This essay is titled Voyeuristic Modernity: the Lens, the Screen, and the City, which was written by Nezar AlSayyad in 2006.
When viewing the writing method, the author mainly examines and exemplifies the character of the “voyeur” in the films. The essay can generally be divided into three sections–introductory part, analysis of three films, and the conclusion drawn from the former sections. The author presents a series of citations of people from different careers and nations, making the essay more persuasive.
As I read beyond the writing form, I entirely agree with the statement that gaze can be served as a method of control. Although the construction of a surveillance system may overexpose citizens’ private affairs, this technology can effectively exclude the danger in urban lives and spaces as long as the surveillance system is only controlled by the government. For instance, it can be used as a tool for the police to record the violence.
Nevertheless, when some surveillance systems become privatized, it brings hazards to people. Thus, it is crucial for the government to set up regulations against the privatized surveillance system.
Zou Chunyu
3035946629
You discussion about the practical implications of the gaze as a method of control is interesting and worth further exploration. Relating it back to Al Sayyad’s piece, what could the films be suggesting when it comes to who should hold the tools of surveilliance? As a general comment, perhaps instead of reviewing the form and key points of the essay separately, you can consider interweaving them and focusing more on the latter.