is going to pull the narration altogether, which would, I think, detracted from the style of the show. It should definitely be scaled back, its usefulness in certain scenes examined, but pulling it completely would be just as bad. The network should let the narration settle into the show - it’s still early, everything still needs to hit its stride.
Katie, I agree that losing the narration would be a huge mistake. I love Jim Dale’s whimsical additions and would just cry big raindrop tears if they disappeared.
The over use of narration doesn’t bother me as it does some people, but I do agree that the show might work better if it was scaled down.
Sometimes I do get the feeling that they’re telling me a story instead of letting me expericence it. Still, I think a large part of what makes Pushing Daisies so great is their brilliant use of voice over. As was previously stated, the disembodied voice is its own character, the writers just need to realize that they have other excellent characters that can express the story and emotion just as clearly.
But I trust that they’ll get it right in the end. And if they don’t, I will still believe Pushing Daisies to be one of the greatest shows out there.
I love hearing the voice of Jim Dale coming from my tv- but I also agree that it needs to be scaled back. This cast is filled with actors who have wonderfully expressive faces; these actors can tell entire stories with a look! I do love the narrating of the flashbacks with young Ned. The one note expression of the kid who plays him paired with the voice of the narrator is just golden, though we don’t need an entire explanation of the premise at the every beginning of each episode. It is a great tool for the first few to help ease in new viewers who missed the first ep- hopefully the excessive explanations will drop off soon though.
Narration, when done well, adds a great deal to the right story, and I agree, Alice, that Veronica Mars did a fantastic job with the voiceovers. I think that Pushing Daisies will take a few episodes to set into the right rhythm and balance with the narration- and it is a very delicate balance. To lose the narration altogether would be a colossal mistake, because Jim Dale’s voice adds a wonderful magical element to the show.
I love the narration. I don’t think it takes anything away from the visual (I’m one of those people who spent years training to be able to watch AND hear at the same time and focus on both! ;))
If the show had a lesser cast, they might be overpowered by the narrative and the excellent performance of Dale but as it turns out, they are all better and better each week and they make the best of the long stretches without dialogs that could be awkward with bad actors like those we usually see on TV.
The network may ask the producers to tone down the narration a bit but I doubt they would pull it altogether since it is already part of the show and adds to the quirkiness and to the humor.
I completely disagree with any removal of narration. In fact, it is my favorite part about Pushing Daisies. I think it sets the mood of the show, just as much as the colors and odd objects.
The narration also makes the viewer feel like they are being told a story. That feel makes Pushing Daisies so different and appealing to me compared to any other show or movie. The narration is also perfectly done and the extra information or comedy is priceless. I would have to say that the narration is probably one of the best things that the show has going for it. I don’t think it has been over done up until now, however, any more than there is now would seem a bit much. I think, so far, that the narration has blended perfectly with the show.
I would also have to disagree with the previous discussion about the “he lied, she lied” scene; I think the narration has its effect there too. Yet again it makes the viewer feel like they are being told a story, and in this scene it works like a reassurance that you are still only being told a story. Subtly interrupting the moment, but not killing it.
- I love the way Pushing Daisies feels like a cross between Dr. Sues and Willie Wonka and The Chocolate Factory.
Everwood suffered badly when they dropped the narration, but….the narrator on Pushing Daisies is very irritating. Maybe cut down to an intro and then to tie up the episode. We can figure out what’s going on….
I think I am in the minority - not once has Jim Dale’s narration bothered me. Following the way it fashions itself as a ‘forensic fairy tale’ I find it obvious that we would have a storyteller (and a good one at that!) and I do think there’s some value in that and it lends itself to really funny moments (I love for example the years/months/days/minutes time stamping of people when Dale introduces their death)
http://ablognextdoor.blogspot.com/2007/10/push-my-daisy-or-how-i-found-new-tv.html
Add me to the camp that loves the narration. Honestly, I would not change a single thing about it. I wouldn’t dial it down or change the down or remove it or anything of the sort - it’s one of my favorite things about the show, and I agree that it adds to the fairy-tale feeling of the whole thing. I think it adds so much to the show. It’s well done, and it’s comforting to know that some all-knowing being is aware of exactly what’s going on and is willing to share it with us, so there’s no ambiguity. Even the “she lied” “he lied” parts were perfect. They can try to put one over on each other, but it’s futile, because the narrator KNOWS. I love that.
