What's new

*** Official "ONE HOUR PHOTO" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

Roland G

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
May 10, 2000
Messages
97
It's Mark Romaneks directional debut...how could i not see "One Hour Photo".

I also heard that the score by Klimek is supposed to be very good.

I got free tickets for a showing next sunday here in Vienna...can't wait.
 

rhett

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 11, 2001
Messages
571
I have been praying Williams would shake his melodramatic stereotype as of late in movies like Bicentennial Man, Patch Adams and Jakob The Liar, and thankfully he has delivered with 3 villianous roles! I liked Death to Smoochy and loved Insomnia, and I think that One Hour Photo has definite potential at bettering both films.
It has been awhile since I have read any reviews comparing the lead character to Travis Bickel, so that comparison alone has me hooked on seeing the film. For those who have seen it, is Williams' performance Oscar worthy?
 

Edwin Pereyra

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
3,500
Michael has eluded to two other problems in the film's plot points different from those I noted in my review, which is understandable. I can excuse Connie Nielsen's behavior as she is trapped in a marriage where the husband is the sole breadwinner. I thought she is just waiting for a better time to bring the entire matter to her husband. It will be very interesting how the logic and reasoning are scrutinized in this forum.
For those who have seen it, is Williams' performance Oscar worthy?
I wouldn't have any problems the Academy recognizing the performance by nominating it but I feel there would be more challenging performances on the horizon more worthy of the award itself.
~Edwin
 

Mark Pfeiffer

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 27, 1999
Messages
1,339
A couple points...

I thought he only finished out the rest of the day, not the week.


And...

Regarding those photographs, yes, that is a potential hole. By this point in the film, I sort of wondered if anything we saw was real or if it was all imagined. The conversation Sy has with Mrs. Yorkin in the food court struck me as being his fantasy rather than "real". I'd really have to go back and see it again, but it seems that at some point the film shoots off into fantasy and that we can't really trust what we're seeing.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,604
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "One Hour Photo". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.
All HTF member film reviews of "One Hour Photo" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Crawdaddy
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Mark --
No, it was the rest of the week. Moreover, for a boss who, as he later tells the cops, has fired a lot of people, it is inconceivable that he would let Sy stay on even for the rest of the day -- especially when he's concerned enough about Sy's behavior to warn him not to "fuck up" any of the work in progress.
The photographs didn't especially bother me. People are foolish enough to think that their photos will remain private, and there was no reason for the girlfriend to know that she was handing them to a guy who was obsessed with the Yorkin family. The explanation that Edwin gives in his review for why Connie Nielsen keeps quiet might be plausible except for one thing -- her son saw the photos when she did. Even if she could persuade him to keep quiet, it's hard to imagine the atmosphere wouldn't be so thick you could cut it with a knife. In the theater where I saw it, the audience burst out laughing when Sy cried out, "What's wrong with these people!" I don't think it was the kind of laughter the scene was supposed to elicit.
M.
 

Edwin Pereyra

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
3,500
Since this is now the official discussion thread, it also now becomes SPOLER RIDDEN.
The timing of Sy's dismissal and that he wasn't let go right away is critical. He did not see the photos and become aware of the affair until after his boss talked to him. He was able to notify Mrs. Yorkin of the affair by being able to work the rest of the week.
He was able to do a lot of things by being able to work after he was already notified of his dismissal. The entire second half of the film was triggered by this very single event.
The film relies heavily on this crucial point that it needs to hold up yet it can be construed as being totally dishonest.
~Edwin
 

Edwin Pereyra

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
3,500
In the theater where I saw it, the audience burst out laughing when Sy cried out, "What's wrong with these people!" I don't think it was the kind of laughter the scene was supposed to elicit.
Oh, I don't know if it was intended or not but that line generated the biggest laugh at the screening I attended. :)
~Edwin
 

Mark Pfeiffer

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 27, 1999
Messages
1,339
OK, where to begin...

I think the film bears a second viewing for me to make a more accurate assessment in some regards. I know David Poland has drawn attention to some vague similarities with The Wizard of Oz, which didn't necessarily occur to me when viewing it; however, upon reflection, it may help account for some of the "inconsistencies". Needless to say, spoilers are abundant, so venture forth with caution...

One Hour Photo is bookended by the scenes in the police station. The assumption is that we can "trust" what we see and hear in these scenes. Sy narrates the rest of the film, or at least it is seen through his perspective (for the most part). I'm beginning to think that all of that is his fantasy, how he thought it happened. This would also mean that there at least two other fantasies within the fantasy--the scene in the house and the dream with the blood--but it helps explain otherwise questionable elements. Why does the conversation in the food court seem strangely cordial? Because it's how he envisions it. Who took the incriminating photographs? No one--they don't exist. Why was he allowed to continue to work? Because it's how Sy sees it playing out.

Take the boss, for instance. He seems to have an omniscient quality that is symbolic of Sy's guilty conscience. This goes a long way in explaining how he might have known about the camera Sy gave to the boy, how he noticed the inconsistencies in the reports, and why he fires him. Sy is no longer connected to his conscience, which leads to his biggest psychotic break.

