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
and
The silentfilmis certainlyunderstood,at leastretrospectively
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
wrote,in 1916,"To theactorofthemovingpictures...
Miinsterberg
[theabsence of
the temptationoffersitselfto overcomethedeficiency
"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
of an actor's
in part linkedto the separation,by means of intertitles,
speech fromthe image of his/herbody.
and
Considerationof sound in the cinema(in itsmosthistorically
privilegedform-that of dialogue or the use of the
institutionally
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 relationshipsbetween voice and image.
The attributesof this fantasmaticbody are firstand foremost
unity (through the emphasis on a coherence of the senses) and
The additionof soundto thecinemaintroducesthe
presence-to-itself.
a fuller(and organicallyunified)body,and
possiblityof re-presenting
of confirming
thestatusof speechas an individualpropertyright.The
betweensoundand image
potentialnumberand kindsofarticulations
ar reduced by the very name attached to the new heterogeneous
medium-the "talkie." Historiesof the cinemaascribethe stresson
to a "public demand": "the public,fascinatedby the
synchronization
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 thisperspective, 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
thereis no
attached to it by retrospective
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
in the cinema.
formof sonorous representation
Yet, even when asynchronousor "wild" sound is utilized,the
fantasmatic
body'sattribute
ofunityis notlost.It is simplydisplacedthe 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 postsynchronization,"one of the basic goals of the motion picture
industryis to make the screen look alive in the eyes of the
audience . . . ". 6
is the
Concomitantwiththe demandfora life-likerepresentation
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
in ConferenceProceedings
the Cinematic Apparatus, February 1978, forthcoming
(Fall1979).
5Ibid.

Techniques," Journalof theSocietyof Motion

6W.A. Pozner, "Synchronization
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'sdestruction 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 postas a techniquedoes notnecessarilyentailsubstituting
synchronization
does notcondonea
an alien voice fora "real" voice, thattheindustry
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
visualspace whichthe
be anchoredin a givenspace. The fantasmatic
filmconstructsis supplementedby techniquesdesignedto spatialize
thevoice, to localize it,giveitdepthand thuslendto thecharactersthe
consistencyof the real. A concern for room tone, reverberation
characteristics
and 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"
of
space (the space conveyedby the visual image) and thecredibility
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"voiceoff." "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
of that hierarchy.For it only appears to describea
reconfirmation
of
sound-what it reallyrefersto is thevisibility
(or lack of visibility)
the source of the sound. Metz arguesthatsoundis never"off.'While
a "sounda visual elementspecifiedas "off"actuallylacks visibility,
off" is always audible.
de 1'6coute(2)," Cahiersdu Cinema,293 (Octobre
t3C. Bailbl, "Programmation
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's
subordinationof soundto
image, the term voice-offdoes name a particularrelationshipbetween 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 particularsensorymaterial, 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).Differentcinematicmodesdocumentary,
narrative,avant-garde-establishdifferent
relationships
between the threespaces. The classical narrativefilm,forinstance,
worksto denytheexistenceof thelasttwospaces in orderto buttress
thecredibility
(legitimacy)ofthefirstspace. Ifa characterlooksat and
thatthe
speaks to the spectator,thisconstitutesan acknowledgment
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 thisprocessofunification
is 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.
manifestsitselfis theacousticalspace
The place in whichthe signifier
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
ofa voicewhosesourceis not
the classicalfilmallow therepresentation
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
ofthevoiceoff(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
restson
diegesis,ifnot to the visiblespace of thescreen.Its efficacity
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 voiceover in a flashbackeffectsa temporaldislocationof the voice with
respectto the body, the voice is frequently
returnedto thebodyas a
formof narrativeclosure. Furthermore,the voice-oververyoften
simplyinitiatesthe storyand is subsequentlysupersededby synchronous 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
butthevoice, farfrombeingan
body are representedsimultaneously,
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
in thedocumentary,
The voice-overcommentary
unlikethevoiceoff,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 establishing 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
Because itrisesfrom
theimage-track.Absolutelyotherand absolutelyindeterminant.
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
This
and in the privileged,unquestionedactivityof interpretation.
functionof the voice-overhas been appropriatedby the television
documentaryand televisionnewsprograms,inwhichsoundcarriesthe
whiletheimpoverished
burdenof "information"
imagesimplyfillsthe
linkedwitha body(that
screen.Even whenthemajorvoiceis explicitly
of the anchormanin televisionnews), thisbody,in itsturn,is situated
in the non-spaceof the studio. In film,on the otherhand, thevoiceover is quite oftendissociatedfromanyspecificfigure.The guarantee

