Nichols "the Voice" and Its Role in Representing the Real

...

The direct address of documentary gives the viewer the idea that they are listening to a story they have heard before but not the entire truth as with interviews people tell their story from their own perspective. This adds to the historical relevance of the documentary as the interviewer and interviewee are seen as having a very authoritative voice as one cannot question what the interviewee is saying in their ‘personal testimony’ but is different to the authoritative voice over. However, using interviews in a documentary can also pose problems, one of which is the relationship between the interviewees and the visuals one perceives. (Nichols 23-24)

All these different voices have changed and developed over time, with the next type being more of an improvement than the one before. The effect these voices have on the overall representation of the real is very important. Without the voice, the real cannot be presented. With the Griersonian tradition one embraces the voice as all knowing and expressing the real as it is with no questions, cinema vérité gives one leeway with regards to representing the real as the real then in purely determined by the viewer. In direct address the viewer is provided the real though real people and their personal accounts of an event and in self reflexive one is given multiples ways to determine the real. However, although documentaries reveal forms of the real, the real is truly never complete as the reality created can be manipulate in various ways. If there were a way to represent reality as much as possible, using the voice of the documentary is one of the best ways to determine it.

References

Butchart, Garnet C. "On Ethics And Documentary: A Real And Actual Truth". Commun Theory 16.4 (2006): 427-452

Nichols, Bill. "The Voice Of Documentary". Film Quarterly 36.3 (1983): 17-30