I love Jim Dale’s narration … I find it funny, witty, and most often it advances a scene. It also can tell us a lot about what happened “between scenes”, and I appreciate that. I find I’m often annoyed with tv programs that don’t explain what happens “in between”, as I’m a “need to know person”.
At the same time, I do find that sometimes the narration takes away from what the chracters/actors are trying to convey to us. Perhaps it “takes over” the scene. You guys have already mentioned some good points up there, and I agree with it all. I think overall, my opinion is that I love the narration aspect, and find it adds to to the overall “quirkiness” that I love about this show. I probably wouldn’t be upset if there was a bit less narration, but take it away completely and you’ll have me crying into my Organic Frosted Flakes.
I, like many of you (including my partner in crime, Ned, aka Dan) love Jim Dale’s narration on PUSHING DAISIES. The narrator is an essential character without which the show would take on a different tone and may lose a bit of it’s specialness. Jim Dale brings so much to each and every episode, and it was the narration that first caught my attention during my very first viewing of the “pie-lette” back in the early part of the summer.
I don’t disagree (or should I just say I agree) with those who think that at time the narration can be a bit much. I find the narration most effective when it is used to add something to the scene or provide insight which isn’t obvious. But I must say that I agree with Dan and others who have said that the narration can at times be distracting and be too heavy on a scene in which I just want the actors to “breath” and make it their own.
I spend most of my free time telling virtual strangers to watch Pushing Daisies. For those who say they don’t like it, I spend the time to understand why. It’s not a show that’s for all, but finding why others stay away or are turned away is important. I do find that the narration is a negative for many people - it’s the argument I’ve heard the most (there are others but we’ll talk about those in due time).
What’s the solution here? I can’t say that I know. I certainly do NOT want the narration to go away - as I said before, PUSHING DAISIES would not be the same with the Narrator. It’s just as if Emerson, Olive, Chuck or Ned were to disappear. But I would be open to see the use of the narration dialed back so it exists to add content and not impart something we the viewers are already aware of just by watching.
To me, the narration hasn’t taken anything from the story. In fact, the way the universe is set up, I expect things to be narrated.
It is, however, the perfect amount.
I could never live without the narration because what the narrator says gives depth to the scenes in a way the actors, most of the time, could not. Their acting is impeccable, with words and with silence, but without the richness of the narrator’s voice, his extensive use of a superb vocabulary, and the way he spins his phrases are indeed necessary.
The one issue I have with the narrator on the show is that he sometimes goes on for too long, and what he says is not always necessary when it could be perfectly conveyed by the actors themselves. In only that aspect is the narrator at fault.
I can’t imagine the show without the narration. To me it strikes a perfect tone. I’ve always been a fan of omniscient narrators with a bit of tongue in cheek and such anyway. Those that don’t just give exposition, but flavor and color and texture…as said before, a character in itself.
It’s never bothered me. Not even once.
Some note the “he lied, she lied” as a time when it was too much but to me that was just a perfect callback to the theme of the episode, from the opening with Ned’s father lying to him. Bookended the episode in my eyes, from a bad lie to an “aawww” lie.
If the narration ever went away I would be greatly disappointed and would probably love the show a lot less.
I am in agreement with most here: the narration is awesome. It’s difficult to imagine what it would be like if it weren’t there. I’m not saying it would be completely awful without it, because the narration definitely is NOT what makes it such a wonderful, fantastic show. Even if the narration were absent, it would still be visually stunning, with a captivating plot, and amazing characters and actors.
The only thing I could deal with less of in the use of the years, months, hours, minutes, and seconds. I loved how they did it in Pie-Lette, but it worked as a good introduction, and I feel they could cut some of that out.
