The Voice in the Cinema: The Articulation of Body and Space

Author(s): Mary Ann Doane

Source: Yale French Studies, No. 60, Cinema/Sound (1980), pp. 33-50
Published by: Yale University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930003
Accessed: 02-11-2015 18:04 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mary Ann Doane

The Voice in the Cinema: The Articulationof Body and Space

Synchronization

The silentfilmis certainlyunderstood,at leastretrospectively and

even (it is arguable) in itstime,as incomplete,as lackingspeech.The
stylizedgesturesof the silent cinema, its heavy pantomime,have
been defined as a form of compensation for that lack. Hugo
Miinsterberg wrote,in 1916,"To theactorofthemovingpictures...
the temptationoffersitselfto overcomethedeficiency [theabsence of
"words and the modulationof the voice"] by a heighteningof the
gestures and of the facial play, with the resultthat the emotional
expressionbecomes exaggerated."' The absent voice re-emergesin
gesturesand thecontortionsof theface-it is spreadoverthebodyof
the actor. The uncannyeffectof the silentfilmin the era of sound is
in part linkedto the separation,by means of intertitles, of an actor's
speech fromthe image of his/herbody.
Considerationof sound in the cinema(in itsmosthistorically and
institutionallyprivilegedform-that of dialogue or the use of the
voice) engendersa networkof metaphorswhose nodal pointappears
to be the body. One mayreadilyrespondthatthisis only"natural"-
who can conceive of a voice withouta body?2However, the body
reconstitutedby the technologyand practicesof the cinema is a
I Hugo Munsterberg,The Film: A Psychological Study (New York: Dover
Publications,Inc., 1970), p. 49.
2Two kinds of "voices withoutbodies" immediatelysuggestthemselves-one
theological the other scientific(two poles which, it might be added, are not
ideologicallyunrelated): 1.) the voice of God incarnatedin theWord 2.) theartificial
voice of a computer.Neitherseems to be capable ofrepresentation outsideof a certain
anthropomorphism,however. God is pictured,in fact, as having a quite specific
body-that of a male patriarchalfigure.Star Wars and BattlestarGalactica illustrate
the tendenciestowardanthropomorphism in the depictionof computers.In the latter,
even a computer(named Cora) deprivedof mobilityand the simulacrumof a human
form,is given a voice whichis designedto evoke the imageof a sensualfemalebody.

33

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Yale FrenchStudies

fantasmaticbody, which offersa support as well as a point of

identificationforthe subject addressed by the film.The purpose of
thisessay is simplyto tracesome of thewaysin whichthisfantasmatic
body acts as a pivotforcertaincinematicpracticesof representation
and authorizes and sustainsa limitednumberof relationshipsbe-
tween voice and image.
The attributesof this fantasmaticbody are firstand foremost
unity (through the emphasis on a coherence of the senses) and
presence-to-itself.The additionof soundto thecinemaintroducesthe
possiblityof re-presentinga fuller(and organicallyunified)body,and
of confirming thestatusof speechas an individualpropertyright.The
potentialnumberand kindsofarticulations betweensoundand image
ar reduced by the very name attached to the new heterogeneous
medium-the "talkie." Historiesof the cinemaascribethe stresson
synchronization to a "public demand": "the public,fascinatedby the
novelty,wantingto be sure theywere hearingwhattheysaw, would
have feltthata trickwas beingplayedon themiftheywerenotshown
the words coming fromthe lips of the actors."3 In Lewis Jacobs'
account, thisfear on the part of the audience of being "cheated" is
one of the factorswhichinitiallylimitsthe deploymentof sonorous
material (as well as the mobilityof the camera). From thisperspec-
tive, the use of voice-offor voice-overmust be a late acquisition,
attemptedonlyaftera certain"breaking-in"periodduringwhichthe
novelty of the sound film was allowed to wear itselfout. But,
whateverthe fascinationof the new medium(or whatevermeaningis
attached to it by retrospective thereis no
readingsof itsprehistory),
doubt that synchronization (in the formof "lip-sync"has played a
major role in thedominantnarativecinema.Technologystandardizes
the relation through the development of the synchronizer,the
Moviola, the flatbededitingtable. The mixingapparatus allows a
greater control over the establishmentof relationshipsbetween
dialogue, music,and sound effectsand, in practice,the level of the
dialogue generallydeterminesthe levelsof sound effectsand music.4
3Lewis, Jacobs, The Rise of theAmericanFilm: A CriticalHistory(New York:
Teachers College Press, 1968), p. 435.
4For a more detailed discussionof thishierarchyof sounds and of otherrelevant
techniques in the constructionof the sound-tracksee M. Doane, "Ideology and the

