Laura靜靜不說(shuō)話的表情有一種憂郁的美，沒(méi)有佩戴耳環(huán)，也沒(méi)有其他明顯的配飾，高挑苗條的身形，整齊優(yōu)雅的發(fā)型，還有那雙會(huì)說(shuō)話的眼睛，已經(jīng)讓她足夠美麗。

整個(gè)影片都是Laura的回憶，在車站送走了讓自己心動(dòng)的人，然后把整個(gè)故事都回憶一遍，這樣算是給這段感情一個(gè)交代吧。而兩人全程都沒(méi)有身體上的越軌行為，讓這段意外而來(lái)的感情更加單純。

在一起的最后一天，兩個(gè)人只是一起吃飯，開(kāi)車兜風(fēng)，去了曾經(jīng)去過(guò)的小橋。并沒(méi)有什么特別的紀(jì)念性的舉動(dòng)，也沒(méi)有什么實(shí)質(zhì)性的承諾。假如你知道，這是你跟心上人在一起的最后一天，往后漫長(zhǎng)的幾十年里，你們幾乎再無(wú)見(jiàn)面的可能，你依然什么也做不了，只能任由最后的幾個(gè)小時(shí)這樣流淌，流淌。

最后的一幕，Laura的回憶結(jié)束了，忍不住哭了起來(lái)，丈夫溫柔地抱住她，說(shuō)歡迎她回來(lái)。（這還真像我小時(shí)候讀到過(guò)的一個(gè)小故事，故事里女孩子出軌了，但是最后回到了男友身邊，男友也是這樣溫柔地抱過(guò)，以一種看透一切的心態(tài)接納了她。）

一段單純的婚外情，意外地來(lái)，靜靜地走了。這算是最好的結(jié)局、最明智的選擇了吧，短暫的相處過(guò)，有過(guò)快樂(lè)和煎熬，最后互相原諒，互相遠(yuǎn)離。我喜歡Laura探出火車窗，對(duì)Alec說(shuō)的那句"If you forgive me, I will forgive you"。愛(ài)過(guò)的人要心平氣和地道別，多么不容易。

