MovieChat Forums > Intacto (2001) Discussion > My problem with this film

My problem with this film


This is a pretty decent movie that I enjoyed watching, but there is something that I was thinking about after finishing that movie that I can't put to rest. Maybe someone can give me a sufficient answer to solve my problem, but I doubt it.

The problem I have is with the photographs. If by taking a picture of a person or by owning a persons photograph that means that you get that persons luck then that causes a lot of conflicts with one of the major parts of the film. The only way for the film's plot to work is if each person whose luck was used by taking their picture only has one photograph of them in existence. But the truth is that there is no way that, that is possible. In almost all cases there has to be at least more than one photograph of a person in existence. School photographs , graduation photos, wedding photos, etc. that are given to different family members. So then, is that person's luck split up and divided between each person who owns the subject's photograph? Also, if photographs were the thing that people wager in this gambling ring what is to stop a person from just getting a whole bunch of photos of people in other ways such as working as a professional photographer who does headshots for school albums for instance?

I like the idea of stealing peoples luck and the gambling thing where the luckiest person would win some money. I just wish that the filmmaker had thought of a different way to have the people attain others luck.

reply

I think you are supposed to assume that not all people have the ability to steal luck so only those that both have talent AND have the photographs of others obtain their luck.

reply

Even so, then those few people who do have the ability could just get random photographs of people through many different means.

reply

Hmmm. Good point. Perhaps the photo-capture of luck works only if the photo was taken while somebody with the 'talent' was viewing the subject.

reply

Thought that the point was that the people with the gift took the picture.

Even then I guess they could just go around taking pictures of random people. Can't get my head round that issue.

reply

o.k, tsall, let me give you my point.
It is not just the photographs.... you also must have the gift of stealing others luck, and touch them.... Remember the game wher they were picking one person of a round up, taking pictures of the choosen one, and then the hug and even kiss these people (who do not belive in luck by the way and let the game go just for a couple of bucks)....
I've seen the picture 3 times an I think I could explain the movie, on the base that you believe that it could be possible to have a gift this kind, to be extrememly lucky to be a survivor (ex. federico survived an earthquake, the jew survived the camp)and to be able of taking others luck bay taking a picture and touch.... At the end the circle gets narrow to finally get to the jew game... so thes narrow circle people dos not play for houses or cars or money... they play to win other people luck, their bet is the luck they took from the people in the polaroids... so you can get to the jew with as much luck as possible.
Hope I was lucky to explain myself in english

reply

mm I understood that you had to do the huggy thing.

reply

it was a magical poloroaid camera....

in this day and age most people DON'T have poloarid pics of themsevles.

reply

It's an issue of faith (or, if you prefer, magic) - the photographs are like money (ie, you have to believe in what you're handling or it's worthless). Because the "lucky" people have to believe in what they're doing, that requires some sort of personal connection.

Also, if you notice, "survivor's guilt" plays a big role in the movie, hence the personal connection again (instead of just random photographs).

(I'm just a bear of very little brain - what's your excuse?)

reply