34

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mary Ann Doane

Despite a numberof experimentswithothertypesof sound/image

relationships(those of Clair, Lang, Vigo and, morerecently, Godard,
Straub, and Duras), synchronousdialogue remainsthe dominant
formof sonorous representation in the cinema.
Yet, even when asynchronousor "wild" sound is utilized,the
fantasmatic body'sattribute ofunityis notlost.It is simplydisplaced-
the body in the filmbecomes the bodyof thefilm.Its sensesworkin
tandem,forthecombinationof soundand imageis describedin terms
of "totality"and the "organic."5Sound carrieswithit the potential
riskof exposingthe materialheterogeneity of the medium;attempts
to containthatrisksurfacein the languageof theideologyof organic
unity. In the discourse of technicians,sound is "married" to the
image and, as one sound engineer puts it in an article on post-
synchronization,"one of the basic goals of the motion picture
industryis to make the screen look alive in the eyes of the
audience . . . ". 6
Concomitantwiththe demandfora life-likerepresentation is the
desire for"presence," a conceptwhichis notspecificto thecinematic
soundtrackbut which acts as a standardto measure qualityin the
sound recordingindustryas a whole. The term"presence" offersa
certainlegitimacyto the wish forpure reproductionand becomes a
selling point in the constructionof sound as a commodity.The
television commercial asks whetherwe can "tell the difference"
between the voice of Ella Fitzgeraldand thatof Memorex(and since
our representativein the commercial-the ardentfan-cannot, the
only conclusion to be drawn is that owning a Memorex tape is
equivalentto havingElla in yourlivingroom). Technicaladvancesin
sound recording(such as theDolby system)are aimed at diminishing
the noise of the system,concealingthe workof the apparatus,and
thus reducing the distance perceived between the object and its
representation.The maneuversof the sound recordingindustry offer

Practicesof Sound Editingand Mixing,"paper deliveredat MilwaukeeConferenceon

the Cinematic Apparatus, February 1978, forthcoming in ConferenceProceedings
(Fall1979).
5Ibid.
6W.A. Pozner, "SynchronizationTechniques," Journalof theSocietyof Motion
PictureEngineers,47, No. 3 (September1946), 191.

35

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Yale FrenchStudies

evidence whichsupportsWalterBenjamin'sthesislinkingmechanical
reproductionas a phenomenonwithcontemporary society'sdestruc-
tion of the "aura" (whichhe definesas "the unique phenomenonofa
distance, howeverclose it may be"7). Accordingto Benjamin,

[the] contemporarydecay of the aura. . . rests on two circumstances,both of

whichare relatedto the increasingsignificance
of themasses in contemporary life.
Namely, the desire of contemporarymasses to bringthings'closer' spatiallyand
humanly,whichis just as ardentas theirbenttowardovercomingtheuniquenessof
everyrealityby acceptingits reproduction.8

Nevertheless, while the desire to bring thingscloser is certainly

exploited in makingsound marketable,the qualities of uniqueness
and authenticity are notsacrificed-it is notanyvoice whichthetape
bringsto the consumerbut the voice of Ella Fitzgerald.The voice is
not detachable froma body whichis quite specific-that of the star.
In the cinema,cultvalue and the "aura" resurfacein thestarsystem.
In 1930 a writer feels the need to assure audiences that post-
synchronization as a techniquedoes notnecessarilyentailsubstituting
an alien voice fora "real" voice, thattheindustrydoes notcondonea
mismatchingof voices and bodies.9 Thus, the voice serves as a
supportforthe spectator'srecognitionand his/heridentification of,
as well as with,the star.
Justas thevoice mustbe anchoredbya givenbody,thebodymust
be anchoredin a givenspace. The fantasmatic visualspace whichthe
filmconstructsis supplementedby techniquesdesignedto spatialize
thevoice, to localize it,giveitdepthand thuslendto thecharactersthe
consistencyof the real. A concern for room tone, reverberation
characteristicsand sound perspectivemanifestsa desireto re-create,
as one sound editor describes it, "the bouquet that surroundsthe

7WalterBenjamin, "The workof Artin theAge ofMechanicalReproduction,"in

Illuminations,ed. Hannah Arendt,trans.HarryZohn (New York: SchockenBooks,
1969), p. 222.
8Ibid., p. 223.
9George Lewin, "Dubbing and Its Relation to Sound Picture Production,"
Journalof theSocietyof Motion PictureEngineers,16, No. 1 (January1931), 48.

36

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mary Ann Doane

words, the presenceon the voice, the way it fitsin withthe physical
environment."10The dangers of post-synchronization and looping
stem fromthe fact that the voice is disengagedfromits "proper"
space (the space conveyedby the visual image) and thecredibility of
thatvoice depends upon the technician'sabilityto returnit to thesite
of itsorigin.Failure to do so risksexposureof thefactthatloopingis
"narration maskingas dialogue."' Dialogue is definedtherefore,
not simplyin termsof the establishment of an I-yourelationship,but
as the necessaryspatializingof thatrelationship.Techniquesofsound
recordingtendto confirmthecinema'sfunctionas a mise-en-scene of
bodies.

