After reading this essay, I began to think about the identity of voyeurs in our daily life. The author comes up with a different word, flaneur, to distinguish between these two idiosyncrasies.
By taking voyeurs’ behaviors in different countries as examples, this essay expounds the behavior modes, personality characteristics and evolution process of voyeurs in films. The writing of the essay is also very clear, following a chronological sequence of the development of the voyeur. It shows the development of snooping devices from the man who peeks through binoculars in the movie to the current surveillance system. In today’s society, more and more surveillance devices appear in corridors, hotels and rooms, which makes me wonder whether people and life are in a completely exposed state. When people are living in hotels nowadays, they are not completely safe and afraid of pinhole cameras. This series of problems is due to the constantly updated surveillance facilities and national regulations. To sum up, the government can effectively protect the privacy of people in cities by properly managing surveillance equipment.
PENG Ziqian 3035946617
Interestingly you mentioned that the author distinguishes the term ‘flaneur’ from the voyeur. According to the author, could you elaborate further on how they are different? You also provided a concise summary of the essay, and further expanded on the practical concerns on the issue of surveillance in contemporary society. I wonder if you can relate them to the examples in the film. Given that the films are set in an earlier period and in the American context, do you think the points they make about surveillance are still relevant? Have concerns also shifted over time or are different in a different context?
Sorry, I just saw the comments. flaneur tend to observe and analyze cities. They are aimless but free. Voyeurs were acts of observation in the dark, thrill-seeking. It’s illegal. I don’t think the surveillance argument makes much sense to some extent. Because human behavior is exposed to the state of supervision, the privacy of the masses can not be guaranteed.