Post #4-Voice over’s Credibility(Narrative4)
Posted on: May 21, 2011
As presented in Who the f is Jackson Pollock? , the narrative is centered around the perspective of Teri. The story is being told from her point of view. The “voice of God” acts as an aid in the way the narrative is being presented. Narratives privilege certain perspectives in film documentary such as having a voice over because viewers are compelled to believe what the voice over is saying. It is viewed as conventional for us to formulate our ideas about what is occurring in a documentary based upon how the voice over presents it. By presentation I mean, how it is said, how the producers of the film want it to be interpreted and what is said. Lets consider this clip from the beginning of the movie, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
The voice over in this movie has some level of credibility because we, the viewers are “forced” to view the story in terms of how it is being told. If the voice over is very commanding and forceful, we tend to perceive the narrative as very serious; if the voice over is mellow or funny we perceive the story to be so. The index is apparent in the movie in terms of the direct connection that is made between the voice over as what we perceive from it. The Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s voice over allow us as the audience to believe what is taking place in the narrative. Also, I noticed that in relation to Who the f is Jackson Pollock? and Teri, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the characters in that film, the story is told by the characters/actors. Therefore this poses a new question, “Does having the characters or actors in a narrative documentary or film tell the story make it much more credible than just hearing the voice over?” or “Could it be that it we are so used to hearing the voice over in a narrative that it has become the norm, therefore we fail to notice this certain privilege perspective?” With regards to raw footage, the way it is edited can assist in how effective the story being told may come across. Yes, raw footage as is, has no voice over because it is footage that is being filmed “as you go”. Yet it is still viewed as being credible. After being edited, whether voice over is included or not, it is still a narrative.
Word count:407
shawn20009 
May 26, 2011 at 4:14 pm
“…because viewers are compelled to believe what the voice over is saying.” Why do you think this is? Does it have to do with conventions? How are these conventions agreed upon?
“…If the voice over is very commanding and forceful, we tend to perceive the narrative as very serious; if the voice over is mellow or funny we perceive the story to be so.” Can you think of some examples of each voice? How can we consider the voiceover from WTFIJP as being either serious or mellow? How does this affect the tone or credibility of the film?
“Could it be that it we are so used to hearing the voice over in a narrative that it has become the norm, therefore we fail to notice this certain privilege perspective?” I think this is a good question. Can conventions blind us to the formal devices of media?