Voice-offand Voice-over

The spatial dimensionwhich monophonicsound is capable of

simulatingis thatof depth-the apparentsourceofthesoundmaybe
moved forwardor backwardbut the lateraldimensionis lackingdue
to the fact that there is no sidewaysspread of reverberationor of
ambientnoise.12 Nevertheless,sound/imagerelationships established
in the narrativefilmworkto suggestthatsound does, indeed, issue
fromthat otherdimension.In filmtheory,thisworkto providethe
effectof a lateraldimensionreceivesrecognitionin the term"voice-
off." "Voice-off"refersto instancesin whichwe hear the voice of a
characterwho is notvisiblewithintheframe.Yet thefilmestablishes,
by means of previous shots or other contextualdeterminants, the
character's "presence" in the space of the scene, in the diegesis.
He/she is "just over there," 'just beyondthe frameline,"in a space
which "exists" but whichthe camera does not choose to show. The
traditionaluse of voice-offconstitutesa denial of theframeas a limit
'0Walter Murch, "The Art of the Sound Editor: An Interviewwith Walter
Murch," interviewby Larry Sturhahn,Filmmaker'sNewsletter, 8, no. 2 (December
1974), 23.
X"Ibid.
'2Stereo reduces this problem but does not solve it-the range of perspective
effectsis still limited.Much of the discussionwhichfollowsis based on the use of
monophonicsound, but also has implicationsforstereo.In bothmono and stereo,for
instance, the location of the speakers is designedto insurethatthe audience hears
sound "whichis roughlycoincidentwiththe image." See AlecNisbett, The Technique
of the Sound Studio (New York: Focal Press Limited,1972), pp. 530, 532.

37

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Yale FrenchStudies

and an affirmationof the unityand homogeneityof the depicted

space.
Because it is defined in terms of what is visible withinthe
rectangularspace of thescreen,theterm"voice-off"has been subject
to some dispute.Claude Bailble, forinstance,arguesthata voice-off
mustalwaysbe a "voice-in"because theliteralsourceofthesoundin
the theateris alwaysthespeakerplaced behindthescreen.13 Yet, the
space to which the term refersis not that of the theaterbut the
fictionalspace of the diegesis. Nevertheless,the use of the termis
based on the requirementthatthe two spaces coincide,"overlap" to
a certainextent.For thescreenlimitswhatcan be seenof thediegesis
(there is always "more" of the diegesisthanthe cameracan coverat
any one time). The placement of the speaker behind the screen
simplyconfirmsthe factthatthe cinematicapparatusis designedto
promotethe impressionof a homogeneousspace-the senses of the
fantasmaticbody cannot be split.The screenis the space wherethe
image is deployed while the theateras a whole is the space of the
deploymentof sound. Yet, the screenis givenprecedenceover the
acoustical space of thetheater-the screenis positedas thesiteofthe
spectacle's unfoldingand all sounds mustemanate fromit. (Bailble
asks, "What would be, in effect,a voice-offwhichcame fromthe
back of the theater?Poor littlescreen . . . "14 in otherwords,its
effectwould be preciselyto diminishtheepistemologicalpowerofthe
image, to reveal its limitations.)
The hierarchicalplacement of the visible above the audible,
accordingto ChristianMetz, is not specificto the cinemabut a more
generalculturalproduction.15 And thetermvoice-off merelyactsas a
reconfirmation of that hierarchy.For it only appears to describea
sound-what it reallyrefersto is thevisibility(or lack of visibility)
of
the source of the sound. Metz arguesthatsoundis never"off.'While
a visual elementspecifiedas "off"actuallylacks visibility, a "sound-
off" is always audible.
t3C. Bailbl, "Programmationde 1'6coute(2)," Cahiersdu Cinema,293 (Octobre
1978), 9.
'4Ibid. My translation.
'5C. Metz, "Le perqu et le nommr," in Essais semiotiques(Paris: Editions
Klinckseck, 1977), pp. 153-59.

38

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mary Ann Doane

Despite the fact that Metz's argumentis valid and we tend to

repeat on the level of theorythe industry'ssubordinationof soundto
image, the term voice-offdoes name a particularrelationshipbe-
tween sound and image-a relationshipwhichhas been extremely
importanthistoricallyin diversefilmpractices.While it is true that
sound is almostalwaysdiscussedwithreferenceto theimage,it does
not necessarilyfollowthatthisautomatically makessoundsubordinate.
From anotherperspective,it is doubtfulthatanyimage(in thesound
film)is uninflectedby sound. This is cruciallyso, giventhefactthatin
the dominantnarrativecinema,sound extendsfrombeginningto end
of the,film- sound is never absent (silence is, at the least, room
tone). In fact,the lack ofanysoundwhatsoeveris taboo in theediting
of the soundtrack.
The point is not thatwe "need" termswithwhichto describe,
honor and acknowledgethe autonomyof a particularsensorymater-
ial, but that we must attemptto thinkthe heterogeneityof the
cinema. This mightbe done more fruitfully by means of the concept
of space than throughthe unities of sound and image. In the
cinematicsituation,threetypesof space are put intoplay:
1.) The space of the diegesis. This space has no physicallimits,it is
not containedor measurable.It is a virtualspace constructedby the
filmand is delineatedas havingbothaudible and visibletraits(as well
as implicationsthatits objects can be touched,smelled,and tasted).
2.) The visible space of the screen as receptorof the image. It is
measurable and "contains" the visiblesignifiers of the film.Strictly
speaking, the screen is not audible althoughthe placementof the
speaker behind the screenconstructsthatillusion.
3.) The acoustical space of the theateror auditorium.It mightbe
argued that this space is also visible, but the filmcannot visually
activate signifiersin this space unless a second projectoris used.
Again, despite the fact that the speaker is behind the screen and
thereforesound appears to be emanatingfroma focusedpoint,sound
is not "framed"in the same way as the image. In a sense, it envelops
the spectator.
All of these are spaces for thespectator,but the firstis the only
space whichthe charactersof the fictionfilmcan acknowledge(for

