Narration?

My wife and I saw this film last night at the Vancouver International Film Festival. We found the wealth of footage of Ceausescu's reign very interesting.

A downside, however, was that people in the theatre (including ourselves) were constantly leaning over asking spouses and friends, "Which foreign leader is he meeting with now?" "Where is this?" "Who is that other Romanian government official?"

Not to mention, there were large sections of the film with no dialogue and only limited background noise, or even no audio at all. Or even some pauses of complete blackness for about 10 seconds.

I assumed all this was the director's intention, to assemble a very impressionistic picture, using only real footage, carefully selected to show how Ceausescu may have viewed his own self-perceived leadership skills, popularity, compassion, kindness, and competence. I'm not sure I completely agreed with the choice (especially for those who knew little of the real situation in Romania during the time -- they might have actually got a bit of the wrong idea from the film), but I accepted it.

But then, this morning, I saw the following on the plot summary here on IMDB:
"....someone else has written Ceausescu's monologue. While the original material, through the montage, reaches the emotional power known from a motion picture, the hero's fictional monologue...."

Was the author of this merely speaking (VERY) metaphorically, meaning the montage itself was the monologue, or was there actually a fictitious Ceausescu voiceover which was somehow lost for the version of the film we saw?

If indeed there was supposed to be a narration, and it was missing from this version of the film, it explains *so* much: the audio-less scenes, the ongoing dragging footage of other scenes, the lack of any subtitles to indicate when and where even some of the really obscure events were happening. Presumably the voiceover would have been filling in these blanks.

Can anyone confirm? Did we get a "bad" version?