相见恨晚1945

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 “love 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.

大卫•里恩作品《相见恨晚》观后座谈会纪要
/范达明整理/
                          
时 间：2017年10月7日（星期六）下午15：24—16：13
地 点：杭州祥茂路2号影天像素园2号楼B座一层咖啡吧
（影天艺术影吧大卫•里恩作品《相见恨晚》观后现场）

与会者：（发言序）范达明、王增光、金爱武、何吉、汪琲琳、司钰、周德麓、吕玲珍、俞明珠、陈起、张斌、严柏华、王义钢、支音、范大茵、丁云珍、韩美娣、陆忠佩、张水琴、孟启（观影者：章毓光、章毓苏、姜希珍、蔡玲、章勤、潘嘉来、孙凤凤、徐俊卿等）
主持人：范达明
记 录：支音

今天影天艺术影吧开幕，感谢影天印业有限公司及蔡总经理的积极支持
范达明：今天影天艺术影吧开幕。本来要请这里的蔡总经理来做一个开场白，临时告知有事脱不了身，包括她的助理小沈，也无法到场。那我就代表影吧承办方影天印业有限公司与蔡总感谢大家的光临吧。大家本着对于经典艺术影片的爱好，都是摸索着来到了这个新环境新地方，为此更是要感谢影天印业有限公司及其总经理蔡鸣晓女士对于影吧这项活动的积极支持，他们无偿地提供了这样的环境与放映设备来支持开展这个活动，而具体接洽这个地方的是我们美术评论研究会的副秘书长潘嘉来；他今天也到了这里。（鼓掌）此前他就获得过支持，以杭州市文艺评论家协会名义这个场地举办过一次艺术讲座。所以也要谢谢他的推荐之功。6月底影吧活动在恒庐谢幕，大家则仍寄予影吧未来活动以很大期待，我本人先后去看过好几个场地，在大家的关心关注、支持帮助以及一些人的推荐下，最终选择了影天印业公司，落脚在他们公司的像素园里。当然，新的场所刚刚开始，一些情况不熟悉，也会有差错发生，希望大家谅解。今天开始，影吧第23季，进入“大师经典年展”9位导演的第7位导演——英国世界级电影大师大卫•里恩的电影月——本月共排有他四部不同时期的影片。里恩生于1908年，如果活着，已有109岁了。在6年半前，2011年3月，影吧“英国电影月”的首部影片，就安排放映了他导演的《孤星血泪》，是根据19世纪英国著名批判现实主义作家狄更斯的小说《远大前程》改编的。本片《相见恨晚》是同时期作品，但相比该片应属小制作，是依据一个浪漫舞台短剧《依然活着》（Still Live）改编拍摄。其基本结构与情节，是以女主人公劳拉第一人称的主观视角，采用独白与倒叙手法来展开的。

影片基本着眼于女主人公劳拉的感情描绘，对于男女主人公心理活动的刻画很好
王增光：这部影片放在传统观念下，就是出轨。影片基本是着眼于女主人公劳拉的感情描绘；而对于男主人公亚历克，表达的东西不很多。
金爱武：我觉得影片符合1945年那个时代人物的情感特征。片子的音乐很不错。导演对于男女主人公心理活动的刻画很好。

片中选用拉赫玛尼诺夫的第二钢琴协奏曲，协调了劳拉内心波澜不平的心理情绪
范达明：从片头字幕看，片中选用有拉赫玛尼诺夫的第二钢琴协奏曲，而给钢琴演奏伴奏的是英国国家交响乐团。这可能是指片中劳拉回到家里播放唱片时我们所听到的那段音乐。这段音乐协调了劳拉当即内心的波澜不平的心理情绪，而其丈夫对此则闷在鼓里，他当然是不解的，还认为音乐声太响，要求妻子把它关小点。其实，影片起始的背景音乐，伴随着火车由远而近疾驶而来的轰鸣声，听了就很震撼人心。音乐确实不错。

影片生动描写出了两个很绅士的男子形象，表明了1945年英国的那种文化教养
何 吉：电影不仅描写了劳拉这样深藏的又是克制的女性情感，也很生动地描写出了两个很绅士的男子形象。它表明了1945年英国的那种文化教养，那是很温和的。

影片把人物性格挖掘得比较深，感情把握得符合人物的性格，男女双方都比较克制
汪琲琳：这是英国导演拍摄出了的非常有英国特色的电影。男士很绅士、大度，影片的高明之处是在于，以倒叙、插叙的讲故事手法。把人物性格挖掘得比较深，感情把握得符合人物的性格，男女双方都比较克制。
金爱武：不像现在的男女，一接触就上床了。