39

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Yale FrenchStudies

the charactersthereare no voices-off).Differentcinematicmodes-

documentary, narrative,avant-garde-establishdifferent relationships
between the threespaces. The classical narrativefilm,forinstance,
worksto denytheexistenceof thelasttwospaces in orderto buttress
thecredibility (legitimacy)ofthefirstspace. Ifa characterlooksat and
speaks to the spectator,thisconstitutesan acknowledgment thatthe
character is seen and heard in a radicallydifferentspace and is
thereforegenerallyread as transgressive.
Nothingunitesthe threespaces but the signifying practiceof the
filmitselftogetherwiththeinstitutionalization ofthetheateras a type
of meta-space which binds togetherthe three spaces, as the place
wherea unifiedcinematicdiscourseunfolds.The cinematicinstitution's
stake in thisprocessofunificationis apparent.Instancesofvoice-off in
the classical filmare particularlyinteresting examplesof the way in
which the three spaces undergo an elaborate imbrication.For the
phenomenon of the voice-offcannot be understoodoutside of a
considerationof the relationshipsestablishedbetweenthe diegesis,
the visiblespace of thescreen,and theacousticalspace ofthetheater.
The place in whichthe signifiermanifestsitselfis theacousticalspace
of thetheater,butthisis thespace withwhichitis leastconcerned.The
voice-offdeepens thediegesis,givesitan extentwhichexceedsthatof
the image, and thus supportsthe claim thatthereis a space in the
fictionalworldwhichthecamera does not register.In itsown way,it
accountsfor lost space. The voice-offis a sound whichis firstand
foremostin the serviceof the film'sconstructionof space and only
indirectlyin theserviceoftheimage.It validatesbothwhatthescreen
reveals of the diegesisand whatit conceals.
Nevertheless,theuse ofthevoice-off alwaysentailsa risk-that of
exposing the material heterogeneityof the cinema. Synchronous
sound masks the problem and this at least partiallyexplains its
dominance. But the more interesting question,perhaps,is: how can
the classicalfilmallow therepresentation ofa voicewhosesourceis not
simultaneouslyrepresented?As soon as thesoundis detachedfromits
source, no longeranchoredby a representedbody,itspotentialwork
as a signifieris revealed. There is alwayssomethinguncannyabout a
voice whichemanatesfroma sourceoutsidethe frame.However,as

40

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mary Ann Doane

Pascal Bonitzer pointsout, the narrativefilmexploitsthe marginal

anxietyconnectedwiththe voice-offby incorporating its disturbing
effectswithinthedramaticframework. Thus,thefunction ofthevoice-
off(as well as thatof thevoice-over)becomesextremely important in
filmnoir. Bonitzertakesas hisexampleKiss Me Deadly, a filmnoirin
whichthe villainremainsout of frameuntilthe last sequences of the
film. Maintaininghim outside of the field of vision "gives to his
sententiousvoice, swollen by mythologicalcomparisons,a greater
power of disturbing, thescope of an oracle-dark prophetof theend
of theworld.And, in spiteofthat,hisvoice is submittedto thedestiny
of the body . .. a shot, he falls-and with him in ridicule, his
discoursewithitspropheticaccents."'16
The voice-offis always "submittedto the destinyof the body"
because it belongsto a characterwho is confinedto the space of the
diegesis,ifnot to the visiblespace of thescreen.Its efficacity restson
the knowledgethatthecharactercan easilybe made visiblebya slight
refraining whichwouldre-unitethevoice and itssource.The bodyacts
as an invisiblesupportfor the use of both the voice-overduringa
flashbackand the interiormonologue as well. Althoughthe voice-
over in a flashbackeffectsa temporaldislocationof the voice with
respectto the body, the voice is frequentlyreturnedto thebodyas a
formof narrativeclosure. Furthermore,the voice-oververyoften
simplyinitiatesthe storyand is subsequentlysupersededby synchro-
nous dialogue, allowingthe diegesisto "speak foritself."In Sunset
Boulevardtheconventionis takento itslimits:thevoice-overnarration
is, indeed, linkedto a body (thatof the hero), but it is the bodyof a
dead man.
In the interiormonologue,on the otherhand, the voice and the
body are representedsimultaneously, butthevoice, farfrombeingan
extensionof thatbody, manifestsits innerlining.The voice displays
what is inaccessibleto theimage,whatexceeds thevisible:the "inner
life" of the character. The voice here is the privilegedmark of
interiority,turningthe body "inside-out."