In her On Female Identity and Writing by Women, Judith Kegan Gardiner observes: “the word ‘identity is paradoxical in itself, meaning both sameness and distinctiveness, and its contradictions proliferate when it is applied to women” (Gardiner 347). In the post-war era, it was obvious that, more distinctiveness was added to women’s identity.
According to Arthur Marwick, “In general the war meant a new economic and social freedom for women, the experience of which could never be entirely lost” (Marwick 160). The war had an enduring effect of liberation for women in Britain, which manifested itself in various aspects of their lives. In her enlightening book, Only Half Way to Paradise: Women in Post-war Britain: 1945-1968, Elizabeth Wilson probes into the condition of post-war women from different angles. Although she is critical that women still faced discrimination, oppression and inequity in post-war Britain, she makes it clear that they had become increasingly liberal, since they had more opportunities to work, more sexual freedom, higher levels of education and so on, and this was due to a combination of many social factors.
Liberation was undoubtedly great for women because it meant less repression and oppression, equality and more possibilities in life. However, it may also have exacerbated women’s identity crisis by adding more “distinctiveness”. According to Erik H. Erikson, identity crisis is caused by the loss of “a sense of personal sameness and historical continuity” (Erikson 17). In terms of individuals in the group of women, although the liberation they enjoyed in the post-war era brought them more possibilities in life, it also meant that they faced various kinds of predicament in which their original roles were challenged, and this led to uncertainty about their identity. Brief Encounter, A Taste of Honey and The Killing of Sister George are three post-war films which delineated women’s identity crisis. Although the protagonists in these films have some particularity, their encounters still represent some of the possible aggravation of inner turmoil women’s liberation may have brought to individuals. This essay aims to explore the particularity of the plights of identity crisis faced by the protagonists in the three films under the background of the communal changes to women’s lives in the post-war era.
Brief Encounter, directed by David Lynn, is based on Coward Noel's one-act play, Still Life. It depicts the unenduring affair between Laura Jesson, a "happily-married" middle-class house wife and mother and Alec Harvey, a married doctor. The extremely well-received film was released in the immediate post-war year, 1945. During the 1940s, British women experienced a series of transformations under the influence of the war. The labour shortage brought about increasing opportunities of paid work for women, which led to a conflict with motherhood. Since many women were away from home to work, the government began to provide nurseries, “thereby relieving mothers of a burden central to ideal motherhood” (Lant 154). Meanwhile, sexuality became more open. The Second World War was “a very romantic war”, and part of the reason for this was that cinemas (where the two main characters used to date) and dance halls “provided the ideal territory for romantic encounters” (Bruley 114). The total birth rate was falling, while illegitimacy was on the increase, and divorce rate rose rapidly. Married women were no longer “icons of ‘decency and stability’” (Lant 155).
This is the history background of Brief Encounter. It belongs to an age that the image “ideal motherhood” was shaken; therefore Laura’s plight is also encountered by the female audiences at that time. The increasingly liberate social mode enabled them to question their traditional role of mother and wife in marriage and see the possibility of free themselves from it, but many of them could not take the step for reasons like the lack of income or dare not to break the moral code.
Laura is cast as a representation of the women at that time. Her identity crisis is led by the conflict between her awaking self-awareness and the social role of wife and mother which she has always been playing.
In her interior confession to her husband Fred, Laura states:
“You see, we are a happily married couple and must never forget that. This is my home. You are my husband and my children are upstairs in bed. I’m a happily married woman; or rather I was until a few weeks ago. This is my whole world, or it was until a few weeks ago.”
This monologue suggests that, before her encounter with Alec, Laura had identified herself as a wife and a mother, which was not exciting but definitely secure. Addressing the state of “happily married” which she “must never forget”, she is actually defending the identity under threat, and this reflects her dissatisfaction with the marriage in which her individuality is gradually being obliterated. Being a housewife, Laura regards her family as being her “whole world”. As a result, she has to spend most of her time in a house which seems to be so cramped that even the music from the radio can be “deafening”. This restricted domestic space has led to the insufficiency of individual space, which reinforces her social role of mother and wife, but consistently hinders her from being herself. Laura’s monotonous daily life as a housewife is also tedious. When Alec asks her if she comes to town every week, she explains that her regular Thursday schedule which brings about the affair is “not a very exciting routine, but it makes a change.” Moreover, there is some distance exists between Laura and her husband. Having no income, she is sustained by her husband who is described as “kindly, unemotional and not delicate at all” and “not musical at all”. In the film we don’t see he has any leisure activities other than playing crossword puzzles. However, Laura is cast conversely as sensitive and romantic. She goes to cinema every Thursday, borrows Kate O’ Brien’s novel from Boots, listens to classical music and is referred to Fred as a “poetry addict” who is quite familiar with Keats’ poems. The couple seems to lack common interest. Consequently, although Fred seems to be a considerate and understanding husband, he can never fulfil Laura’s demand for romanticism and passion. Their affection is very much based on kinship.
 These facts illustrate that, although marriage provides Laura with material things and a feeling of safety, it simultaneously represses her desire for individuality, and this has been the most significant contributor to Laura’s identity crisis.
The inevitability of the affair is implied in their first encounter. Laura thanks Alec for getting the grit out of her eyes, saying that: “Lucky for me you were here.” Alec answered: “Anybody could have done it.” The conversation ingeniously suggests that the affair is ineluctable for Laura because of the contradiction between her family role and desire, and this explains why even the main male character, Alec, is ambiguously constructed --- he can be “anybody”.
The reason for Alec to have captivated Laura is predominately that their relationship is beyond marriage, which enables him to cater to Laura’s need to be desired, not as a wife and a mother, but as a woman. When Laura and Alec bare their souls to each other for the first time in the boathouse, Alec says he loves Laura for her “wide eyes”, the way she smiles, her “shyness”, and the way she laughs at his jokes. His words indicate that it is Laura’s femininity that he adores. Some feminists have made observations about the contradiction between sexuality and motherhood, that the stereotype of mothers tends to be unsexy, and even in its aesthetic form, it is hard “to imagine a mother as ‘something else besides a mother’” (Lant 157). Therefore, the relationship outside marriage with Alec enables Laura to briefly escape from the role of mother and be loved for her herself, for being an individual rather than because her of husband’s obligation to love her simply because they are married.
The extra-marital affair with Alec is led by Laura’s identity crisis, and inversely aggravates the crisis since she finds that her familial identity, which provides her with security, is under threat. Laura realises the peril when it occurs to her that Alec will not tell his wife about their date: “Then the first awful feeling of danger swept over me.” The affair has brought about ambiguity and confusion in terms of her family role. After she lies to Fred, she refers to herself as “a stranger in the house”. Moreover, although motherhood can restrict Laura, the affair, which could possibly have caused her to abandon her children, still runs against her maternal instinct and brings about a sense of guilt. When her son, Bobbie, is knocked down by a car after her first date with Alec, she regards it as being her “fault”, “a sort of punishment” and “an awful, sinister warning”. Also, she thinks that a boy she met in the botanical park who looks like Bobbie should have given her “a pang of consciousness”. Thirdly, as a middle-class white woman, she fears that breaking the moral code could be a source of marginalisation, because her self-identification is also formed from other’s judgment. She is so afraid of the immoral affair being known that, at the end of the date with Alec, she looks around after getting on the train to see if people are looking at her “as if they could read my [her] secret thoughts.” When the affair is discovered by Alec’s friend, she supposes she has been laughed at and thinks of herself as being “cheap and low”. After this incident, Laura ends her relationship with Alec and goes back to her husband. Nevertheless her confusion about her identity grows deeper.
Similar to Brief Encounter, A Taste of Honey is a female-centred film adapted from a play of the same name written by Shelagh Delaney. The play was first produced on the 27th May 1958, while the film was released in 1961, which suggests that the film reflects the landscape of post-war Britain from the 1950s to the beginning of the 1960s. During that period, the trend of women’s employment did not decline, although women’s working lives were intertwined with child-rearing. Part-time jobs were more popular, especially with married women (Bruley 123), and importance began to be attached to education. Although being treated inequitably with boys, more girls, including those from working-class families, had a better chance of being educated. According to Sue Bruley, this was also a period when “slowly, signs of a liberalisation of attitudes regarding sex were appearing.” The Kinsey Report helped to “create a climate in which sexual activity was demystified and women’s enjoyment of sex more openly recognised” A survey conducted in 1956 revealed that “two-fifths of first sexual intercourse was occurring before marriage” Meanwhile, young people became “more self-aware and self-centred” as disciplines were less strictly forced by their parents” (Bruley 135). This also constituted a reason for teenagers to become more sexually active, which led to a higher rate of teenage pregnancy.
According to Erickson, adolescence is a period of identity crisis because, during the progression from childhood to adulthood, it is quite common that the physical and psychological transformation causes a loss of the “sense of personal sameness” and “historical continuity”. Teenage pregnancy, which was faced by an increasing number of young females in that era, undoubtedly added some complexity to this situation. The predicament confronted by Jo, the protagonist in A Taste of Honey, is fairly representative; at the age of 16, she is made pregnant by her black sailor boyfriend.
Apart from the combined reasons for the teenage identity crisis, there is some particularity in Jo’s case, which is the conflict between her wish to be independent and her desire for maternal solicitude, which has continued from her childhood. There is an obvious reversal between the roles of the mother, Helen, and her daughter. Jo is “the more responsible of the two” (Wandor 40). Being a single mother herself, Helen immerses herself in sexual relationships with men and constantly neglects Jo’s interests, since she believes, “In any case, bearing a child does not put you under an obligation to it.” Although Jo has expressed her will to be independent by wanting a room of her own, her desire for maternal affection, as well as her childish possessive instincts, prevent her from truly detaching herself from Helen. Consequently, she is hostile toward her mother’s lover, Peter, blaming him for “planning to run off with my [her] old women”, and feels abandoned when Helen finally marries Peter. What is more, although she moves out in the hope of being independent, it can be perceived that Jo is looking for similar maternal care rather than the independence of adulthood in her relationship with the two male characters, Jimmie and Geoff. Jimmie, the sailor who has sex with Jo and makes her pregnant, is “as mother-surrogate as much as lover” (Lovell 371). Jimmie helps Jo to carry the big cases, which should have been carried by Helen, off the bus when they move to a new flat, and applies a bandage to Jo’s injured knee. Rather than the pursuit of adulthood, their sexual behaviour is more of a compensation for Helen’s abandonment of Jo, since it happens after Helen sends Jo home alone from Blackpool after her bitter wrangle with Peter. Being homosexual, Geoff’s feminine characteristics make him equally proficient at domestic tasks. According to Lovell, like Jimmie, he provides Jo with “the ‘mothering’ which Helen refuses” (Lovell 372). As a result, the unattained maternal love prevents Jo from growing up, and thus deepens her identity crisis.
Moreover, Jo’s crisis is further exacerbated by her adolescence pregnancy. As Terry Lovell observes, at the age of 16, she is “poised between childhood and womanhood, precipitated into adulthood by her affair with Jimmie and her pregnancy” (Lovell 374). It is unquestionable that she cannot bear the responsibility of being a mother, having not completely got rid of childhood herself, and therefore she detests and fears the sudden shift of roles. When talking about breast-feeding, she says: “I’m not having a little animal nibbling at me. It’s cannibalistic.” Then she states, “I hate motherhood.” Also, having seen a “filthy” boy and a dead baby mouse, her sense of refusing to take responsibility for sexuality and motherhood is evoked: “…Think of the harm she does having children… A bit of love and a bit of lust and there’y are. We don’t ask for life; we have it thrust upon us.” Her reflection again indicates that she was not prepared for motherhood and regards it as being something “thrust upon” her. In addition, because Jimmie’s father’s is black, the possibility of the child having a dark skin colour constitutes another factor which leads to the instability of Jo’s identity. When she sees the doll Geoff brings from a clinic for her to “practice a few holds” which is modelled on the mainstream, white, she becomes angry and bursts into tears because “the colour is wrong”. Then she pounds the doll furiously and shouts. “I’ll bash its brain out! I’ll kill it!” Her extreme behaviour reveals her fear of being marginalised by having a black baby, and furthermore, the fear of motherhood itself. Subsequently, she desperately admits, “I don’t want this child! I don’t want to be a mother!” After Helen is thrown out by Peter, Jo ultimately abandons her relationship with Geoffrey and comes back to her mother. This again attests to her identity crisis; being a mother, Jo is not able to cut herself off from childhood.