I’m talking about when Jim Dale is talking about Ned or Chuck or Olive. I think it’s fine when introducing new characters, and in that instance, definitely adds something to the show.
That’s all. Even with this, it’s just such a minor thing, it really doesn’t bother me too much. This show is perfect in every way as is
I can understand why people would have a problem with the narration, but I love it. I think if anyone other than Jim Dale were doing the narration, I probably wouldn’t love it so much. While I can understand some people’s issues with it, I don’t think it hurts the actor’s performance at all. In fact, I think it enhances it. While they are conveying whatever the situation calls for beautifully, the narration is there not necessarily to take away from them, but to add a little more insight into what the character is thinking. Maybe there could be moments when they don’t need quite as much, but if they were to do away with it, the show wouldn’t be the same. The narration adds a sense of quirkiness. How many other TV shows have a narrator that just pops in with random information that we the viewer might need to complete the scene, but the characters necessarily don’t. Bah, whatever. I like it, other people may or may not. That’s their prerogative. But to ditch the narration would be a sad, sad day indeed.
i personally love every second of the narration…
maybe its because it gives it more of a fairy tale like feel… or because i secretly have always loved shows with narration…
i dont know, so far i am quite content with the amount of narration going on.
plus i agree with previous people, that if anyone else was doing th narration, then i might have a problem, because Jim Dale is amazing.
ps side note… doesnt Jim Dale kinda sound like the hilarious narrator of Little Britain… or is it just me.
oh well
tata
I have to say that I adore the narration. This may be in part because I love Harry Potter, and so Jim Dale’s voice is familiar and wonderfully limber in its tonal quality. I think, too, that there may be a point where narration overtakes the actors (esp. with Jim Dale used to HP audiobooks, and so conveying ALL of a character’s sentiments and motivations). I do understand and appreciate the need to “let the actors act,” but I also believe that the narration only adds to the fairytale and color-saturated quality of the show. The show is a heavy duty dose of dark humor dressed in candy colored bright-n-shininess, and I wouldn’t be able to imagine the show without the narration.
I love the narration, especially when the characters themselves interact with it, as if it’s some kind of internal monologue they all share. (Example: Ned’s “Why is it always a mixture?” quote.) It’s never bothered me at all. In fact, I agree with what some people are saying above; the narration contributes to the fairytale quality of the show - which, by all accounts and purposes, could be considered fairly morbid due to all the death and other dark topics covered, but because of the narration and the music and other things, could be dressed as a fairytale/dark comedy of sorts.
I feel that if it were anyone else’s voice, it would be annoying, but Jim Dale definitely gives that extra oomph. Perhaps they might limit the amount of narration as time goes on, but I really love the way it contributes now.
Keep the narration!! I love it and think it adds to the quirkiness & brilliance of this show!
I love the narration! The whole show reminds me of Amelie - the fairytale-like style and whimsical narration. I’ve thought this since the pilot. Does anyone else see that connection? Regardless, I love the narration and thinks it really “makes” the show!
PUSHING DAISIES is a fairy tale story book come to life. This is obvious. The bright colors and wonderful playfullness of the sets are the pictures and the Narration is the reader. We’re being told a story! I think it’s absolutely wonderful! I’ve never had a problem with Jim Dale’s narration. I guess I can see where some people are coming from when they say that the narration “takes over,” but I think that maybe those people aren’t looking at this show as a story book, maybe? Becuase when you know it’s a story book you’re being read, it’s all wonderfully perfect!
One thing I do have to agree with is the “years/months/days/hours/minutes”. (I guess it could be limited to only the new characters. That would make more sense and wouldn’t be so repetitive.)
Put in the camp of the middle-of-the-roaders. I like the narration — sometimes. It would be most accurate, I think, to say that I don’t mind the narration, and that I like the show in spite of it rather than because of it. I think it would be a bad call to take it out altogether, because some of the information imparted by it is important, but sometimes I feel like it overshadows the show for me, like a overly-intrusive laugh track. I feel like telling Jim Dale, “I get it already!” It’s nothing that would ever make me stop tuning in, but I would put it at the bottom of the list of things I like about Pushing Daisies.
