一小时快照

照片是不是记忆的干尸？

悬荡在寂静无人的野地里，慢慢布开想象的神经末梢，有时候是电击火花的跳跃，有时候，什么也没有，比空气还要空白。

我对照相术没有什么细究，拍照在我的理解范围之内，类似于机缘巧合的遭遇爱情，天气、光线、风向、器材。

或者还需要视网膜的敏感，那一束光摄入眼底，灼热的疼痛与甜美。

所以，我喜欢那家位于超市尽头的快照冲洗店，微电子工业时代的干净明亮，接近于无菌的状态。

那些机器是庞大而神秘的，像一位智者的灵机妙谈，原本只是那么一点若有若无影子的小事，却成了有图可鉴的精神实据。

我希望我能成为那个名叫西摩的中年男子的同事，没有太多的言语交涉，在片刻的午餐时间，各自点上一杯柠檬茶，我们微笑，但决不会合影留念。

原谅我把人际关系想得如此可爱简单，可是在这个连寂寞都有可能会犯罪的巨型超市里，人与人的感情也是一次性物质消费的快捷。

西摩的那张脸，是独居太久的灰尘积染，挣扎着露出孩子般邪恶的善意。

我听到他在跟所有的顾客攀谈，从照片中得知的各种生活片段，他错误地计算了他们之间的热情距离。

可是《阿飞正传》里，张国荣和张曼玉的结识就是从一家小卖部开始的，那个罗马数字的大盘时钟，也在快乐地倒数计时。

溜冰场，路边摊，是《青少年哪吒》们的嗑药圣地。

红玫瑰说，我的心是一幢公寓。

其实，我们的心更像是一家商店，买卖，租赁，欠赊，打劫，就算货架上空空荡荡，每天还是要准点开张。

我忘了有个电影的片名，陈慧琳与郭富城主演的，为了一张黑胶唱片开始的爱情追逐游戏。

那个电影里，毛舜筠也无聊经营着一家旧货店，她对着镜子挤暗疮的样子，让我联想到罗宾·威廉斯家中满墙的照片。

爱情片与恐怖片的不同之处在于，一个是因爱结合，另一个是因爱而碎裂。

有人说，爱一个人爱到极致，就是要把她杀死，永远库存，永远也不会背叛。

如此暴戾的念头，只能在个人夜半两点的头脑中短暂存活，杀死并不是一种动作，翻身，落枕，在夜光之下，一根细弱灰白的头发居然清晰可见。

西摩就是在自己的想象之中走进了那个心爱之家，在先前收罗的无数的照片中，他已经与这一家人长久地生活在了一起。

他像一个主人那样走进玄关，在沙发上落坐，打开电视机，打开一瓶啤酒。

那个最异想天开的细节，便是在厕所里共同使用了一次抽水马桶。

那私秘的数平方的狭小空间，其实是人心最为脆弱的部位，几乎蔡明亮的所有电影里都会出现厕所的场景，洗澡、方便、换衣、自慰，那一连串琐碎的毫无意义的生活动作才是最戏剧的强烈。

而那么多18禁的三级片里也会出现大量的沐浴镜头，湿漉漉的肉体，激情需要铺垫，结婚并不是相爱的理由。

简单犯罪应该是惊悚类型电影的惯用伎俩，一次童年阴影，一次偷窥恶梦，一次意外身亡，当脚步声在屋外响起的时候，所有的人都会兴奋地期待失声尖叫。

可是当罗宾·威廉斯肥胖的身体在停车场开始奔跑的时候，我知道这样的恐怖是有失常理的，没有人在这场电影中死去，适度的变态反而应合了人性幽暗的真实。

西摩在审讯室的桌子上排开了先前作为谜团的一叠照片，滴水的毛巾、金属架、钢质水喉、洗手台、浴缸，居然是厕所里的瓷器店风光。

我不知道导演的意图是什么，故事刚铺开时，我也像小男孩JAKE一样觉得，SY几十岁人了，孤独一个人，很可怜，没有女朋友，没有父母，没有家庭，哪怕是破裂过的家庭也能留给他一儿半女，这时Jake的妈妈Nina却说，你知道很少人像我们这么幸运的。