Apart from the sameness of being play-adapted and women-centred, by directly depicting lesbianism, The Killing of Sister George expresses a much more radical attitude toward women’s sexuality than Brief Encounter and A Taste of Honey. It also touches on the female professional life, which was not mentioned in the last two films. The film was released in 1968, thus it is placed under the historical background of the 1960s, the last decade before the women’s liberation movement. There was an increase in the number of professional women during the 1960s, although they were still discriminated against. People’s attitude toward sexuality became more liberal than in the 1950s, which was suggested by the rising illegitimacy, the wide usage of contraceptive pills, and the availability of legal abortions to women (Bruley 137-139). Moreover, in the 1960s the male and female youth were “far more visually alike”, although the gender behaviour had not markedly changed (136). Lesbianism, which is centralised in The Killing of Sister George, still remained largely invisible. Therefore, the attitude toward women’s homosexuality expressed in the film is actually more radical than the social reality. Nevertheless, as the first commercial lesbian film, it still betrayed the growing tendency for homosexual women to face up to their role and begin to be gradually accepted by society, as the women’s liberation movement, in which lesbians began to claim their rights, began to warm up in 1969 (149), the following year after the release of this film.
        Different from Laura and Jo, the protagonist, June Buckridge, is a professional woman, an actress in a soap opera of BBC, and also a lesbian. It seems that she benefits from the increasingly liberal society. Having a decent job, she is able to be economically independent of men, and she has also asserted her homosexuality by cohabiting with her much younger girl friend, Alice. However, these elements also constitute the factors of her identity crisis.
June’s profession as an actress has led to her identity crisis, because of the blurring of the boundary between the role she plays and her own identity. In the film, June has played the role of Sister George, a district nurse in a TV soap named Applehurst, for four years. Its popularity has meant that June’s own identity has been replaced by her part, since all the people in the film call her George rather than using her own name. Also, according to Mercy Croft, June’s superior at the BBC, she “is Sister George and far more so than June Buckridge”. Therefore, June loses her own identity to her public role. In addition, June also unconsciously blurs the boundary between her part and herself because of their sharp contrast. Sister George is a much respected character in the soap opera. She represents the mainstream values of British society, while in reality, June is an outsider, an alcoholic, abusive and aggressive middle-aged lesbian. Rather than facing up to herself and resolving her problems, June chooses to make the boundary between her role and herself vague, thus evading the sense of marginalisation in her own identity. When she tells Alice that Sister George is to be killed in the soap opera, she uses “me” to refer to her part, saying, “They are going to murder me”. This line shows her confusion between her role and herself, attests to the blurring of the boundary, and indicates her anxiety about losing her part. For her, the killing of Sister George is the obliteration of her own identity in a disguised form, because the two have been muddled up with one another for so long. As a result, she feels the loss of continuity and sameness in her own identity. Therefore, her profession evokes her identity crisis while bringing her economic independence.
June’s homosexuality also worsens her identity crisis. In the film, there is no obvious discrimination in people’s attitude toward June’s lesbianism. Thus, the tension between the couple is produced by their inner turmoil rather than external pressure. In her conversation with Betty, a prostitute, June expresses her desire for “l(fā)ove and affection”. However, she has never been able to have this in her relationship with Alice. In her Female Masculinity, Judith Halberstam refers to June as “an aggressive bully, a loudmouth dyke and an abusive lover”, and then points out that she is actually vulnerable and dignified (Halberstam 182). As a matter of fact, for June, controlling Alice physically and psychologically by abusing her is to get a sort of certainty about their relationship and herself. As Wandor observes, June’s domestic gender is male (Wandor 62). She has established something similar to masculine authority in their lesbian relationship. However, her loss of job leads to the disintegration of such authority, and consequently deepens her uncertainty about her identity.
        At the beginning of the film, the relationship between June and Alice is dominated by the former. The scene in which June forces Alice to eat her cigar butt reveals her initial domination, but also becomes a mark of the turning point in their power relationship. While chewing the cigar butt, Alice’s facial expression changes from disgust to enjoyment, and in this way, she makes the punishment a pleasure. Her behaviour signifies the loss of efficiency of June’s authority, as she states desperately, “Once you spoil something, you can never make it work again.” Significantly, this happens the first time June express her anxiety about losing her job, which reveals the impact of June’s job loss on their lesbian relationship. The change in their power relationship is partly caused by economic reasons. When Alice blames June for her frivolous behaviour in assaulting some nuns in a taxi, June says: “Kindly keep your foul-mouthed recollections to yourself and remember who pays the rent.” This denotes that June’s authority is based on her economic superiority to some degree, and is threatened by the possibility of losing her job. Alice answers: ‘Not for much longer, perhaps.” More importantly, their relationship changes because of June’s sense of inferiority after losing her part as Sister George. In fact, in her relationship with Alice, June has always used ferocity and brutality to disguise her inner vulnerability, and the trauma caused by the loss of her job actually makes her more dependent on Alice, and thus, June’s authority begins to collapse. When Alice finally leaves with Mrs. Croft, this signifies the end of June’s domestic role in the lesbian relationship. Interestingly, this happens after the crew’s farewell party for her, which indicates the end of her professional role. Having lost her professional and domestic roles, the continuity and sameness in her identity is destroyed. In the final scene, June walks into the TV studio, only to find that “even the bloody coffin is a fake”. Sitting in her ruined TV world, she desperately let out a “mooo!” like a cow. June’s reduction of herself to a non-human is evidence that she has totally sunk into an identity crisis.