I love the narration, i love how Ned is referred to as The Pie Maker, it keeps it so fairytale like. The show would not work without the narration, it needs to be weird, cos the whole show is! And it really helps the story along and explains things that need explaining. The only thing about it which annoys me (and it really does!) is the ‘Young Ned was 9 years, 10 months, 12 days and 6 minutes old when he…’ etc etc. That REALLY annoys me, but aside from that two very big thumbs up for the narration.
I can understand how this people might not like this show, both in style and content, i was really surprised by it at first, but i think it’s one of the best shows ever made. Even if i do wish Ned would touch Chuck sometimes!
Even my dad is obsessed! Hilarious if you knew him!
And i completely worship the ground Ms Chenoweth walks on so that helps too…
“Bitch i was in proximity!”
I love the Narration and the Narrator, Jim Dale.
I think that his part is quite important to the flow of the episodes. I like that there is often a breath of quiet time before he chimes in, to give us a moment to think for ourselves. The Narration is what tells us the story. It seems more like a fairytale when someone is reading the bits. I feel that the Narration also ties some of the deeper themes together.
I guess everyone has there own personal preferences but I actually think that the “He Lied, She lied” part was perfect. I also feel that the Prince Charming aspect was made extra special by the Narration.
Honestly this show has made me completly happy.
I wouldnt change a single thing.
I like the narration and probably wouldn’t watch the show without it. But, I’m not watching the show for the dramatic parts… the narration keeps in light and that’s why I like it. I haven’t read lots of responses about this, so forgive me if I’m repeating, but it reminds me so much of Dr. Seuss narrations and I love it. It goes so well with the visuals and the ridiculously bright colors and silly dialogue. It’s so different from anything else on TV right now… did I mention I love it?
It’s never really bothered and I’ve never thought to much into it. It’s just always been apart of the show for me - I guess I’ll pay more attention to it now that it’s been mentioned though..
I have never been bothered by the narration. Quite the contrary, I love it. Please do not lose the narration. I believe the show would be quite lacking without it.
I don’t think the narration should go, but yes, it should be dialled down as without a doubt there are times when it is not needed. I know of a couple of people that are so annoyed by it that they are not going to watch it any more. Their loss, for sure, but none the less I am disappointed for them.
The one bit they both seem to hate is the giving ages/times in years, months days etc. Maybe stopping that would be a good start?
So I would say keep it, but only where it is really necessary.
Admittedly, I only read through the first 15-or-so comments, but I wanted to add my scents:
Narration in this show is integral to the theme, and adds an element which I think the show would fail without. Some have mentioned the extra little ‘push’ the explanation of a scene gets by Jim, but I agree that the actors themselves could handle this without narration.
Its the inanimate objects (dead people) personified for which narration is essential. Central to the theme of this show is the idea that dead people aren’t necessarily inanimate objects. To eliminate the dead people as active forces in the plot would fly in the face of the entire theme! By narrating their thoughts or transitioning between the ‘live’ actors actions and the ‘dead’ actors actions with a voice over, it makes the whole thing work.
I personally would miss any loss of the narration. I really do love it, no matter how much of there it is, because it keeps the “fairytale” vibe going strong for me. It’s kind of like The Princess Bride, you know?
I agree with Caitlin. Take away any narrator lines, and it will kinda take away some of the fairy tale and whimsy of the whole thing. I love the narration, personally. I think it makes the show even cuter.
Personally, I think it’s awesome that the writing staff have been able to make this work: sure, there are tons of shows on TV with voice-overs, but very few of them have a completely external narrator. Like a lot of people here, I think the narrator’s voice adds to the show, and makes the characters and situations seem even more unreal and magical. I do agree, however, that every now and then it’s just a bit too much - the narrator says something that you’d need to read in a book, but that can be left implicit on TV.
It’s OK - I’m sure that the balance of “just enough narrator” can easily be found, and they’ve got 19 more episodes this year to do it!