是的，我以为每个家庭都会有吵架，都会有把话说重的时候，比如老婆Nina说她老公Will “never be here"，我以为家庭不和睦只是偶尔的小插曲，因为他们人前人后表现得那么恩爱，并从每次冲洗的照片里显现出来，那么每个人都会想，相比之下，还是有个家庭更有安全感，相比之下，Yokin家庭的确是羡慕死旁人。

但原来不是。

原来家里的琐事都是Nina在做，除了冲洗照片，哄小孩子入睡，买家里日常用品甚至女人不甚熟悉的电器配件，而Will却可以说是为了自己的事业忙，为了让他们过上更好的中产阶级生活，结果却是和别的女人搞婚外情，上酒店开房间却说在上班，而Nina在知道之外也并不声张，继续过着从窗外看上去非常和睦的一家三口的幸福生活。

如果是这样的话，那么是Sy一个人下班后去餐馆吃饭，回家看辛普森一家，平时去旧货市场逛逛幸福呢？

还是Nina知道老公有外遇还有装出若无其事，继续做晚餐，哄小孩睡觉，做家务还得幸福呢？

如果后者是幸福的，那我宁愿不要这样的幸福而要孤独终老，享受1个人的自由。

我一直是这样想的。

Sy就和普通人一样，有好奇心，有对美好生活的憧憬，年复一年，看着这个家庭从结婚，生子，小孩一年一年成长，就像他长久以来期望的完美生活，可惜故事的男主角并不知道要珍惜，而Sy入戏9年，在经历了失业、发现真相之后，他的情绪也达到了愤怒的沸点，之后的行为与其说是疯狂，不如说是对真相的讨伐。

Sy如此极端，在电影的尾声似乎给出了理由，那就是童年的阴影，童年受到的虐待等等，所以他宁愿去旧货市场买不知名的年轻女人照片欺骗自己也欺骗别人，这是他的母亲，但已经去世，基于此，他一个人单身，未婚，没有家庭却向往美好，似乎是被社会遗忘的一个人。

电影永远是源于生活而高于生活的，生活中不可能有这样极端的例子出现，但可以给我留下的思考便是，光鲜亮丽的外表下，永远藏有不为外人所知的痛苦，不要轻易地羡慕别人，也不要相信只有结婚生子才能带来幸福，每个人都有自己生活的精彩，只要你善于发现并且相信生活。