16Pascal Bonitzer,"Les silencesde la voix," Cahiersdu Cinema,256 (FRvrier-Mars

1975), 25. My translation.

41

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Yale FrenchStudies

The voice-overcommentary in thedocumentary, unlikethevoice-

off,thevoice-overduringa flashback,or theinterior monologue,is, in
effect,a disembodiedvoice.Whilethelatterthreevoicesworkto affirm
the homogeneityand dominanceof diegeticspace, the voice-over
commentaryis necessarilypresentedas outsideof thatspace. It is its
radical othernesswithrespectto thediegesiswhichendowsthisvoice
witha certainauthority.As a formofdirectaddress,itspeakswithout
mediationto theaudience, by-passingthe "characters"and establish-
ing a complicitybetween itselfand the spectator-togetherthey
understandand thusplace theimage.It is preciselybecause thevoiceis
not localizable, because itcannotbe yokedto a body,thatitis capable
of interpreting the image, producingits truth.Disembodied, lacking
any specificationin space or time,thevoice-overis, as Bonitzerpoints
out, beyond criticism-itcensorsthe questions"Who is speaking?,"
"Where?," "In whattime?," and "For whom?."
This is not, one suspects, withoutideological implications.The firstof these
implicationsis thatthevoice-off'7representsa power,thatofdisposingoftheimage
and of whatit reflects,froma space absolutelyotherwithrespectto thatinscribedin
theimage-track.Absolutelyotherand absolutelyindeterminant. Because itrisesfrom
the fieldof the Other, the voice-offis assumed to know: thisis the essence of its
power.... The power of the voice is a stolenpower,a usurpation.8

In thehistoryofthedocumentary, thisvoicehas been forthemostpart

thatof the male, and itspowerresidesin thepossessionofknowledge
and in the privileged,unquestionedactivityof interpretation. This
functionof the voice-overhas been appropriatedby the television
documentaryand televisionnewsprograms,inwhichsoundcarriesthe
burdenof "information" whiletheimpoverished imagesimplyfillsthe
screen.Even whenthemajorvoiceis explicitly linkedwitha body(that
of the anchormanin televisionnews), thisbody,in itsturn,is situated
in the non-spaceof the studio. In film,on the otherhand, thevoice-
over is quite oftendissociatedfromanyspecificfigure.The guarantee

'7Bonitzeruses the term"voice-off"in a generalsense whichincludesbothvoice-

offand voice-over,but here he is referring
specificallyto voice-overcommentary.
'8Bonitzer,p. 26. My translation.

42

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mary Ann Doane

of knowledge,in such a system,lies in itsirreducibility

to the spatio-
temporallimitationsof the body.

The Pleasure of Hearing

The means bywhichsound is deployedin thecinemainplicatethe

spectatorin a particulartextualproblematic-theyestablishcertain
conditions for understandingwhich obtain in the "intersubjective
relation" between filmand spectator.The voice-overcommentary
and, differently, the interiormonologue and voice-over-flashback
speak moreor less directlyto thespectator,constituting him/her as an
emptyspace to be "filled" withknowledgeabout events,character
psychology,etc. More frequently,in the fictionfilm,the use of
synchronousdialogue and the voice-offpresupposea spectatorwho
overhears and, overhearing,is unheard and unseen himself.This
activitywith respectto the soundtrackis not unlike the voyeurism
oftenexploitedby the cinematicimage. In any event,the use of the
voice in the cinema appeals to the spectator'sdesireto hear, or what
Lacan refersto as the invocatorydrive.
In whatdoes thepleasureofhearingconsist?Beyondtheaddedeffect
of "realism" whichsound givesto thecinema,beyonditssupplement
of meaninganchoredbyintelligibledialogue,whatis thespecificity of
the pleasure of hearinga voice withits elementsescapinga strictly
verbal codification-volume, rhythm, timbre,pitch?Psychoanalysis
situatespleasurein thedivergencebetweenthepresentexperienceand
the memoryof satisfaction:"Between a (more or less inaccessible)
memoryand a veryprecise(and localizable) immediacyofperception
is opened thegap wherepleasureis produced."'9 Memoriesofthefirst
experiencesof the voice, of the hallucinatory it offered,
satisfaction
circumscribethe pleasure of hearingand groundits relationto the
fantasmaticbody. This is not simplyto situate the experiencesof
infancyas the sole determinant in a systemdirectlylinkingcause and
effectbut to acknowledgethatthe tracesof archaicdesiresare never
annihilated.Accordingto Guy Rosolato, itis "the organizationofthe
19SergeLeclaire, Dimasquer le reel,p. 64, quoted in C. Bailbl, "Programmation
de l'6coute (3)," Cahiers du Cinema, 297 (Fevrier1979), 46. My translation.