I haven’t noticed too much narration — I can’t get enough of it. In the end of Funeral (the Knight in Shining Armor bit), I liked the accompaniment of narration to their expressions. The storybook/being told a story aspect is one thing among many that I love about the show.
I’ll keep this question in mind as I watch this week’s episode, though. Thanks for the excellent discussion, and I’m glad to see so many people responding!
The narration has never really bothered me before. I even like parts like “he lied/she lied” because it feels a little more whimsical to me. In fact, there have been times when I have laughed out loud more at the narration than at a certain scene. It could probably definitely be scaled down, but it would not make a difference to me. It would only matter if they took it out all together.
The only thing that started to bother me last week was going back and repeating the same parts of the back story. I found myself tuning out a little when they would re-show Young Ned’s mom dying/Chuck’s dad dying, parts of Ned finding out what happens when he does touch dead people, and the news story of Chuck’s body found on the boat. I don’t remember for sure, but they may have even re-showed the part with the guy by the dumpster and Emmerson catching Ned. When I was watching, I kept thinking, “I’ve already seen all of this, stop beating me over the head with it, can we get to the real plot.”
I personally love Jim Dale’s narration. It gives the show a more storybook/fantasy feel which I think works great along with visuals of the show. While sometimes I think the narration is kind of repetitive or says something that I think the actors were already expressing pretty well, I love how it works when talking about someone dying or someone’s backstory.
Other shows like Veronica Mars or Grey’s Anatomy use narrations, but not like this. Don’t get me wrong I loved Kristen Bell’s narration on VM, but I think it works much better when the narrator isn’t a character on the show. I wouldn’t be the same if it was Lee Pace doing the narration every episode, would it?
The narration is essential, I agree, but it wouldn’t kill them to make it somewhat less Dr. Suess-like.
I like the Dr. Suess-like quality of the show. It adds to the whimsical feel of it.
As to the narration, it is the perfect medium to get the details of the dead people’s lives. I can’t think of a better way to explain what happened to the victims than those beautifully written “The facts are these…” speeches made by the narrator.
The show is PERFECT as is. If your “partner” wants a show without narration then he should get up off the couch, write it, produce it, direct it, and star in it. Till then tell henny penny to keep his yam jarred!
The narration is like Ned’s touch to the show. The characters don’t interact with it so much as the narrator plays with the characters.
NARRATOR: Suddenly, Lilly had a brilliant idea.
LILLY: I just had a brilliant idea!
The points of view in this thread stem from the fact that not everyone has the same sense of humor. Some are irritated by
NED: [blah blah]…
NARRATOR: , he lied.
CHUCK: [blah blah]…
NARRATOR: , she lied.
Others, however, enjoy both the wit in such exaggeration of the obvious and the charm of being read to.
Similarly, “Young Ned was 9 years, 10 months, 12 days, and 6 minutes old when he…” uses an exaggerated level of detail that reminds one of the literalism of youth (e.g., the need to point out that it’s 1:13, not “a quarter past one”). Gene Roddenberry used the same technique in the lines of Leonard Nimoy’s pointy-eared sidekick to Bill Shatner’s space cowboy. Like Spock, The Narrator is a character with his own attributes.
Some people who don’t “get” this style of humor let the narration distract them. The actors have not stopped acting. The narration has not taken over. To the contrary, the narration keeps the actors from taking over. The argument for “letting the actors act” asks to exchange the comic fairy tale for a humor-lite drama.
Perhaps the focus groups will force a change in the balance between the narrator and the characters because the average person doesn’t fully appreciate what the writers have done, but it would be like Ned’s second touch to the series.
Wow Pidgin, you’re a real charmer. Thanks for insulting my Partner which was just making an observation and voicing an opinion. Tolerance in this world is just overflowing.
I love it. It reminds me of the narrarator from the Grinch. Same charm and insight. Adds to the magic….