所以，电影的结局是一个开放式的结尾open ending，照片里四个人笑得那么灿烂，不知道他们只是Sy在脑海中的又一次美好想象呢？

还是他们之后又再相遇，家庭没有破碎，而Sy也如愿以偿地成为Jake的uncle了呢？

非常耐人寻味。

这海报好看，虽然很多人也是用这个。

可谁叫它好看呢。

今天看一口气看了4部片子，脑子好象有点吃不消了，所以决定停一停，记录一下今天的收获。

SY——主角的名字。

一个孤独的人，与他生活的就只有一只在笼子里一直跑个不停的小老鼠。

家中那一堵好大的墙，全是同一个顾客的家庭生活照，那阵势看上去真的很壮观。

我想就是因为他没有家人没有朋友没有娱乐，才会酿就了那样变态的行为（我刚开始看的时候的确觉得他很变态）。

简介是这样说的：影片描述一名快照店冲印员，悄悄偷窥并进而入侵顾客家庭的惊悚故事。

他了解你的住址，你的姓名，你的生活，他随时在窥视你，在觊觎你的一切，如果有这样一个人在你身边，你怕不怕？

“悄悄偷窥并进而入侵顾客家庭……”我倒不喜欢这样的说法。

也许我又感情用事了吧。

冲洗顾客的相片而自己留下一份，这的确是不应该的。

故意和顾客偶遇并用礼物送个孩子来拉关系，这的确也有点不平常。

如果有一个人这样出现在我的身边我也会怕。

可是他那么多年来从来没有对做出什么伤害那个家庭的事情。

而且还对他们特别照顾。

至于为什么SY那么关注里面的那个女人，导演没提，而我们也不用知道。

也许SY看见他们甜蜜的家庭生活，羡慕。

应该是的。

他还不知道那个男人背叛了老婆的时候，他曾无比真诚无比羡慕的对那男人说过：“你拥有非常好的家庭。

”是的，那个他羡慕无比的家庭的男主人有了别的女人。

而所谓的“偷窥”、“入侵”就是后来SY对这个家庭做出的疯狂行为。

他不能忍受那个男人的背叛，为了替女主人抱不平，他让女主人知道了她先生的事情，他以为她会与她丈夫大闹，可是他看到的依然和往常一样。

而这时候超市经理开除了他，他与那个家庭再无联系。

对于男主人出轨的行为更加愤怒，他决定惩罚他。

他在那个男人与那第3者在酒店幽会的时候，带着匕首，带者相机，威胁他们在他的面前摆出性爱过程的一些姿势，而他一一拍下来。

这对地下情人一定度过了难忘的时光。

恐惧？

羞耻？

侮辱？

后悔？

SY没有杀他们，而是留下他们的命，让他们自己思考。

在一些人来看，被人惩罚也许是件糟糕的事情，可是我想他们经历了那一件事，他会更珍惜身边拥有的一切。

当男主人回到家看见自己的妻子和儿子的时候，我想他就知道了什么是他该珍惜的了。

SY当然是被抓了，在警局里他说的那番话，我就不觉得他变态了。

他竟然为了一个与自己无关的家庭而进了警局，这些他本来是可以不理的呀。

也许他陷在那些相片里，出不来了。

而后来冲出来的相片，不是那对男女的裸照，只是一堆他在酒店房间里随便拍的东西而已……导演真的是在说SY的变态行为吗？

我只觉得他是个可怜的男人。

电影终究是电影，还是有缺陷的，比如：SY藏了那么多相片，既然冲洗机都有记录，为什么要在那么多年之后的现在经理才把他给开除呢？

而SY离职的那天手上竟然还有超市货柜的钥匙，一个普通职员怎么会有不是他工作范围的钥匙呢？

看的时候用的是音箱，同学总说背景配乐很恐怖，我倒没什么感觉。

而且很纳闷为什么导演要安排一段SY做梦梦到自己七孔流血的戏呢？

后来看了其他网站的介绍，说这是一部惊悚片！

我最不敢看恐怖片了，可是看这部电影却一点惊悚的感觉也没有。

（这电影本来就不惊悚啊）看片看傻了，想东西也不多了，看来我这迟钝的大脑不适合吃大餐。

如题所记，昨日看完此片，觉得2个多小时，我一直在观看一个自闭者通过影像对于幸福的意淫。

罗宾片中一头金发，在通体白色的的超市中，他白色的衬衫，蓝色的马甲和他自闭，僵硬的笑容这是绝配。

其实片子本身并没有什么新意可言，无非就是你比我幸福，我羡慕但我懦弱，所以只好躲在角落里意淫。

但是本片的妙处就在于罗宾与他窥视的三口之家的联系工具照片。

本人业余也玩lomo，不过从未想过会在主流商业片中见到过关于lomo的讯息，更不会想到罗宾威廉姆斯这样的大牌明星会和这种非主流的摄影有任何联系，直到我看到片中罗宾家中的那一整面墙的照片。。。

一整面墙，足以证明罗宾对这个三口之家偷窥的时间之久，关注度之高。

当然，如果不是这样的细致入微的偷窥，也许也不会让罗宾发现这个家庭在幸福之下掩藏的危机：丈夫外遇、孩子缺乏自信，生活中，总有不为人知的细节被忽略，而这种忽略不一定是坏事，有时候知道的越多反而会越痛苦。