It can be concluded from the above analysis that liberation does not necessarily means freedom for women. If women don’t look up to themselves and really question their role, liberation can pose threaten to the completeness of their identity. From the 1940s to the 1960s, although the social mode became increasingly liberal toward women, the three protagonists experienced the same plight of an identity crisis, caused by their inner turmoil rather than social circumstances in different forms. Therefore, to gain real freedom, apart from asserting their rights, it is equally important for women to go back to themselves, and question who they really are and what they really want.
                            Works Cited

Bruley, Sue. Women in Britain since 1900, London: Macmillan Press, 1999. Print.
Erikson, Erik. Identity: Youth and Crisis, New York City: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994. Print.
Gardiner, Judith Kegan. “On Female Identity and Writing by Women” Critical Inquiry, 8.2 (1981): 347-361. Web. 24 Apr. 2011.
Halberstam, Judith. Female Masculinity, Durham: Duke University Press, 1998. Print.
Lant, Antonia. Blackout: Reinventing Women for Wartime British Cinema, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992. Print.
Lovell, Terry. “Landscapes and Stories in 1960s British Realism” Screen, 31:4 (1990): 357-376. Web 2 May. 2011.
Marwick, Elizabeth. Only Half Way to Paradise: Women in Post-war Britain: 1945-1968, London: Routledge, 1980. Print.
Wandor, Michelene. Post-war British Drama: Looking Back in Gender, London: Routledge, 2001. Print.

