Voyeur

"Voyeur," a documentary purportedly about an infamous voyeur, should really be titled "Pseudo-Journalist," since what it really demonstrates is what a terrible writer Gay Talese is. It's not "true crime," since so many of the claims in it are debatable or demonstrably false.

Talese correctly notes that it's dangerous to rely on just once source, but never bothers to check on important alleged facts of this story himself. He seems unfamiliar with Google, only learning from his daughter and others about details readily available online. He never checks property records central to the story and does a sloppy job checking on a crime mentioned by the voyeur, Gerald Foos. He unconvincingly brushes aside key discrepancies on dates.

At one point, when Foos claims that his Mickey Mantle baseball card is worth a huge sum, Talese laments, "How am I supposed to know if he is lying?" How about looking it up online? Or asking someone knowledgable? His methods are so shoddy, one has to wonder about the rest of his books.

At another point, explaining why he participated in group sex as part of his research for a book on sex in America, Talese explains that, as a reporter you can't just observe, you have to experience. Really? Did he have to kill anyone as part of his reporting on the mob? Can no one write about war, space exploration, professional sports, medical research, or anything else without being an active participant?

The documentary begins with him talking about his townhouse in Manhattan and his impeccably tailored suits. He should have spent some of his apparent wealth hiring a research assistant to ensure that what he wrote wasn't garbage. "Voyeur" reveals him wearing the emperor's clothes.

What makes this documentary interesting is that both the main characters are obsessive/eccentric. They are proud of their lives work and struggle to make one last stunt together. The psychological tension builds up which is very interesting to watch because both characters are unashamed and show themselves as they are: eccentric and obsessive but at the same time they can function like completely normal persons. The other people in this documentary seem very small minded and judgemental in comparison to the two main characters. But as I watched, as a viewer I wondered if I was being tricked? I do recommend this one.

When I came cross the title, I assumed to be psychologically startled and thrilled . Yet, I didn't not expected it's more on the entertaining side like the black comedy.

We are living in the era of consistently sexual exploitation nowadays. Nothing seemingly shocks us no more than self inflicted horrors. We desensitize our sexual desires into what medias present to us. There is a degree of sadness about that. Because we are no longer excited about anything. This documentary would be a shocking if it was done 20 years ago. Now it's more like a sideshow. I don't discount its value. It's still worth to watch.

It's about an aging man somehow would like to put his name out there before his final call upon. It's not on any counts of nobility. But in my opinion, the value of examining dark human behaviors might still deserve some attentions . Sociopath to be exact is still something worth to understand. I suspect his long and tedious journal likely containing a lot elaborately fictional stories which just most sociopath would do unsurprisingly . My curiosity is very much contented by the film. I don't think I will be digging into the book any time soon.

Watch it if you haven't done so. It's actually quite entertaining.

A story about a man (Gerald Foos) and his apparently dead-inside wife letting in the world on his program of spying on motel guests.

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.

This semi-documentary wants us to believe it will present this big, revealing story about a man who observed his motel guests for years through hidden peepholes.

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?