终于，私自复制顾客图片的事情败露了，老板炒了罗宾，罗宾和幸福的唯一联系被切断了。

而与此同时，他也发现了幸福原来并不是完美的，幸福家庭中的丈夫有了外遇。

于是，沉默的自闭者决定用疯狂的方式去惩罚，惩罚辜负了他美好远景的那些人。

罗宾拿着他偷来的猎刀，混进了偷情的男女的房间，强迫他们摆出猥亵的姿势，不断的拍照。

到了这里，我怀疑这个男人是不是已经彻底的丧失心智了？

直到最终他被抓住带入警察局，我们猜终于看到了那些照片。。。

原来没有半个人影，只是创角、被单的一些细节。

原来不知不觉中，我也被带入一种环境，在屏幕前对一个软弱而自闭的人YY。。。

真实和幻想，我们对于幸福都有渴望。

一、个人观影笔记（只涵盖社会学相关内容）瑞泽尔社会学理论中的Nothing和Something在这里用作我们的理想类型，作为分析这部影片的工具。

通过这一工具的使用，我们更好地思考和理解影片所刻画的社会世界。

Nothing我理解为工具性的、背景板式的、没有实质意义的场景、人、服务等等，正如影片中的Sav-Mart——整齐划一的店面及货架、标准的服务员式微笑、冷漠严酷的管理者。

