El ícono del periodismo Gay informa sobre Gerald Foos, el dueño de un motel de Colorado, quien supuestamente observaba en secreto a sus huéspedes con la ayuda de ventilaciones, mirando desde... Leer todoEl ícono del periodismo Gay informa sobre Gerald Foos, el dueño de un motel de Colorado, quien supuestamente observaba en secreto a sus huéspedes con la ayuda de ventilaciones, mirando desde una "plataforma" que construyó en el ático.El ícono del periodismo Gay informa sobre Gerald Foos, el dueño de un motel de Colorado, quien supuestamente observaba en secreto a sus huéspedes con la ayuda de ventilaciones, mirando desde una "plataforma" que construyó en el ático.
Opiniones destacadas
Such a claim in this day is hardly surprising, and so the content and character on display here merely comes off as slightly 'odd' but not especially insightful or fascinating for me.
The main focus here is a man that is clearly a bit of braggart, a bit delusional and ridiculous, a bit cash-obsessed yet also enjoys a bit of voyeurism. He exclaims the values of souvenirs he's collected like it's impressive, yet is surprised his story is met by the media with a sense of wrong-doing.
The journalist here makes some odd choices indeed, why only one source for a one-note story is a huge point -- although one he does mention at least, there just isn't enough here to claim anything of special interest.
For a basic plot summary, "Voyeur" recounts the story of Gerald Foos, a motel owner who spied, peeping Tom-style, on his guests for many years via a crawlspace above the rooms. Eventually, Foos began corresponding with journalist Gay Talese and the two formed a sort of "pact of secrecy", as Foos wanted the attention/outlet and Talese knew he was on to a story. But then, a murder takes place and culpability issues abound, and Talese even discovers that Foos may not have been 100% truthful in many of his claims/statements.
The "star of this show", so to speak, is easily Foos. He's such a polarizing figure that he will captivate your attention. On one hand, he seems to be a terrible human being. On the other hand, there is a "psychology fascination" with what he is doing (it initially started all about "watching for sex", but then became as much a classification of private behavior as anything). The key here, of course, is to not be turned off by the snap judgment of "this guy is a perverted creep", because there is absolutely no doubting that. But the scale of what he accomplished/observed is fascinating for those who are able to open their minds a bit and give the story a chance to play out.
Sadly, this entire concept (from Foos' letters to Talese, to the book, to this doc) has been basically botched from beginning to end. There is no way to verify any of Foos' claims (besides the fact that indeed the crawlspace was confirmed by one visit from Talese to Foos), Talese actually disavowed his book at one point, and this doc is kind of all over the place too. It's messy all over the place.
What carries the day and made this so fascinating to me, though, was a look into the psyche of Foos. In a lot of ways, seeing him in front of a camera makes this whole thing "work" a lot more than it did on the printed page. I really think, though, that one's enjoyment of this documentary will be determined by whether morals can be set aside for a bit. What Foos did was reprehensible, but at the same time fascinating (from a purely psychological and logistical perspective). If you can wait and pass judgment on him at the end, you will enjoy "Voyeur". If not, it's probably best you steer clear.
Instead we get presented a story about one guy saying he is this voyeur and another guy, mister Talese, willing to believe him and choosing to disregard confirmed discrepancies in the story (the more than important dates, anyone?!) in order to write his report and book about the subject matter. Two more than irritating narcissists bonking heads and at the same time working together to get what they crave: attention.
To me, this dynamic was as vulgair and obscene as the alleged voyeurism that triggered it all in the first place. This documentary isn't worth your time, in my opinion, and i will definetely skip the book and article. The main question that lingers here is: why was this mess of a story even brought out there in the first place?
As a documentary it's fine and nothing beyond standard. Writer gets duped by source. The end.
The real story is about years of a sexual predator who made a friend in an equally depraved human being who instead of turning him in, wanted to make a buck and failed.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaIn April 2016, Steven Spielberg purchased the rights to create a film based on Foos's life, with director Sam Mendes tapped to direct. The film was canceled in November 2016 after Spielberg and Mendes learned of this documentary feature about the same subject, then in production. In regard to the decision to cancel the film, Mendes expressed frustration that no one had advised them of the documentary's existence, but said: "it has so many things that are wonderful and can only be achieved by a documentary...the story became infinitely more interesting and more complicated, but impossible to tell in a narrative movie."
- Citas
Self - Hotel Owner: They couldn't hear me. They couldn't see me. But I could hear them and see them. It's been a secret all these years. It's been a secret for 47 years. Nobody ever will be able to do what I did.
- ConexionesFeatures Psicosis (1960)
Selecciones populares
- How long is Voyeur?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 35 minutos
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.78 : 1