一小时快照

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。

这部和相片相关的电影，画面也向张张照片一样，或孤寂般洁净，或幸福般绚烂。

对同一事物，不同的人感受可能天差地别。这个道理谁都知道，但在实际生活中却常常为此而产生各种争执。就像主角和维修工一样。很多时候少数人必须迁就多数人，所受到的伤害只能自己默默承受。即便这样仍免不了成为别人眼里的异类。

影片对孤独感营造很成功。男主角初次回到家中那段，虽然中间穿插着幸福母子的片段，但仍让人感觉不寒而栗。影片的结尾男主角将照片一张张摆放到桌子上，孤独感又通过照片跃然桌上。

爱慕。 从影片中可以看出男主角对女主角是有些暧昧情感的。这种淡淡的情绪始终弥漫在影片中，更加反衬出孤寂的感觉。

眼睛喷血那段是片中唯一的恐怖镜头，让我留下深刻印象。一直在几年以后提起这部电影首先想到的就是这个镜头。在女主角发现丈夫有外遇后，依然平静地做菜、吃饭，这对男主角的伤害之大完全通过这个镜头表现出来了。有眼无珠啊！

片尾的那张照片不知是主角的幻想还是后来真实发生的事情。我希望是后者，能为这个孤独的片子增加些温暖吧。

附上一首我个人很喜欢的歌曲： 相片生活 --李泉

有一张相片 你在笑 只不过笑得有些无助 你的寂寞对着我 阴沉的天空有鸟儿飞过 有一张相片 是我们的脸 它们让我以为你还在身边 你的眼睛抱着我 那时的爱太多太多 喔一张张的相片 匆匆晃过 留一些难过 喔一张张的脸 曾经灿烂过 一幅幅的画面 连起来是我的生活

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 Ritzer

In 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.