因此，尽管我们前往Sav-Mart是在与人和物打交道，但在另一种意义上，他们更是一种工具、一套服务，是什么也不意味的Nothing。

这种非个人化的关系我们在生活中已经司空见惯。

就像Si，他对于顾客来说仅仅是一个冲洗照片的家伙。

而Something，反过来说，就是有所意味。

当Si作为”the photo guy”开始在原本商品化的关系当中投入情感和关注、有所付出，Nothing就开始慢慢转变为Something。

他记得顾客的姓名、地址、了解他们的爱好，甚至对尤金一家有了极为特殊的情感，这种突如其来的亲密让顾客感到不适。

因为他已经突破了边界，挑战了为大家公认和熟悉的一成不变的标准化关系（社会学称之为“越轨”）。

Si不想成为一个工具，一种功能。

通过投入自己的情感，顾客的照片对于他来说，已经不再是照片那么简单，是他的期待、梦想和生命的组成。

但是，这种越轨拥有代价。

Si对于尤金一家浓烈的情感不断积聚，最终化作他粗暴鲁莽的干预，而这对社会规范构成了挑战。

*（要知道，Nothing/something并不内含于任何场所、事物、人、服务，其转变取决于人们的行为和关系。

Nothing和Something是一种社会建构。

）更为详实的社会学解读参见瑞泽尔。

二、Review by RitzerIn this movie, Robin Williams plays Si Parrish, the operator of a one-hour photo lab within the confines of a fictitious "big- box" store named Sav-Mart (a thinly disguised send-up of Wal-Mart). The Sav-Mart store is clearly depicted in the movie as nothing. It is certainly part of a great chain that has been constructed on the basis of a model that was created by a central office that also manages what goes on there on a day-to-day basis. Like the chains on which it is modeled, it is likely that one Sav-Mart looks much like every other one. There are great long aisles with endless shelves loaded with products lacking in distinctive substance. There is a pervasive coldness in the store atmosphere (and in the attitude and behavior of the store manager) that is abetted by the abundance of white and icy blue colors. In case anyone misses the point, there is a dream sequence in which Parrish envisions himself standing alone in one of the store's great aisles amidst a sea of totally empty shells. The red of the blood that begins to stream from his eyes is sharply distinguished from the whiteness that surrounds him. The pain in his face is in stark contrast to the coldness that envelops him. Sav-Mart is clearly a non-place, as is the photo lab housed within it.Employees who operate the one-hour photo stand (and Sav-Mart more generally) are expected to be non-persons. The make-up, the nondescript clothes, the shoes that squeak when Si walks the store aisles, and his unassertive and affect-less demeanor all combine to make it seem as if Si Parrish is the ideal non-person required of his position. Si has worked at the photo stand for a long time; he is virtually a fixture there. Indeed, like store fixtures, he acts, and is to be treated, as if he is not there. He is expected to interact with his customers rapidly and impersonally. This is made abundantly clear in the uncomfortable reactions of customers when Si deviates from being the ideal non-person by attempting to interact with them in a more personal manner.The photo lab is offering a non-thing rapidly and automatically developed photographs. Those who oversee the development of the film and then hand over the photographs are not supposed to take a personal interest in them or to take a role in the process by which they are developed. This is clear when Si calls in a technician because the Agfa photo machine is producing pictures that are slightly off and the technician becomes enraged for being called in on such a minor matter. The technician knows that few employees, let alone customers, recognize, or care about, minor variations in the quality of photos from such a non-place as the photo lab at Sav-Mart. Finally, Si is supposed to provide a non-service. That is, he is expected simply to accept, in a very routine fashion, rolls of film handed him by customers, to have them developed as quickly and efficiently as possible, and to hand them back to customers in exchange for payment. However, Si cares about the photos and their quality, at least as much as the automated technology will allow. He wants to provide the best possible service, especially to his favorite customers. Of course, he is not supposed to have favorites (that would be something) and this is where the movie grows interesting, because Si, for his own personal reasons, has sought to turn nothing into something. Indeed, the movie can be seen as a cautionary tale on what happens when efforts are made to transform the nothing that pervades our everyday lives into something.Si is quite taken with one particular family that he regards as ideal (Si's personal life is totally empty; indeed, he buys a photo of a woman at a street market and later shows it off claiming that it is of his mother). When the mother and son of that family come in with some film to be developed, it is clear that he is fond of them and he acts like, and wants to be treated by them as, a person. He also treats them as people and, even though it is late in the day, he agrees to have the photos developed before the close of business. In other words, he offers them personalized service! Furthermore, when he learns that it is the boy's birthday, he gives him a free instant camera claiming (falsely) that it is store policy to give children such gifts on their birthdays. In acting like a person (he also demonstrates personal knowledge of the family and asks personal questions), Si is seeking to turn these non-places (one hour photo, Sav-Mart) into places. And the non- things that he works with-- -automatically developed photos- -are obviously transformed into things by Si.It turns out that Si has an unnatural interest in this family and is routinely making an extra copy of every photo he has had developed for them. Further, he is papering his otherwise desolate apartment with these photographs. When another woman brings in a roll of film to be developed (he inappropriately—for a non-place and from a non-person—asks if he knows her from somewhere), he remembers her from one of his favorite family's photos on his wall. It turns out that she works with the husband of that family and when, late at night, he examines her developed photos, he discovers that the two are having an affair. Enraged, Si sets out to end the affair, first by “accidentally” putting a photo of the lovers in with a set of photos developed from the camera he gave the child. When, after viewing that photo, the wife does not seem to react in the desired way by confronting the husband and throwing him out (Si spies on the family that night and witnesses a normal dinner free of confrontation), Si follows the lovers to a hotel (also depicted as a non-place) where he has a confrontation with them using his camera as a weapon. While Si ends up being arrested, the affair seems at an end and it is at least possible that the ideal family will b restored to its proper state. One lesson seems to be that “somethingness” lurks beneath the nothing that pervades our lives. Another is that the norm in our society and in our lives is pervasive nothing and those who violate it are at least slightly abnormal and do so at great risk to themselves.While there is obviously an evaluative element involved in the selection, for illustrative purposes, of the movie One Hour Photo, and the nature of that critical position will become clear in Chapter 7, the term nothing is used here and throughout the ensuing five chapters in the analytical sense of centrally conceived and controlled forms largely empty of distinctive con- tent. In this sense, nothing, as well as something, are ideal types that offer no evaluative judgment about the social world, but rather are methodological tools to be used in thinking about and studying the social world. As was pointed out earlier, a major objective here is to develop a series of analytic tools to allow us to do a better job of theorizing about and empirically studying nothing (and something).While it sometimes will seem as if that is precisely what we are doing, we cannot really discuss these phenomena apart from their relationship to human beings. People and services obviously involve consideration of human relationships and their relative presence or absence. However, even a discussion of places and things requires that we analyze the human relationships (or their relative absence) that serve to make them something, nothing, or everything in between. Thus, settings become places or non- places (or somewhere in between) because of the thoughts and actions of the people who create, control, work in, and are served by them. Objects are turned into things or non-things by those who manufacture, market, sell, purchase, and use them. And even human beings (and their services) become people or non-people (and non-services) as a result of the demands and expectations of those with whom they come into contact. To put this more generally and theoretically, nothing and something (and everywhere in between) are social constructions.24 In other words, being something or nothing is not inherent in any place, thing, person, or service.25 The latter are transformed into something or nothing by what people do in, or in relationship to, them. And, whatever is done in, or in relationship to, them can be defined as something, nothing, and all points in between. It is for this reason, as we will see, that there will often be a discrepancy between what will be defined in these pages as nothing and the definitions of those involved in, or with, them who are likely to define them as something.However, while there are no characteristics inherent in any phenomenon that make it necessarily something or nothing, there are clearly some phenomena that are easier to transform into something while others lend themselves more easily to being transformed into nothing. Thus, one could turn a personal line of credit into nothing, but the personal relationship involved makes that difficult. On the other side, one's relationship to one's credit card company could be transformed into something.