43

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Yale FrenchStudies

fantasmitselfwhichimpliesa permanence,an insistenceof therecall

to the origin."20
Space, forthechild,is definedinitiallyin termsoftheaudible,not
the visible: "It is onlyin a secondphase thattheorganizationofvisual
space insurestheperceptionoftheobject as external. "(p. 80) The first
differences are tracedalong theaxisofsound:thevoiceofthemother,
thevoice ofthefather.Furthermore, thevoicehas a greatercommand
over space than the look-one can hear around corners,through
walls. Thus, for the child the voice, even before language, is the
instrument of demand. In theconstruction/hallucination of space and
the body's relationto that space, the voice plays a major role. In
comparisonwithsight,as Rosolato pointsout, thevoice is reversible:
sound is simultaneously emittedand heard,bythesubjecthimself.As
opposed to thesituationinseeing,itis as if"an 'acoustical'mirror were
always in function.Thus, the imagesof entryand exitrelativeto the
body are intimatelyarticulated.They can thereforebe confounded,
inverted,favoredone over the other." (p. 79) Because one can hear
sounds behind oneselfas well as those withsourcesinsidethe body
(soundsof digestion,circulation, respiration,etc.), twosetsoftermsare
placed in opposition: exterior/front/sight and interior/back/hearing.
And "hallucinationsare determinedby an imaginarystructuration of
the body according to these oppositions... ." (p. 80) The voice
appears to lend itselfto hallucination, in particularthehallucination of
power over space effectedby an extensionor restructuration of the
body. Thus, as Lacan pointsout, our mass media and our technology,
as mechanical extensionsof the body, resultin "planeterizing"or
"even stratospherizing" the voice.2'
The voice also tracesthe formsof unityand separationbetween
bodies. The mother'ssoothingvoice,ina particularculturalcontext,is
a major componentof the "sonorousenvelope" whichsurroundsthe
childand is thefirstmodelofauditorypleasure.An imageofcorporeal
20GuyRosolato, "La voix:entrecorpset langage,"Revuefrancaisede psychanalyse,
38 (Janvier1974), 83. My translation.My discussionof the pleasureof hearingrelies
heavily on the work of Rosolato. Furtherreferencesto this articlewill appear in
parenthesesin the text.
21Jacques Lacan, The Four FundamentalConceptsofPsycho-analysis, ed. Jacques-
Alain Miller, trans.Alan Sheridan (London: The HogarthPress and the Instituteof
Psycho-Analysis,1977), p. 274.

44

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mary Ann Doane

unityis derivedfromthe realizationthatthe productionof sound by

the voice and its auditioncoincide.The imaginaryfusionof thechild
with the motheris supportedby the recognitionof common traits
characterizingthe differentvoices and, more particularly, of their
potential for harmony.Accordingto Rosolato, the voice in music
makes appeal to the nostalgiaforsuch an imaginarycohesion,fora
"veritableincantation"of bodies.

The harmonicand polyphonicunfoldingin musiccan be understoodas a succession

of tensionsand releases, of unificationsand divergencesbetweenpartswhichare
graduallystacked,opposedin successivechordsonlyto be resolvedultimately
intotheir
simplestunity.It is thereforetheentiredramatizationof separatedbodies and their
reunionwhichharmonysupports.(p. 82)

Yet, theimaginaryunityassociatedwiththeearliestexperienceofthe
voice is brokenby thepremonition ofdifference, division,effectedby
the intervention of thefatherwhose voice, engagingthedesireof the
mother,acts as theagentofseparationand constitutes thevoice ofthe
mother as the irretrievably lost object of desire. The voice in this
instance,farfrombeing the narcissisticmeasureof harmony,is the
voice of interdiction.The voice thus understoodis an interfaceof
imaginaryand symbolic,pullingat once towardthesignifying organiza-
tionof languageand itsreductionoftherangeofvocal soundsto those
it binds and codifies,and towardoriginaland imaginaryattachments,
"representablein thefantasmbythebody,orbythecorporealmother,
the child at her breast" (p. 86).
At the cinema, the sonorousenvelope providedby the theatrical
space togetherwithtechniquesemployedin the construction of the
soundtrackworkto sustainthe narcissistic pleasurederivedfromthe
image of a certainunity,cohesionand, hence,an identity groundedby
the spectator'sfantasmaticrelationto his/herown body. The aural
illusion of position constructedby the approximationof sound
perspectiveand by techniqueswhichspatializethevoice and endowit
with"presence" guaranteesthe singularity and stabilityof a pointof
audition, thus holding at bay the potential trauma of dispersal,
dismemberment,difference.The subordinationof the voice to the
screenas thesiteofthespectacle'sunfolding makesvisionand hearing
worktogetherin manufacturing the "hallucination"ofa fullysensory