I can see it either way. In the earlier episodes, I almost didn’t notice the narration. The over-the-top visuals combined with the narration work together well. It has the effect of it being a storybook narrative. It is a kind of shorthand. It speeds things up so that the story doesn’t drag. I like the pacing. I also like the humor that the narrative injects into the show. But, a couple of the episodes it became a little annoying. Maybe, a little too much narration. I am sure it is a tough balancing act.
The show is very unique and I think that the narration adds alot to its identity.
Honestly, we stopped watching the show because of the narration. It didn’t bother me at first, but then my boyfriend mentioned how irritating he found it, said it was completely unnecessary and spoiled the story for him. That he didn’t need to be told what was happening, that was laziness.
I like the sound of the narrator’s voice, and wouldn’t mind a little narration, but there’s just so much of it. I think the show is adorable, but the last few episodes, the narration just drove us nuts. I really think it detracts from an otherwise clever and very entertaining show.
The first time I watched PUSHING DAISIES I loved the narration. I thought it was perfect for the show, it helped things flow better and gave it a magical feel. And to be honest, until this debate was brought up, I had never really thought about it much. It doesn’t really bother me. I think the perfect thing to do is slightly cut back. Don’t take it out altogether, because that would be too much of a change amongst all this chaos. It’s too risky to do right now. Try previewing an episode without the narration and make sure it can be followed and makes sense. If so, good. The narration should just be an added bonus anyway. I think.
I believe that the narration is part of what makes the whole show so great. I love it when I have to get up and get something or my kid is distracting me and I can still listen to the show and know what is going on. It is also great for the blind that want in on the action of enjoying a show like others. When I have had a long day at work the last think I want to do is think about what the actors are thinking. Sometimes it great to be told how they are feeling and seeing it. I just can’t explain it. Don’t get rid of the narration, because it plays a great part in the show. I think it isn’t lazy at all to have a narration.
I love the narration! But, and this could be because we have a cheap TV, sometimes it’s hard to hear the narration over the background music. Between the music, narration, and actors, I sometimes lose a little of the moment. Just my little two cents.
I love the narration. It makes the show seem like a modern-age fairy. Do not take it out. It wouldn’t be the same.
The narrator was the very first things that grabbed me about this show, and pulled me in to stay. I didn’t realize it was Jim Dale at first, but it really sounded “familiar” somehow, nice and comforting like a giant slice of warm apple pie fresh from the oven. I felt like I was being told a story, a modern day fairy tale, and I liked it. I liked it VERY much.
It wouldn’t be the same show without the narration or even with the narration “dialed down”. It’s an integral part of the charm, the story, and the flow of Pushing Daisies.
Pushing Daisies is a great show and is set apart from other programs partly because of the narration. I absolutely love this show and I love the narration. I have not found it to be intrusive or detracting from the story line. Jim Dale is exquisite as the Narrator and adds an “other worldly” dimension to the show. There is no gratuitous sex or violence in this show, even though there is sexual tension and death in each episode. How refreshing! Bravo to the writers and actors for excellant scripts and wonderful performances. It is a treat to tune in every week to see what the characters are up to. Pushing Daisies is a greatful departure from all the copy cat format shows on TV today…after all how many CSI’s and Law and Order’s can one person keep up with?
I totally agree with the majority of those who believe that Jim Dale’s narration is vital to Pushing Daisies. As to those who scoff at the year/month/day/hour/seconds references…it is exactly those words that first made me chuckle at this new fairy tale. And in following episodes it is precisely the year/month/day/hour/second description that makes me nod with recognition that “Oh, yes…there it is again…and that I am indeed watching Pushing Daisies.” In this often imitated world of television, how very clever of the writers to find a concept that is so unique to make it their signature of the show. And that’s just the way I feel about the year/month/day/hour/seconds banter. Take it away and you take away some of Jim Dale’s narrator style. It’s his signature just like the unique timber of his voice. And after all, who but the all-knowing, ever-present Narrator, could possibly know exactly how old each character is…to the second. Marvelous!
I like the narration. I love the guys voice and find it just adds to the quirkiness of the show. Don’t change a thing, can’t wait for the new episodes to air!
Besides, fairy tales always have a narration part!