~Does (nostalgia) prove or disprove Sontag's point that "Photographs transcribed in a film cease to be collectible objects, as they are when served up in books"? (5) If so, or if not, why? Explain using specific examples from the film. 

   The film (nostalgia) supports Sontag's point that photographs presented through film cease to be collectible objects in a few ways. When photographs are presented in books, the viewer has the options of what to make of them. He or she may choose to look at it multiple times, or even extract it by cutting it out or framing it. A photograph in a book, in a sense, belongs to the reader of that book, so the photo can be treated as their own. However; when it comes to films, the viewer does not have that power over the photos. He or she cannot choose to keep that picture, or even how long to look at it. In (nostalgia) this becomes even more clear as the viewer watches the pictures burn. It emphasizes the fact that the pictures are out of reach and the viewer cannot control the flames ruining them. In the film, the length of time the viewer sees the photograph is in the control of the director. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, the burning of the pictures sends the viewer the message that they cannot be collected. Photographs shown in film tend to be somewhat ironic. A photograph is supposed to be a snapshot of a specific moment in time and this is what makes pictures collectible. When placed in films, the photos become part of the story line of the film, thus losing the essence of being collectible due to that special moment they capture.