重看罗宾·威廉姆斯主演的《一小时快照》One Hour Photo (2002)，我更加心有戚戚，他把孤独感、抑郁感演绝了，把单身狗老了之后的状态，演的让人可怜、害怕。

故事很简单，罗宾扮演一名在超市冲印店洗照片的店员，这里我多说一下，因为年纪小的朋友们没见过这种店。

大约在2010年之前，国内几乎每个大卖场里都有一家柯达或者富士的冲印店，一般设在超市门口附近，顾客逛超市前把胶卷送进去，大约一小时后（也约等于一次购物的时间），就可以取走洗好的照片，非常的便捷。

这种冲印店大概90年代末期出现，2010年之后消失，在内地仅仅存在了十年左右。

罗宾扮演的赛是个对照片质量把关很严的冲洗师，他甚至不能容忍零点几的蓝色色差（国内的照片冲印水平一度非常差，色调不是特别蓝就是特别红，也不会给你一张一张的调，把曝光不足或者过度曝光的照片调得好一些，其实后期的数码冲印已经可以处理这样的问题，但在非专业的冲印店里，顾客一般得不到专业的对待，商家只图快。

我当时曾经跑过很多家冲洗店，才找到了一家态度比较认真的。

冲印质量的好坏，会在几年之后就会完全暴露出来，定影不足的照片会发黄褪色，这都是商家为了省钱，不及时更换药水的“杰作”），让超市经理很生气，指责他过分认真。

赛是一个单身汉，他非常羡慕幸福的家庭。

康妮·尼尔森扮演的美丽少妇是他的老主顾，她经常带着可爱的小儿子一起逛超市顺便洗照片，引起了赛的注意。

从这些照片中，赛获得了一种前所未有的愉悦感，少妇的有个帅气的老公，有个美丽的公寓，还有一个乖巧的儿子，他们家真是一个幸福样板，模范家庭，怎能不让老单身狗眼馋！

赛对这些照片爱不释手，每次他都暗自加洗一套，拿回家保存。

赛将少妇家多年的家庭照片做成了一个照片墙，摆在家里好像集邮一样细细欣赏。

他甚至跟踪少妇，偷窥她的真实生活。

他将自己幻想成了这个美好家庭的一员--赛叔叔。

好景不长，对他早有意见的超市经理发现了照片数目对不上的问题，但赛拒绝承认，经理将他开除，叫他做完这个月就走人。

与此同时，赛发现了少妇家里竟然出现了小三，这个性感的小三拿着底片来洗照片，里面竟有她和少妇老公的恬不知耻的艳照，赛顿时非常愤怒，他心中的理想家庭瞬间崩塌了，怎能有人身在福中不知福，有了这么美丽的老婆、孩子都不知足，还要在外面乱搞，真的是该死！

赛将小三的照片地址更换，寄给了少妇，并尾随在其车尾观察动向。

谁知少妇发现老公偷吃后，并没有摊牌，回家后装作啥也没发生似的，一家三口还是“其乐融融”！

赛看到这一幕更加怒不可遏，中产阶级的虚伪苍白、色厉内荏，令人作呕，赛从超市偷了一把大匕首，他要替天行道！

少妇的老公经常下午翘班，在宾馆里和小三鬼混，赛假扮客服送餐，闯进了房间，看到眼前白花花的场面，他拿出了照相机，要他们按照他的命令摆出各种不堪入目的姿势，他要将他们丑陋的兽行完全曝光！