1999年，BFI評(píng)出了英國(guó)影史百大影片排行榜，本片位居次席，僅在《第三個(gè)人》之后。影片打動(dòng)我們的原因，不是因?yàn)镈avid Lean的大名（獲奧斯卡提名），不是因?yàn)槟信鹘堑木恃堇[（女主角獲奧斯卡提名），不是因?yàn)榍擅畹氐剐蚝图?xì)膩的獨(dú)白（編劇亦獲奧斯卡提名），不是因?yàn)閶故斓暮诎坠庥盎驉偠匿撉賲f(xié)奏曲。它的偉大之處在于其準(zhǔn)確描繪又真誠(chéng)探討了一個(gè)人類社會(huì)的無(wú)解難題：如果禁忌之戀發(fā)生了，你該怎么辦？
人類歷史最終選擇一夫一妻的婚姻制度有其必然性和合理性，但不代表它是完美的。事實(shí)證明，一個(gè)人是可能同時(shí)愛(ài)上多個(gè)人的，而審美疲勞喜新厭舊本就是人之本性；這就意味著一個(gè)人在結(jié)婚之后，完全有可能再愛(ài)上另一個(gè)人，即使他/她仍保持著對(duì)當(dāng)前伴侶的愛(ài)意。這個(gè)時(shí)候，對(duì)家庭的責(zé)任感和對(duì)道德譴責(zé)的害怕將約束著人們的出軌，就像劇中人那樣，即使兩情相悅難以自已，也只能“相見(jiàn)恨晚”，此情可待成追憶。他們縱然最終保持了賢妻良母和翩翩君子的良好形象，但他們失去的可能是一生難求的刻骨銘心的幸福。既然人都有追求幸福的權(quán)力，此時(shí)，誰(shuí)又能說(shuō)這樣壓抑人性的道德標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是百分百正確的呢？

那天看到這部電影《相見(jiàn)恨晚》，名字很誘人，于是點(diǎn)擊來(lái)看了。

故事還是那樣的老套，一個(gè)3、40年代的住在倫敦郊區(qū)的家庭主婦，每周四都來(lái)倫敦市區(qū)進(jìn)行采購(gòu)，會(huì)會(huì)朋友，或者娛樂(lè)一下，看場(chǎng)電影而已。在晚上的時(shí)分，在火車站坐火車回到自己的家，日復(fù)一日。某天這樣的平淡而單調(diào)的進(jìn)程回家的生活被打斷，因?yàn)樵谲囌竞蜍嚨臅r(shí)候在咖啡館遇到一個(gè)英俊帥氣的醫(yī)生，當(dāng)然，不出意外，他也結(jié)婚了，他也有小孩。因?yàn)樗谲囌竞钴嚨臅r(shí)候被揚(yáng)起的煤灰吹到眼睛去，于是醫(yī)生幫助了她，于是他們認(rèn)識(shí)了。于是他們?cè)谙轮芩牡臅r(shí)候又遇到了，于是開(kāi)始打招呼，于是開(kāi)始聊天，于是開(kāi)始一起吃飯，于是開(kāi)始一起看電影，于是開(kāi)始愛(ài)了，于是開(kāi)始悲劇了。

女主角一直在糾結(jié)之中，久違的激情牽引她走向這個(gè)醫(yī)生，但是一方面，善解人意的丈夫和可愛(ài)的孩子等道德倫理方面的感覺(jué)又向回拉她。某次她和醫(yī)生已經(jīng)早到了危險(xiǎn)的邊緣，但是理智又把她拉了回去。他們一邊克制地表達(dá)著自己的愛(ài)，一邊又迫不及待地靠近。終于，下一次，理智沖破了防線，在醫(yī)生暫居的房子里，正準(zhǔn)備開(kāi)始親熱，沒(méi)想到醫(yī)生的朋友回來(lái)了，她只好委屈的倉(cāng)皇逃走。醫(yī)生的朋友看到沙發(fā)上女主角留下的絲巾，對(duì)醫(yī)生的道德表達(dá)了鄙薄之意。醫(yī)生也沒(méi)法解釋，只能郁郁地離開(kāi)了朋友的家。

最后結(jié)果是女主角感覺(jué)失去了魂魄，在倫敦夜晚的大街上游蕩，她沒(méi)法帶著這個(gè)心情和狀態(tài)回家，幾個(gè)小時(shí)后，在車站遇到了一直找她的醫(yī)生。兩人相擁，但是那種屈辱和焚燒的感覺(jué)，讓他們覺(jué)得生不如死。醫(yī)生對(duì)她發(fā)出了很多愛(ài)的誓言，說(shuō)一輩子會(huì)想起她，記得她，然后說(shuō)自己全家要到非洲去行醫(yī)。他們將再也不會(huì)見(jiàn)面。他們?cè)谲囌镜目Х瑞^里說(shuō)著這些，女人想著生離死別般的痛苦滋味，當(dāng)醫(yī)生走后，她兩眼空洞地走到了鐵軌邊上，她差點(diǎn)跳了下去，但是她依然沒(méi)有勇氣。她回家了，帶著死了一般的身軀，體貼的老公好像沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)意外，依然和她說(shuō)著平時(shí)說(shuō)的那些細(xì)枝末節(jié)的事情。