The ending is what really threw me, but I wonder if it's more complicated than it appears on face value. The natural assumption is that Sy was abused as a child, but doesn't it make more sense that maybe he really was part of the family? He was the abuser, or was suspected of it, and cast out. It helps explain the seemingly happy family photo at the end. (I realize this too could be fantasy, but this theory is precipitated on one viewing last week. I'd need to see it again.)

Also, doesn't the police officer say something like I saw what you did to Mr. Yorkin, in reference to the photos, at the beginning of the film? How does that fit in with what we see at the end?

I realize I've probably raised more questions than provided answers, but for the few who've seen it, toss in your thoughts please.
 

Mark Pfeiffer

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 27, 1999
Messages
1,339
It's going to be difficult for me to do this since I won't be able to see the film again until Sept. 13 (when it opens here), but I'll give it a go anyway.

If memory serves, that food court conversation comes after she has become progressively more unsettled by him, so her chirpy friendliness with him seemed strongly "fantastical" to me.

As for the photos of the affair, what I'm saying is that this whole section of the movie is Sy's fantasy. It's possible the affair happened, and it's possible it didn't happen, that Sy needed a justification for what he was to do. As an aside, do we actually see what she sees in the photos, that she sees pictures of her husband having an affair, or is it implied that this is what she sees? Perception plays such an important role in this film.

I'm just throwing this stuff out there as thoughts, not as firm theories since I've developed a lot of it after the fact and am trying to get a handle on it. It just seems that since Romanek was so precise in many areas of the movie that there are more than superficial explanations for some of the oddities/inconsistencies in the picture. But maybe I'm looking too hard.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
As an aside, do we actually see what she sees in the photos, that she sees pictures of her husband having an affair, or is it implied that this is what she sees?
We don't see her viewing the photographs. We see her SUV swerve suddenly and violently for no apparent reason, and then she pulls over to the side of the road. We see her with her son briefly in the car, but I don't recall whether any of the photos are visible (I don't believe so).

Moving some or all of the action into Sy's head may supply some explanation of the film's less believable moments, but it doesn't make it a better film. When a film utilizes the "unreliable narrator" device, there should be a clear moment of revelation that tells the audience they can't trust what they've been seeing. A classic example is the conclusion of The Usual Suspects. There's nothing like that in One Hour Photo.

M.
 

Edwin Pereyra

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
3,500
But maybe I'm looking too hard.
I’m not trying to dismiss how you want to interpret the film, which is certainly your prerogative. But by trying to explain the film’s way out of its two major logical weaknesses, more questions are asked rather than answered and more scenes come into question as far as their importance within the film’s entire narrative (be it a fantasy, dream or reality).

However, I will try and see it again paying more attention to the theories you proposed. And if I’m wrong, I’ll let you know.

~Edwin
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Bad phrasing on my part. What I meant was that we don't see her (or her son) opening the envelope and discovering the photos, but we see the reaction (i.e., the car swerving). As I indicated, I can't remember whether the photographs are visible when the camera goes into the car for the immediate aftermath of her reaction. (I gather that you recall seeing them in those shots.)

M.
 

Edwin Pereyra

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
3,500
Yes, the car swerved and there is a long shot of her holding and looking at the photographs with her son looking at her.

~Edwin
 

Edwin Pereyra

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
3,500
Here’s another reason why I think the whole fantasy theory cheapens the film – the scene where Sy buys a photo of a woman who he then passes off as his Mom. That whole scene worked for me to emphasize the underlying theme of class anxiety, to show how much of a loner he is and to show how he truly wants to belong or to be accepted as a regular person and a part of a family.

If that scene is a fantasy rather than something that actually happened, its impact is greatly minimized.

~Edwin
 

Mark Pfeiffer

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 27, 1999
Messages
1,339
Well, I'll admit that that my "theory" is more of a half cocked cobbling together of loose ends more than anything I'd say I stand by. (Can you hear the backpedaling?) Basically, I was putting it out there as something to get conversation going and trying to figure it out myself.

So rather than spewing balderdash into this thread, could you explain the ending? The detective mentions that he saw what Sy did to Mr. Yorkin (in reference to the developed photographs), but what we see are shots of items in the room, not any posed pictures of him and his adulteress. Then the film ends with the family photo with Sy in it. (Wish fulfillment, I originally assumed.)

I think its the end that calls a lot of it into question for me. I'm looking for some answers.
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
Then the film ends with the family photo with Sy in it. (Wish fulfillment, I originally assumed.)
I still think that's right. Either Romanek's screenplay and direction simply wasn't deft enough to convey the message properly, or he meant it to be a little ambiguous.

DJ
 

Edwin Pereyra

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
3,500
I also interpreted the last shot as an extension of Sy's wishful thinking to belong all along.

As for the pictures of the room, I can't remember the specific words the detective said in the very beginning to tie it all in the end. While in the room, Sy definitely took some pictures of the room and probably just threw away the roll of film with the forced sex acts.

At this point, the detectives really do not have any evidence that Sy was in their room unless Mr. Yorkin and the adulteress fess up. Thus the two of them will also be admitting to the affair even though there are already some pictures of their own to prove it.

My question is: What was the significance of and why did Sy took pictures of the little girl playing by herself in the yard?

~Edwin
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,679
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top