这部惊悚道德剧到底如何落幕，赛这个老单身狗的结局又是什么呢？

罗宾·威廉姆斯在2000年之后就自主改变戏路，减少了喜剧片的拍摄，而参演了一系列小成本文艺片、惊悚片、cult片，他充分展现了自己不为人知的全能演技，让人惊艳。

片中的他染了金发，妆容精致，今天看起来还有一丝帅气。

本片的导演马克·罗曼尼克是个著名的MV导演，执导过很多大歌星的爆款MV。

他做了电影导演后，也延续了MV式的风格化路线，对色彩的运用，对构图的设计，对光线的把控，都比一般的电影导演要精致许多。

片中的静态场景非常多，有一种迟缓的冷漠，和梦境般的空洞。

最后一张“家庭照”更是非常点题，堪比《闪灵》，让人倒吸一口凉气。

Why did a person who develops films pay attention to a family often takes photographs? Why did he give them larger photographs than they requested and camera as presents regardless of losing his job? Why did he teach the husband of the family a lesson when he betrayed his wife, although it meant that he would be taken and kept prisoner with the authority of the law by the police? The film “One Hour Photo” itself, however, didn’t tell us the answers to these questions.The leading character in the film, Simon, was an old, poor man. He had never been married and he didn’t have children. He had no friends or even just anyone to talk with. He lived alone and felt terribly lonely and uneasy. It was not meaningful for Simon to live in the world. But when he noticed the family which appeared to be happy, something changed. The perfect relationship of this family became Simon’s beautiful dream in heart. He thought that his responsibility was to keep the members of the family happy forever. Simon did a lot of things. Some of them were right while the others might be not appropriate. But it was not important. He made the family members understood something significant in the end and they became Simon’s rare friends all over the world.After seeing this film, most of us wondered why Simon behave like this. The film didn’t mention it and we didn’t know exactly either. In my opinion, the most possible explanation was that Simon’s parents did something hurt him badly when he was a little boy. Maybe his father betrayed his mother so made his mother and him rather unhappy. So he didn’t believe in marriage and hate men who betrayed their wives. Of course, it’s just my opinion. But it is clear that Simon’s childhood was rather painful.The child in the film was lucky because Simon came to help him to make his family start again. But he was just a character in the film. In fact, nearly all children who had unhappy families don’t have the chance to regain happiness.What I want to say is that childhood is quite important to people. Wonderful childhood leads people to a happy and substantial life. On the contrary, painful childhood will make people be tired of life and often think that society owe him so that he will never feel hopeful. As a result, we should give all children carefree childhood. After we got married then become fathers or mothers of our children, we shouldn’t be too selfish. Children are very sensitive to their parents’ behavior. So before we do everything, we must think whether it would hurt our children and what impact we would put on our children first in order not to hurt their feelings. We must try our best to create a good surrounding for our children to grow up healthily and happily in.

这一张一起举起香槟 这一张一起表演开心 在谁的家让大家给你贺吻 那个爱穿蔚蓝男孩 是否你情人为何你永远站于他在近 这张终于只得他侧影 这张偷映他刚刚苏醒 极迷恋他人才想冲印做证 你近镜特写他眼睛 心底恐怕已经 从旁见证过亦替你高兴 情人找到了你快乐吧 和他实在活得兴奋吗 花似年华 从来没一日白过吧 你有那么多的记忆都为别人留下 如流过了眼泪不想拍低吗 一张张一张张的家居一张张一张张的山水 日夜将他人回忆冲印下去 眼看你把菲林放低一转身再到取 原来你已印在我的心里 能迷恋最爱你快乐吧 还有大量幸福相晒吗 一对情人 还剩甚么并未拍下能迷恋最爱我快乐吧 无法冒昧在你家里见面吗 留在柜面大合照吧 我有你很多的记忆 只是未能留下 长留这店里为参观你婚嫁 何时我会看著婚纱照牵挂梁汉文 一小时冲印先听到这首歌 然后前天的时候偶然得知电影于是找来看了昨天还在歌曲电影配套推荐给朋友 没想到今天早上醒来就看到罗宾威廉姆斯去世的消息世界是很神奇 但这种神奇的方式实在是。。。