45

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Yale FrenchStudies

world. Nevertheless,therecordedvoice, whichpresupposesa certain

depth, is in contradictionwith the flatnessof the two-dimensional
image. Eisler and Adorno note thatthe spectatoris alwaysaware of
thisdivergence,of the inevitablegap betweenthe representedbody
and its voice. And forEisler and Adorno thispartiallyexplainsthe
functionof filmmusic: firstused in the exhibitionof silentfilmsto
conceal the noise of the projector(to hide fromthe spectatorthe
"uncanny"factthathis/her pleasureis mediatedbya machine),music
in the "talkie" takes on thetaskof closingthegap betweenvoice and
body.22
If this imaginaryharmonyis to be maintained,however, the
potentialaggressivity ofthevoice (as theintrumnent
ofinterdiction
and
the materialsupportof the symptom-hearingvoices-in paranoia)
mustbe attenuated.The formalperfectionof sound recordingin the
cinemaconsistsin reducingnotonlythenoiseoftheapparatusbutany
"grating"noise whichis not "pleasingto the ear." On anotherlevel,
theaggressivity ofthefilmicvoicecan be linkedto thefactthatsoundis
directedat thespectator-necessitating,in thefictionfilm,itsdeflec-
tion throughdialogue (whichthespectatoris givenonlyobliquely,to
overhear)and, in thedocumentary, itsmediationbythecontentofthe
image. In the documentary,however,the voice-overhas come to
representan authorityand an aggressivity whichcan no longerbe
sustained-thus, as Bonitzer points out, the proliferationof new
docmentarieswhichrejecttheabsoluteofthevoice-overand, instead,
claim to establisha democraticsystem,"lettingthe eventspeak for
itself."Yet, whatthistypeoffilmactuallypromotesis theillusionthat
realityspeaks and is not spoken, that the filmis not a constructed
discourse. In effecting an "impressionof knowledge",a knowledge
whichis givenand not produced,the filmconceals itsown workand
posits itselfas a voice withouta subject.23The voice is even more
powerfulin silence.The solution,then,is notto banishthevoicebutto
constructanotherpolitics.

22Hanns Eisler, Composingfor the Films (New York: OxfordUniversityPress,

1947), pp. 75-77.
23Bonitzer,pp. 23-4.

46

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mary Ann Doane

The Politicsof theVoice

The cinemapresentsa spectaclecomposedofdisparateelements-

images, voices, sound effects,music, writing-whichthe mise-en-
scene, in its broadest sense, organizesand aims at the body of the
spectator, sensory receptacle of the various stimuli.This is why
Lyotard refersto classicalmise-en-scene (in both the theaterand the
cinema) as a kindof somatography, or inscription on thebody:

. . .the mise-en-sceneturnswrittensignifiers intospeech, song,and movements

executed by bodies capable of moving,singingspeaking;and thistranscription is
intendedforotherlivingbodies-the spectators-capable of beingmovedbythese
songs,movements,and words.It is thistranscribing on and forbodies,consideredas
multi-sensory whichis theworkcharacteristic
potentialities, ofthemise-en-scene.
Its
elementaryunityis polyestheticlike the humanbody: capacityto see, to hear, to
touch,to move. . .. The idea of performance... even ifit remainsvague, seems
linked to the idea of inscriptionon the body.24

Classical mise-en-scenehas a stakein perpetuating theimageofunity

and identitysustained by this body and in stavingoffthe fear of
fragmentation. The differentsensoryelementsworkin collusionand
thisworkdenies thematerialheterogeneity ofthe"body" ofthefilm.
All of the signifyingstrategiesfor the deploymentof the voice
discussedearlierare linkedwithsuchhomogenizingeffects:synchro-
nizationbindsthevoice to a bodyin a unitywhoseimmediacycan only
be perceivedas a given;thevoice-offholdsthespectacleto a space-
extendedbutstillcoherent;and thevoice-overcommentary placesthe
imagebyendowingitwitha clearintelligibility. In all ofthis,whatmust
be guarded is a certain"oneness."
This "oneness"is themarkofa mastery and a controland manifests
itself most explicitlyin the tendencyto confine the voice-over
commentaryin the documentaryto a singlevoice. For, accordingto
Bonitzer, "when one dividesthatvoice or, whatamountsto thesame
thing,multipliesit,thesystemand itseffectschange.Off-screen space
24Jean-Franqois Lyotard,"The Unconsciousas Mise-en-scene,"in Performance
in
PostmodernCulture,ed. Michel Benamou and Charles Caramello (Madison: Coda
Press, Inc., 1977), p. 88.

47

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Yale FrenchStudies

ceases to be thatplace of reserveand interiority of thevoice ... "25

This entailsnotonlyor notmerelyincreasingthenumberofvoicesbut
radicallychangingtheirrelationshipto theimage,effecting a disjunc-
tionbetween sound and meaning,emphasizing what Barthes refersto
as the"grain"of thevoice26overand againstitsexpressivity or powerof
representation.In thecontemporary cinema,thenameswhichimme-
diatelycome to mindare thoseof Godard (who, even in an earlyfilm
such as VivreSa Vie whichrelies heavilyupon synchronoussound,
resiststhe homogenizingeffectsof the traditionaluse of voice-offby
means of a resoluteavoidanceoftheshot/reverse-shot structure-the
camera quickly panningto keep the person talkingin frame) and
Straub (forwhomthevoice and soundin generalbecomethemarksof
a non-progressiveduration).The image of the body thusobtainedis
not one of imaginarycohesion but of dispersal,division,fragmen-
tation.Lyotardspeaks of the "post-modernist" textwhichescapes the
closure of representation bycreatingitsown addressee,"a disconcer-
ted body, invitedto stretchits sensorycapacitiesbeyondmeasure."27
Such an approach,whichtakesofffroma different imageofthebody,
can be understoodas an attemptto forgea politicsbased on an erotics.
Bonitzeruses thetwotermsinterchangeably, claimingthatthescission
of the voice can contributeto the definitionof "anotherpolitics(or
The problemis whethersuch an erotics,
erotics) of the voice-off."28
bound to the image of an extendedor fragmented bodyand strongly
linkedwitha particularsignifying material,can founda politicaltheory
or practice.
There are three major difficulties withthe notionof a political
eroticsof the voice. The firstis that,relyingas it does on the idea of
expanding the range or re-definingthe power of the senses, and
opposingitselfto meaning,a politicaleroticsis easilyrecuperableas a
form of romanticismor as a mysticismwhich effectivelyskirts
problems of epistemology,lodging itself firmlyin a mind/body
dualism.Secondly,the overemphasisupon theisolatedeffectivity of a