其實(shí)愛(ài)，什么是愛(ài)？為什么總是了解并不深的人，那些不常在一起的人會(huì)因?yàn)榕紶柕撵`光乍現(xiàn)彼此吸引？在同類電影中，都有這樣的愛(ài)情。如果放在女人的角度，女人確實(shí)愛(ài)那個(gè)醫(yī)生，她只是想到她的時(shí)候她全身心的快樂(lè)，她的身體都在興奮地顫抖，雖然他們并沒(méi)有實(shí)質(zhì)性的接觸，當(dāng)然她無(wú)時(shí)不刻不想全身心接觸并徹底燃燒。那個(gè)醫(yī)生男人，也是適當(dāng)?shù)赜锰鹧悦壅Z(yǔ)問(wèn)候她：我愛(ài)你，我知道你也愛(ài)我，我很喜歡和你在一起的感覺(jué)，我要把你留在心里，我不會(huì)忘了你等等等等。

在別的很多人看來(lái)，比如在醫(yī)生的朋友看來(lái)，婚姻外的情感，當(dāng)事人再尊重再覺(jué)得寶貴的情感，當(dāng)事人以為是愛(ài)情，在其他人看來(lái)，不過(guò)是欲望，不過(guò)是奸情，是不齒的，不道德的，無(wú)法引以為豪的。所以當(dāng)朋友鄙薄醫(yī)生的為人為事的時(shí)候，醫(yī)生倒也沒(méi)有辯駁，因?yàn)榍楦羞@樣的感覺(jué)確實(shí)是解釋不清楚的。尤其，當(dāng)站在道德的角度審勢(shì)婚外的情感的時(shí)候，被戴上了枷鎖的情感，無(wú)法得到最公正的評(píng)價(jià)?；橐鲭m然是一個(gè)印在已婚人士身上的印記，但是內(nèi)心的洶涌的情感，仍然會(huì)噴薄而出，其實(shí)很難被婚姻這個(gè)印記，仿佛唐僧的咒語(yǔ)一樣那樣經(jīng)久有效被困。因?yàn)樾模m然受制于身，但是它依然可以無(wú)限制地飛翔一番，當(dāng)然最后也不得不限制于肉身的控制，而無(wú)奈回歸或者破損不回歸。

甚至重新來(lái)看這個(gè)醫(yī)生男人，他對(duì)這個(gè)女主婦表達(dá)了欣賞愛(ài)慕等之類的情感，然后他的內(nèi)心，到底是怎么想的呢？電影中并沒(méi)有過(guò)多的描述，幾百年前的男人也罷，幾十年前的男人也罷，甚至是現(xiàn)在的男人也罷，他們是任由他們的情感和欲望像野草一樣地瘋長(zhǎng)吧。在他們的內(nèi)心，不要說(shuō)別人分不清楚，他們對(duì)女人的情感，幾分是新鮮，幾分是欲望，幾分是出于自己的內(nèi)心，幾分是出于對(duì)女人真摯的愛(ài)戀？所以豆瓣里有人評(píng)價(jià)說(shuō)，當(dāng)女主角在那里異常痛苦糾結(jié)的時(shí)候，以為自己遇到了這一生最愛(ài)最愛(ài)的男人，最想不顧一切的男人，而男人，也許只是把她當(dāng)做一輩子中偶然遇到的一次艷遇而已。聽(tīng)他那些熱烈勾人的話語(yǔ)，當(dāng)然也許是性格使然率性表達(dá)，但是總而言之，太過(guò)輕率的炙熱，而并沒(méi)有后期結(jié)果的安排，還是顯得有些輕飄飄的。

所以備受煎熬的總是那些在外遇中的女人，她們知道自己的情感所屬以后，就渴望能夠?qū)⑿问胶蛢?nèi)容徹底統(tǒng)一，她們無(wú)法猶疑她們的心在不同的身體和心靈之中。噢，男人，有幾個(gè)男人有這樣的問(wèn)題呢，如同那個(gè)醫(yī)生一樣，當(dāng)遇到難以割舍的問(wèn)題的時(shí)候，大不了消失無(wú)蹤，遠(yuǎn)走高飛。留下那個(gè)女人，一輩子在其中煎熬。

我有個(gè)男性朋友對(duì)我說(shuō)，其實(shí)男女之間的友誼很難讓人記得，因?yàn)椴簧羁?。所以能記住的異性，多半是因?yàn)橛猩羁痰那楦胁拍苡浀玫?，那些真情?shí)感的愛(ài)情（極少人堂而皇之說(shuō)那是單純的欲望），就被賦予了這樣的重任，于是男人們?cè)谂诵纳虾莺輨澫律羁痰囊坏?，然后便瀟灑遠(yuǎn)去了。女人，如果選擇被人記住，或者記住別人，只能用傷害自己的方式去獲得，當(dāng)然，在傷害發(fā)生前，都以為自己會(huì)獲得更大的快樂(lè)，而不是更大的傷害。

同類電影，我想起了最近的美國(guó)電影《出軌》，也有名字翻譯成《不忠》，李察基爾在里面演那個(gè)事業(yè)成功，對(duì)妻子呵護(hù)備注的好老公，但是那個(gè)什么都有的美麗妻子，還是對(duì)日復(fù)一日的家務(wù)，操持唧唧歪歪的孩子有點(diǎn)倦怠了，在某一日在城里買東西的時(shí)候因?yàn)榇箫L(fēng)認(rèn)識(shí)了一個(gè)年輕英俊的外籍男孩，而陷入了他布下的局，因?yàn)榧で榈墓匆活櫼磺械睾托∏槿思s會(huì)。當(dāng)然，女主婦也會(huì)認(rèn)為和小情人的愛(ài)才是愛(ài)，不然絕對(duì)不會(huì)那么身不由己地狂放，甚至把老公贈(zèng)與的最珍貴的禮物送給了情人，而讓丈夫最后怒不可遏，從而造成了一個(gè)慘劇。