不好表达喜欢这首歌 讲的是冲印店的男生喜欢上来冲印相片的女生 于是从冲洗的照片里揣测她的人生 也见证她一步步爱上别人 细腻又隐晦 看到恋人絮语里面洗衣店的女生暗恋彭于晏 也会想到这个故事最后还是为她祝福 美好又惆怅的暗恋的故事一小时快相却又很不一样罗宾威廉姆斯饰演的sy真的好孤独他渴望一个温暖家庭 并不是只是爱上女主角 而是想成为家庭的一员 体味有家人的温暖成为被认同的uncle sy 像夫妇的父亲 或是孩子的舅舅 被认同的 长辈的角色一个人孤独终老真的好可怕 可是jake的家庭却永远不可能也没有理由像家人一样接纳他 他失去工作 走入更可怕更孤独的死圈 于是只能走向悲剧和毁灭他也是充满善意的人 只是不能接受心中美好童话家庭的破灭 才划掉出轨破坏家庭的男主的照片的头像之前是整齐的一家人的照片贴起来 虽然慢慢一墙的照片让人不寒而栗只能幻想是别人的家人 拿着别人幸福一家的照片 假装自己也是其中一员永远不可能被接受最后在警局里看到他自己拍的照片 桌子 墙角 马桶盖没有人 都是冰冷的 没有生命力的 家具 死物觉得很难过然后也无能为力今天早上听闻他的死讯刚看完这样一部电影觉得心很塞R.I.P.

今天晚上也没有什么事情，打开电视，时间刚好是2130，好吧，看看明珠台放什么片子。

呵呵，塞克－－一小时照片冲印店的职员，四十多岁的单身男子，从照片中感受到了家庭的温馨（只能这样了），特别是一个典型的三口之家。

这个家庭似乎充满了构成幸福内涵的所有要素－－男主人有事业，女主人漂亮、善解人意，小朋友活泼可爱。

这就是塞克理想中的生活、理想中的幸福，塞克把自己代入其中，想象着这就是自己的幸福。

然而，幸福出现了危机。

塞克发现，男主人事业有成，却没有珍惜幸福家庭，跟另外的女人搞到了一起。

塞克愤怒了，他根本没办法想象，竟然有人糟蹋了这么美满的生活，不忍心让可爱的小孩、美丽的女人遭到忽视－－因为，这是他心目中最神圣的“家庭”。

塞克展开了报复。

……对塞克，我充满了同情。

甚至，在电影刚开始，我已经有了情绪。

当故事发展，这种情绪越来越强烈。

某种程度上，我和塞克有一个共同点，就是不能容忍对幸福的亵渎和浪费、不能容忍对家庭的轻视。

当然，我不会采取极端的方式。

我选择了默默离开。

并祝福曾经爱过的人。

虽然，她没有犯同样的错，不过，她忽视了别人、错过了已经在身边的幸福。

记得对罗比威廉斯印象最深的一部电影是 勇敢者的游戏。

基本他的电影我都会看，进年来他拍了很多小成本的文艺片最终剪辑、失眠、真相大白等。

这部电影表达的主题也是当下最普遍的社会显现-婚外情。

sy做了11年的洗相员也真是不容易，可能也是靠着对jake和她的母亲的爱作为动力才做了这么多年，看着喜欢的孩子长大那种感觉不是用语言能表达出来的。

直到影片的最后才发现，sy的童年是那么的悲惨-猥亵、虐待````相信这也是显示社会中普遍现象。

随着时代的演进和科技的发展，现代人的工作压力也越大，很多人通过对家人的虐待来“平衡”自己的心态。

希望现代人能够珍惜身边的一切，不管是父母、妻儿还是今天的天气不要到了失去了才后悔莫及。

ps：电影中的照片照的很漂亮，特别是sy家的照片墙，各种颜色的照片搭配的非常漂亮和艺术。