Voyeur

Greetings again from the darkness. We are watching the final product of filmmakers watching a reporter watching a man whose hobby is watching those who don't know they are being watched. Lacking a single redeeming individual, the film's creep factor slithers towards 11 on the (SPINAL TAP) scale.

It's understandable if you assume this is the story of a pathetic and disgusting Aurora, Colorado motel owner who, for many years, quietly leered at his guests from a self-constructed perch in the attic. Gerald Foos methodically documented the sexual actions of the Manor House Motel guests, which numbered 2000-3000 per year. If his actions aren't remarkable (not in a good way) enough, Mr. Foos actually married not one, but two women who were complicit in his hobby.

In 1980, renowned reporter and author ("from age 15 to 80") Gay Talese received a letter from Gerald Foos, kicking off a three decade relationship culminating in a controversial feature article in "The New Yorker" and a book entitled "The Voyeur's Motel". Once Mr. Foos agrees to have his name published, co-directors Myles Kane and Josh Koury jump on board to document the final steps in Mr. Talese's writing and research process. It's here that we enter the oddest man cave you'll likely see. In the basement of Talese's immaculate Manhattan brownstone is not just his writing office, but also a lifetime of research and writing … boxes and shelves of material that will surely one day be part of a museum or university collection.

The unexpected parallels between writer and subject are made clear. Both are voyeurs and both are collectors. As a journalist, Talese observes the actions of people, while Foos is quite obviously the definition of a Peeping Tom. Talese collects the years of research for his writings, while Foos shows off his extraordinary sports memorabilia collection (also in his basement). Beyond these similarities, what stands out most are the unbridled egos of these two men. Both seemed most focused on getting or keeping their names and stories in the headlines. Of course, Talese has built a career on his name and reputation, while the aging Foos simply sees this as his legacy that somehow deserves historical prominence.

The filmmakers remain more focused on Talese than Foos, and that takes us inside "The New Yorker" where the editors are justifiably concerned about a single-source story – one that without Talese's name attached would likely have never made it past an initial perusal. The aftermath of publication reminds us that we've seen con men before, and there is little joy in being taken on a long ride of deceit. Perhaps the best description of what we see on screen is that it's a sideshow of ego and the need to be seen (watched).

This is the sad story of two old men who were unable to learn the lessons that a long life should have taught them. Their narcissism is as deep and broad as any adolescent male at the height of their testosterone laced years. Their temperament, in full display, is even worse. If the film has any value, other than exposing the egos of these misanthropes, it's to teach a lesson to the rest of maledom: The true value and reward of maturity and aging is to be found in the seeking of greater wisdom, understanding and kindness -- not in the unending, ever expanding pursuit of materialistic selfishness.

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?

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.

I have to admit, the movie was quite entertaining. But after I was done watching it I realized that this wasn't really a documentary at all. The genre classification for this movie is more of a decoy since the majority of the movie focuses on hearsay and Talese's career. So to claim that this is a documentary is a little bit far fetched.

At the end of the day there isn't much meat to this story. It's about a guy who used to perv on his customers/guests. That's it. The entire story was divulged in the first 15 minutes. From there the "documentary" took a sharp turn. Focusing mostly on Foos' private life and Talese's past achievements. In my humble opinion the sole intent of this movie is to normalize the kinks of Foos and Talese. They're both questionable characters. And throughout the movie they tried to justify the "immoral" choices that they've made by assuming the role of apologists. Foos wants us to believe that he's a pioneer of some sort. Meanwhile Talese's exploiting the documentary to tell us more about his all so illustrious career.

The way I see it both are narcissists who found each other because they're wired the same way. For reference: Talese's home is decorated with a deluge of life-sized photos of himself. I think that says it all.

Foos' motivation for the documentary was to spread the word about his upcoming book. For him it was nothing more than a PR stunt. This is the only noteworthy thing he has ever achieved in his life (which is probably the realization that he himself made at some point, hence the resilience). And the reason why Talese was so interested in this documentary/story was because he's been invested in it for almost 40 years now. He saw this as a the perfect opportunity to end his career with a big bang/story. As we later find out both got more than they bargained for. Some might say it's kismet.