愛(ài)情是個(gè)什么東西，是新鮮的想法和新鮮的身體帶來(lái)的嗎？因?yàn)槟莻€(gè)人讓你有新鮮的想表達(dá)自己的想法，新鮮地想展示自己的身體，從而讓自己對(duì)自己充滿信心和興趣？婚外情，即使不會(huì)讓人覺(jué)得不齒，但是，這真的是一個(gè)大問(wèn)題，到底是什么而讓女人奮不顧身地舍棄一些，而一頭扎進(jìn)去？在情感中，到底是愛(ài)上了那個(gè)讓自己新鮮的人，還是那個(gè)人能讓自己新鮮后，從而愛(ài)上了這樣的讓自己滿意的自己？在后者中，難道說(shuō)某個(gè)男人，英俊也罷，溫柔體貼也罷，睿智博學(xué)也罷，他們只是讓女人發(fā)現(xiàn)自己本身潛力的一把鑰匙？

當(dāng)然，說(shuō)起這個(gè)，不得不提起韓國(guó)最有名的婚外情電影《婚外初夜》，38歲的溫柔嫻靜的有孩子的姐姐愛(ài)上了自己妹妹的27歲的男朋友，兩人發(fā)生了一段纏綿悱惻的愛(ài)情故事，當(dāng)然里面有很多交織難耐的欲望床戲。最后姐姐也想拋棄一切和情人走。在那個(gè)時(shí)候，那些自己現(xiàn)在擁有，曾經(jīng)擁有的東西和感覺(jué)，都抵不過(guò)幾個(gè)月和這個(gè)小11歲，年輕帥氣激情的男人所讓自己發(fā)現(xiàn)的自己。她最后也是志得意滿地想出走，遭到所有人的反對(duì)和不屑。她最后能出走成嗎？離開(kāi)了婚姻的庇護(hù)，失去了孩子的依賴和愛(ài)，一個(gè)沒(méi)有多少獨(dú)立生存能力的中年女子，會(huì)用什么得到那樣一個(gè)小情人的長(zhǎng)久的愛(ài)呢？事實(shí)真的很讓人擔(dān)憂。

很麻煩的是，這幾部電影中的女人都是家庭主婦，雖然她們有自己看似很幸福的家，有善解人意的成功的丈夫，有可愛(ài)的孩子，但是這些都沒(méi)讓自己有什么大的成就感。當(dāng)然，在某一時(shí)期大概還是有成就感的，但是她們內(nèi)心的需要，平時(shí)一直被自己善意鎖閉著，直到不經(jīng)意，有天，一個(gè)人拿著鑰匙走來(lái)，打開(kāi)了她們的心扉。她們會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，原來(lái)自己不僅僅只是像平時(shí)那樣，還有一個(gè)更讓自己喜歡的自己等待被人發(fā)現(xiàn)，欣賞，在被人賞識(shí)的時(shí)候，自己也感到巨大的喜悅，喜歡并愛(ài)上這時(shí)候的自己，順帶愛(ài)上這個(gè)拿這把鑰匙的人。

拋掉這個(gè)家庭主婦這個(gè)外衣，那些工作中的女人的情感，難道就會(huì)有明顯的差別嗎？電影中只所以安排那些主婦，是因?yàn)橹鲖D更有時(shí)間來(lái)營(yíng)造這些故事吧，換了牽牽絆絆的工作女人，故事展開(kāi)的時(shí)間和地點(diǎn)總是顯得有限了。但其實(shí)，不管是哪種女性，她們內(nèi)心里，其實(shí)都時(shí)刻期盼著有人拿著打開(kāi)她們心扉的鑰匙，一輩子持續(xù)地高水準(zhǔn)發(fā)現(xiàn)她們已經(jīng)有的美麗魅力，欣賞并讓雙方都愉悅于這樣的魅力；一輩子引導(dǎo)她們發(fā)覺(jué)自己還暫未發(fā)覺(jué)但是即將要發(fā)覺(jué)的美麗魅力，雙方不斷地有激情來(lái)尋找這樣的魅力，從而讓自己一輩子都欣欣向榮。

當(dāng)然，這完全是一個(gè)夢(mèng)想而已。因?yàn)闆](méi)有男人那么堅(jiān)持不懈，他們總是有空的時(shí)候順道過(guò)來(lái)看幾下，享受一下美麗；也許偶爾會(huì)突發(fā)奇想挖掘一下深層的潛力，趁機(jī)攫為己有后揚(yáng)長(zhǎng)而去。至于之后的收?qǐng)龅膯?wèn)題，那不是他們所考慮的問(wèn)題，所以后期都是女人在那里哀怨，自己的美麗獻(xiàn)給了別人，只讓別人消耗成了一具沒(méi)有生氣的軀體。女人，在這樣的情感戰(zhàn)役中，幾乎是，接近于100%，處于被掠奪的下風(fēng)，因?yàn)槔鲜怯玫却话l(fā)現(xiàn)的心態(tài)來(lái)接受處理方式，老是要想到天長(zhǎng)地久，而不是一時(shí)擁有。悲哉乎！

