In both Sud and E-muet, voice and space inform the ethical as well as the aesthetic. Voice in documentary may be taken literally to mean the voices of social actors, or that of the author. However, as Bill Nichols suggests, it may also be used as a catch-all term for the director’s ‘voice’, often expressed through non-verbal means (1983). This essay will refer to the latter definition, but in view of criticisms of its expansiveness (see for example Leimbacher, 2017), focuses on instances where voice is undermined, negated or nuanced by other kinds of expression. Space has a similarly complex definition, since all conceptions of cinematic space form within each viewer’s imagination, tending to perceive documentary space as contiguous with the ‘real world’. Both Akerman and Shawi disturb this notion, challenging the truth claims of the documentary mode in order to place their spectator critically, an ethical strength that complicates the balance between distance and closeness.

中文翻译：

---

在本单元学习的两部或多部影片中比较和对比声音、空间和亲密形式之间的关系

在Sud和E-muet 中，声音和空间告知伦理和审美。纪录片中的声音可以从字面上理解为社会演员或作者的声音。然而，正如比尔尼科尔斯所建议的那样，它也可以用作导演“声音”的统称，通常通过非语言方式表达（1983）。本文将参考后一种定义，但鉴于对其广泛性的批评（参见 Leimbacher，2017 年的例子），重点关注声音被其他类型的表达削弱、否定或细微差别的情况。空间有一个类似的复杂定义，因为所有电影空间的概念都在每个观众的想象中形成，倾向于将纪录片空间视为与“现实世界”相连。阿克曼和沙维都扰乱了这个观念，