'7Bonitzeruses the term"voice-off"in a generalsense whichincludesbothvoicespecificallyto voice-overcommentary.

offand voice-over,but here he is referring
'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

to the spatioof knowledge,in such a system,lies in itsirreducibility
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 directly
to thespectator,constituting
as an
him/her
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
of
in particularthehallucination
appears to lend itselfto hallucination,
of the
power over space effectedby an extensionor restructuration
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.
ed. Jacques21Jacques Lacan, The Four FundamentalConceptsofPsycho-analysis,
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
of separatedbodies and their
simplestunity.It is thereforetheentiredramatization
reunionwhichharmonysupports.(p. 82)

Yet, theimaginaryunityassociatedwiththeearliestexperienceofthe
ofdifference,
voice is brokenby thepremonition
division,effectedby
the intervention
of thefatherwhose voice, engagingthedesireof the
thevoice ofthe
mother,acts as theagentofseparationand constitutes
lost object of desire. The voice in this
mother as the irretrievably
instance,farfrombeing the narcissisticmeasureof harmony,is the
voice of interdiction.The voice thus understoodis an interfaceof
imaginaryand symbolic,pullingat once towardthesignifying
organizationof 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
ofthevoice (as theintrumnent
ofinterdiction
potentialaggressivity
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,itsdeflection throughdialogue (whichthespectatoris givenonlyobliquely,to
itsmediationbythecontentofthe
overhear)and, in thedocumentary,
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 spectaclecomposedofdisparateelementsimages, voices, sound effects,music, writing-whichthe mise-enscene, in its broadest sense, organizesand aims at the body of the
spectator, sensory receptacle of the various stimuli.This is why
(in both the theaterand the
Lyotard refersto classicalmise-en-scene
or inscription
on thebody:
cinema) as a kindof somatography,
intospeech, song,and movements
. . .the mise-en-sceneturnswrittensignifiers
is
executed by bodies capable of moving,singingspeaking;and thistranscription
intendedforotherlivingbodies-the spectators-capable of beingmovedbythese
on and forbodies,consideredas
songs,movements,and words.It is thistranscribing
ofthemise-en-scene.
Its
whichis theworkcharacteristic
multi-sensory
potentialities,
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

theimageofunity
Classical mise-en-scenehas a stakein perpetuating
and identitysustained by this body and in stavingoffthe fear of
sensoryelementsworkin collusionand
fragmentation.
The different
ofthe"body" ofthefilm.
thisworkdenies thematerialheterogeneity
All of the signifyingstrategiesfor the deploymentof the voice
discussedearlierare linkedwithsuchhomogenizingeffects:synchronizationbindsthevoice to a bodyin a unitywhoseimmediacycan only
be perceivedas a given;thevoice-offholdsthespectacleto a spaceextendedbutstillcoherent;and thevoice-overcommentary
placesthe
In all ofthis,whatmust
imagebyendowingitwitha clearintelligibility.
be guarded is a certain"oneness."
and a controland manifests
This "oneness"is themarkofa mastery
itself most explicitlyin the tendencyto confine the voice-over
commentaryin the documentaryto a singlevoice. For, accordingto
Bonitzer, "when one dividesthatvoice or, whatamountsto thesame
space
thing,multipliesit,thesystemand itseffectschange.Off-screen
Lyotard,"The Unconsciousas Mise-en-scene,"in Performance
in
24Jean-Franqois
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
of thevoice ... "25
ceases to be thatplace of reserveand interiority
This entailsnotonlyor notmerelyincreasingthenumberofvoicesbut
a disjuncradicallychangingtheirrelationshipto theimage,effecting
sound
refersto
and
what
Barthes
tionbetween
meaning,emphasizing
or powerof
as the"grain"of thevoice26overand againstitsexpressivity
representation.In thecontemporary
cinema,thenameswhichimmediatelycome to mindare thoseof Godard (who, even in an earlyfilm
such as VivreSa Vie whichrelies heavilyupon synchronoussound,
resiststhe homogenizingeffectsof the traditionaluse of voice-offby
structure-the
means of a resoluteavoidanceoftheshot/reverse-shot
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,fragmentextwhichescapes the
tation.Lyotardspeaks of the "post-modernist"
closure of representation
bycreatingitsown addressee,"a disconcerted 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.
withthe notionof a political
There are three major difficulties
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
of a
dualism.Secondly,the overemphasisupon theisolatedeffectivity
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
thatthematerialityof 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 fruitless
endeavor
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
ofthevariousspaces, theyconstitute
arrangementor interpenetration
where
a place
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