其實(shí)在以上三部電影中，家庭主婦都有一個(gè)好老公，他們知道身邊這女人平常的魅力，只是他們沒(méi)有力道再挖掘，所以才會(huì)讓女人們覺(jué)得生活和老公都平淡寡趣，從而內(nèi)心伸出飛翔的翅膀。想起有一對(duì)夫妻，當(dāng)然是電影中的夫妻《史密斯夫婦》，這一對(duì)勢(shì)均力敵的夫婦大概就是那種時(shí)刻有激情，永遠(yuǎn)發(fā)掘不完的那種寶貝。當(dāng)然，只能在電影中是如此，才顯得那樣特別。

看完《相見(jiàn)恨晚》（Brief Encounter）就覺(jué)得很好玩，不管你再怎么木吶，再怎么對(duì)邂逅或出軌嗤之以鼻，或者你再怎么不食人間煙火，躲入小樓成一統(tǒng)，一生中總有機(jī)會(huì)與人曖昧，總有機(jī)會(huì)打了個(gè)盹，火車一樣偏離軌道。

主動(dòng)的暫且不論，反正也說(shuō)不清到底什么主不主動(dòng)，像吵架一樣，一張嘴它也吵不起來(lái)。你誘惑人家，人家冰冷不應(yīng)和你再會(huì)搭訕也沒(méi)折，換句豆瓣上一豆友說(shuō)的話，更形象，你脫了人家的罩杯，人家扒了你的褲子，彼此彼此。

有意思的是，人家晚上來(lái)到你的窗前賞月，你就以為你是他的月亮。這還如何了得，他老是看著你，癡癡迷迷，色色迷迷的，你對(duì)他沒(méi)意思還好說(shuō)，不管他望月欲穿的眼，你只管視而不見(jiàn)，要是你對(duì)他也有點(diǎn)意思，趁機(jī)對(duì)他放下電，電壓沒(méi)達(dá)到你的預(yù)期，沒(méi)有碰出火花，于是傷心欲絕，不是看我你來(lái)我窗前看什么月亮？瓜田李下，這么大的地盤哪里不能去賞月？

不知道哪一天你就像破土的芽覺(jué)醒了，像玩偶之家里的娜娜，得換個(gè)活法。敢確定的是，你和任何人一樣會(huì)期待著給平淡的生活加點(diǎn)佐料，每天接送孩子，每天和另一半脫衣服穿衣服，玩遍了四十八式，每天上班為面包奶酪，每天下班為瑣事煩惱，來(lái)點(diǎn)小插曲多有味道。這些小插曲不一定是你自己主動(dòng)要求的，而是既然你會(huì)覺(jué)得乏味，別人也一樣，街道上到處流浪的都是不堪乏味折磨的獵鮮人，你碰上他再自然不過(guò)。我一朋友說(shuō)，她期望生活像白開(kāi)水，無(wú)波無(wú)瀾，另一層意思是無(wú)波無(wú)瀾的白開(kāi)水生活根本不存在，因?yàn)閹资晖粋€(gè)溫度，同一口井提取的，同一口鍋煮出來(lái)的水壓根就是妄談加扯淡。

如此篇幅地解釋小插曲，調(diào)味品的不可避免其實(shí)是想說(shuō)它的不可或缺。你要是不想為生活的平淡乏味所拘囿，就得自己尋找點(diǎn)，創(chuàng)造點(diǎn)新鮮，人對(duì)新鮮的追求永遠(yuǎn)沒(méi)有停歇，而且這種一致性更像風(fēng)吹墻頭草一樣步調(diào)一致，如果真叫你生活三點(diǎn)一線，百年如一日，一定是最簡(jiǎn)單，最夸張的生活方式，本可練就你滿身的清心寡欲，但你樂(lè)意像尼姑一樣嗎？尼姑是壓抑，要問(wèn)你自己能不能壓抑得住。

插曲給原本無(wú)味的生活平添幾分樂(lè)趣，更重要的是，插曲畢竟是插曲，它翻身當(dāng)家做主子難于上青天。你信不信那些第三者插足的大多都不會(huì)被納為正室，為什么，即便你再味道鮮美，你還是調(diào)味品，醬油醋代替不了白米饅頭。如果吃了醬油醋填補(bǔ)不了饑腸轆轆，回頭更覺(jué)白米饅頭的可口。

可怕的是你一旦有了插曲，就無(wú)法回頭是岸。你懸崖勒馬了卻發(fā)現(xiàn)后面的退路已經(jīng)被切斷，有的是你自己揮刀自宮，有的是被你的后方驅(qū)逐出營(yíng)。在前不著村，后不著店的地方叫天天不靈，叫地地不應(yīng)，你就悔恨交加吧。

如果你有回頭金不換的決心，恰好回頭又有岸，這是我可以想到的最理想的回歸狀態(tài)。你要是破罐子破摔，或者ta要是再對(duì)你耿耿于懷恨在心，只能說(shuō)你一招走錯(cuò)，悔得腸子都青了也沒(méi)用，以后要么乖乖地出生求學(xué)，結(jié)婚老蔫死亡，以不變應(yīng)萬(wàn)變，要么左右逢源，人鬼不同話，練就一身密不透風(fēng)的本事。畢竟像相見(jiàn)恨晚里那樣大度的丈夫克制的妻子還是少數(shù)。