15 Bonitzer,
p. 31.
trans.
26See Roland Barthes, "The Grain of the Voice," in Image-Music-Text,
Stephen Heath (New York: Hill and Wang, 1977), pp. 179-189.
27Lyotard,p. 96.
28Bonitzer,p. 31.

48

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mary Ann Doane

single signifyingmaterial-the voice-risks a crude materialism

whereinthe physicalpropertiesof themediumhave theinherentand
finalpower ofdetermining itsreading.As Paul Willemenpointsout,a
concentrationupon thespecificities ofthevarious"technico-sensorial
unities"of thecinemaoftenprecludesa recognition thatthematerial-
ityof the signifier
is a "second orderfactor"(withrespectto language
understoodbroadlyas symbolicsystem)and tendsto reducea complex
heterogeneityto a mere combinationof different materials.29 Yet, a
filmis not a simplejuxtapositionof sensoryelementsbuta discourse,
an enunciation.This is notto implythattheisolationand investigation
of a singlesignifying materialsuchas thevoice is a fruitlessendeavor
butthattheestablishment ofa directconnectionbetweenthevoiceand
politicsis fraughtwithdifficulties.
Thirdly,the notionof a politicaleroticsof thevoice is particularly
problematic from a feministperspective. Over and against the
theorizationof the look as phallic,as the supportof voyeurismand
fetishism(a driveand a defensewhich,in Freud,are linkedexplicitly
with the male),30 the voice appears to lend itselfreadily as an
alternativeto the image, as a potentiallyviable means wherebythe
woman can "make herselfheard." Luce Irigaray,forinstance,claims
that patriarchalculturehas a heavier investmentin seeing than in
hearing.31 Bonitzer, in the contextof defininga political erotics,
speaks of "returningthe voice to women" as a major component.
Nevertheless, it must be rememberedthat, while psychoanalysis
delineates a pre-oedipal scenario in whichthe voice of the mother
dominates, the voice, in psychoanalysis,is also the instrument of
interdiction,of the patriarchalorder. And to markthe voice as an
isolated haven withinpatriarchy, or as havingan essentialrelationto
the woman, is to invoke the spectreof femininespecificity, always
recuperableas anotherformof "otherness."A politicaleroticswhich
posits a new fantasmatic,whichrelies on images of an "extended"
29Paul Willemen,"Cinema Thoughts,"paper deliveredat MilwaukeeConference
on Cinema and Language, March 1979, pp. 12 and 3.
30See Laura Mulvey, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema," Screen, 16
(Autumn 1975), 6-18 and StephenHeath, "Sexual Differenceand Representation,"
Screen, 19 (Autumn 1978), 51-112.
establishbetweenthe
31For a fullerdiscussionof the relationshipsome feminists
voice and the woman see Heath, "Sexual Difference,"83-84.

49

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Yale FrenchStudies

sensorybody, is inevitablycaughtin the double bindwhichfeminism

always seems to confront:on the one hand, there is a danger in
groundinga politicson a conceptualizationof the body because the
body has always been thesite of woman's oppression,positedas the
finaland undeniableguaranteeof a difference and a lack; but,on the
otherhand, thereis a potentialgainas well-it is preciselybecause the
body has been a major siteof oppressionthatperhapsit mustbe the
siteof thebattleto be waged. The supremeachievementofpatriarchal
ideologyis thatit has no outside.
In lightof the threedifficulties
outlinedabove, however,itwould
seem unwiseto base anypoliticsof thevoice solelyon an erotics.The
value of thinkingthedeploymentof thevoice in thecinemabymeans
of itsrelationto thebody (thatof thecharacter,thatof thespectator)
lies in an understandingof the cinema, fromthe perspectiveof a
topology,as a seriesof spaces includingthatof the spectator-spaces
which are often hierarchizedor masked, one by the other,in the
service of a representationalillusion. Nevertheless,whateverthe
arrangementor interpenetration ofthevariousspaces, theyconstitute
a place where significationintrudes.The various techniquesand
strategiesforthe deploymentof the voice contributeheavilyto the
definitionof the formthat"place" takes.

50

This content downloaded from 74.217.200.182 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:04:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions