一小时快照

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。

通常情况下，看这部片子的人都会赞威廉斯的演技，他的可赞之处大抵在于他出色的扮演了一个变态狂云云，是的，在大多数人眼里，萨都是个不折不扣的变态狂，一厢情愿地干涉别人的生活，给别人带来了灾难。

但他本身的悲剧意识，却被忽略。

家，是一个有温度的词语，某种意义上，它代表着幸福，安定还有依靠，但是身在其中的人却往往忽视了家的可贵，像这个家庭的男人，他的漠不关心是悲剧的开始。

顾家的人，往往是因为他比别人更好地洞察了家的真谛，遗憾的是，洞察这一切的萨却没能有一个家，于是窥视别人，并把自己想象成这个家里的一部分，成为某种寄托，我们只能说，这是一个极端的人，或者是完美主义者，对于美好事物的维护让他丧失理智。

为了别人的幸福他把自己送上不归。

影片的最后，他在监狱里打开那叠照片，处处是贴心的小物件，琐碎温情的堆积，这俨然就是另一个家了。

而无家处处家，这是一种极致的悲凉。

但我相信，他的心中一定是充满了欣慰，因为他以为他维护那幸福，其实那只是表象，幸福是什么，是一个恒久的追问，妻子或以为是隐忍下的安定，萨却以为是绝对的忠贞，男人呢，自然有他另一种答案。

1.赛对拍照和照片的理解不同于常人，原因就在于他是个孤独的人，并且还有童年阴影，一个人童年的经历会伴随他的一生。

至于大家对他的评价，什么变态狂之类的，我想是因为你们根本就不理解那类人，他们做的这些也没影响别人的幸福，只是在不远处静静地守望，将自己代入，以获得爱。

2.赛坐在墙角欣赏着小男孩拍的照片（拍的真好），仿佛看到了自己的影子，因为赛拍照片的风格就是这样的，他喜欢拍微不足道的事物，这个从他最后在审讯室洗出来的洗手间照片可以看出（那组照片拍的真好）。

平日里那些普通的东西，经过了相机这道工序的放大，变形，就能显现出它的另一面，仿佛不再是本来的它了，关于这点，可以去看看罗兰巴特写的摄影札记《明室》。

3.当赛最后报复成功后，便想着逃跑，穿过一个又一个的房间，最后来到停车场，顺着螺旋车道跑下来，一圈又一圈，仿佛无穷无尽，他满脸的无奈，害怕，像一个孩子做错了事躲避父母的问责一样，我看着他，太可怜了，此刻我真想救他。

最后他走投无路了，刺眼的白光照在他脸上，一切都结束了，其实他做这么多只是为了守护他心中所剩无几的那一丁点幸福而已，对他来说又有什么错？

4.我就是赛。

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

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。

The irony of the movie "One Hour Photo" is that it's yet another decent performance of Robin Williams went unnoticed, which is exactly the issue the movie tried to address, the facelss in the crowd. Believe or not, with his high-octane performing style, and wide scope of roles, Robin Williams is never a truly versatile actor. His best roles over the years, Sean of "Good Will Hunting", Keating of "Dead Poets Society" (the ever-endearing, haunting DPS), the DJ in "Good morning Vientnam", Mel of "Deconstructing Harry", the killer in "Insomnia", just to name a few, fall in, more or less, the same category: The unimpressive, insignificant Joe with a heart of gold, Mr. Cellophone, the beautiful loser.Sy the photo guy is then the sum of all the losers he intepreted so far. Even though his regular customers can call him by the name, he's nothing more than just a two-letter symbol to them, an extention to the developing machine he spent 13 years to "personally calibreate, the best in the state". Williams is "the master of his domain" when it comes to the intepretation of this kind of guy, meek, mellow and non self-affirmative. The best performance of his in the movie, in my opinion, is the two and a half seconds of facial expression of Sy the moment he heard the news of being fired. The devastation is very convincing, makes u realize after 13 years of living in oblivion this seemingly worthless job is all that Sy hanged his existence onto, and how the blow of the cruelity of life can be delivered in full fledge with such a trivial mishap. The tricky part is Sy is walking on the borderline of being a likeable Everyman and creepy psycopath and Williams kept it in perfect balance throughout the movie. Even when Sy snapped after being fire and crossed the line from being a shy stalker to a downright life-threating criminal, he still kept his moderation and cowardness and, for better or worse, at the final moment the decency of humanity flashed back in his tormented mind and the movie ended in mediocracy. Being a thriller, the cinemagraphy and music score did a decent job delievering a well-controlled, introvert kind of creepy feeling. The unrealistic tidiness of the supermarket constantly rub the viewers' mind with uneasiness, and the music helps to build up the suspense which is otherwisely inadequately done. The ending, being smart and decent, feels unsatisfying nonetheless. With a conventional script and predictable plot, there's nothing to watch for this movie other than the performance of WIlliams.( I very much like to talk about "the facelss in crowd" issue but it's too huge a topic, so here it is, this half-assed piece of a decent but mediocre movie. )

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.

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。

人们总是会遇到这种情况：到刚认识不久的朋友家里玩，寒暄过后，为了进一步增进了解，女主人总是会拿一大堆的照片出来给大家看，从孩童时代到青壮年，从上一代到下一代，照片上的主人翁总是笑容满面，光彩照人，或是亲密无间，或是嬉笑有趣，看着看着，不由自主地感慨称羡他们的生活和家庭的和睦，主人们会表现更加自豪和兴奋，仿佛照片里是他们生活的全部。

但是，如果有人真的认为照片能代表生活的真相的话，那一定不是自恋狂就是有精神疾病倾向了。

“赛”就是这样一个仅仅因为照片，把期望估计过高的人，可能他真的很天真，或是向往美好善良太久了。

相反的是，照片的瞬间只是记录美好的霎那，这一霎那如同春天里大树上一个露出来的新芽，鲜明美丽但不长久。

事实上，树的成长却充满艰辛，风沙严寒，干旱病虫，人为破坏，确定和不确定的因素，随时都可以让百年大树轰然倒下！

何况真实的生活，不知道要残酷多少倍呢。

然而人们还是愿意照相，记录他们欢乐的时刻，保存短暂的美好，至少在他们感到绝望的时候，这些照片可以给他们带来安慰，或可以自我疗伤。

或是当他们终于老了，记忆慢慢衰退的时候，这些照片就是他们仅存的回忆了，那也是件不错的事情。