Conventions of sound in documentary

Jeffrey Rouff likes writing essays about sound in documentary. Intelligibility and fidelity are words the author uses to describe Hollywood cinematography, by saying that these are and interplay od conventions of sound as they aim to ‘clarify’. In simple terms, this means that ‘Hollywood filmmakers use cinematic techniques of image and sound to focus the attention of the spectator on the salient elements that further the narrative action’ (Carrol in Rouff: 1993 pg. 24).

Intelligibility meaning clearness, and fidelity trustworthiness, in this context of doco production, are to remind us what we have to be aware of as documentary makers. Rouff argues in this essay that ‘while documentary films often use narrative forms, they rarely demonstrate the degree of clarity that these writers sees as the standard of classical Hollywood Cinemas ’(Rouff 1993 pg .24). The intelligibility here is how character’s motivations, speech parts and lighting failures often can result into sound spaces, microphones in frame and jump cuts. Historically as Rouff describes, observational filmmakers were not allowed to intrude into their subjects life, ask questions, conduct interviews, stage set ups and influence the event of the camera: the doco makers were meant to be flies on the wall.

While Rouff talks about the history of the conventions of sound in doco production, I think we must distinguish what we want to present. A narrative is often a piece where everything is controlled and nothing is left to change. A documentary is a different relationship with change, with the right attitude we can put our trust into. For the use of Rouff’s article this is a piece that I will go back and forth into, to learn of instructions location sound and sound techniques - it is due to all the historical examples Rouff uses in his essay that makes a sense of the conventions of sound, seen in a historical timeline and different techniques used.