影片为劳拉有亚历克这样的外遇出现提供了合逻辑的反面衬托的背景
范达明：我注意到影片表现劳拉回家之后的情形，她能做的也仅仅是在手头机械重复着那些针线活罢了。他们夫妻之间确实很温和，但实在是缺乏真正的精神交流。这些描述，也为劳拉出家门之后会有亚历克医生这样的外遇出现，提供了合逻辑的反面衬托的背景。

整部影片以女主人公的感情线为主，而其他的配角也有着鲜明的人物形象
司 钰：影片的剧情连续性好。影片开头、结尾是一个环形的叙事。这样一部老电影的故事，简单，单纯，仍很有可看性。整部影片以女主人公的感情线为主，而其他的配角也有着鲜明的人物形象。从头至尾火车的情节贯彻全片。而影片对于女主人公所面对朋友们时的语言都是比较心虚的一种描写。火车站、咖啡店和咖啡店的女老板，每一个角色写的都很细致。我觉得影片最大的点睛之笔是影片的剪辑。

影片是英国绅士风度、精神的体现，把一出婚外情的故事拍摄得那么美好
周德麓：电影，我是门外汉，但我也是恒庐影吧的影友。今天这部影片表现出了男人的文明。影片可以说是英国绅士风度、精神的体现。为什么呢？因为英国人在二战中，除了遭遇一些空袭之外，基本没有像欧洲大陆那样经受有巨大的战争创伤。所以保留着绅士风度的英国，才会把这样一出婚外情的故事，拍摄得那么美好，让观众看了心灵也深有触动。

本片对于女性独白的爱情故事，描述得很细腻
吕玲珍：我电影看得较少。国内影片与国外影片显然有差异。本片的特点是，对于女性独白的爱情故事，描述得很细腻。

电影总体是美，很纯，男女主人公都为对方着想。基本主题是“发乎情，止乎理”
俞明珠：电影总体是美，很纯，男女主人公都很为对方着想。影片的题材适合年轻已婚的人士观看。基本主题就是“发乎情，止乎理”。它发生在一家小吃店，火车来来回回的背景下。而在劳拉方面，她的陷入情感之中确实很深，甚至有通过自己主观幻想的。我觉得影片跟《廊桥遗梦》有点相似。

爱情之中会有很多想象的成分；真正的爱情肯定是包含着一种折磨与苦难的
范达明：我想，我们不能否认男女主人公在这每周四一次的约会中确实是产生了相互珍爱的真情。可能正是这每周仅一次见面，才会加剧俩人之间情感的吸引力。所谓“相见时难别亦难”，有难才有爱，有别才会熔铸爱的丰富想象力。我现在认为，爱情之中会有很多想象的成分；而真正的爱情，也肯定是包含着一种折磨与苦难的。

影片的价值观、道德观问题，为何劳拉会喜欢上亚历克？
陈 起：影片的价值观、道德观，可能有点不正确。
张 斌：从影片看，劳拉的丈夫对于劳拉还是很体贴的，因此我有一个问题：为何劳拉会喜欢上医生亚历克的？
范达明：你提出这个问题，是一个大问题。其实这正是影片编导拍摄这个片子所要讲述的问题。如果你真是仔细看了影片，应该从影片本身会获得初步答案的。

理智战胜情感，男女主人公始终没有突破底线，表现了人性的真实
汪琲琳：人这一辈子总会遇见几个自己喜欢的异性。这不奇怪。影片的最终表现，是理智战胜情感。今天的时代，可以说是欲念横流的时代。而影片表现的是已远去的那个时代。男女主人公的来往始终没有突破底线，它表现了人性的真实。

劳拉单纯热情，但也有通常女人都有的老辣精明的一面
范达明：劳拉在与亚历克发生婚外情之后，对自己丈夫是采取了瞒与骗的手法的。当然她并不是完全欺瞒，有时也说一些情况，譬如跟丈夫说要邀请医生来家里吃饭等等，但总的是造成一种印象：她与医生不过是那种一般的异性朋友关系，让她丈夫一直蒙在鼓里，不明事情发展的严重程度。影片在总体结构上，表现为劳拉在向其丈夫陈述自己的整个故事，实际上这只是她自己的内心独白。真相她从来没有完全明说，甚至还给女朋友打电话，进行“串供”。这说明，劳拉有其单纯热情的一面，也有通常女人都有的那种老辣精明的一面。当然，她所以这样做，为的都是不使她的婚姻家庭生活遭至破坏，也不愿让她丈夫太受伤害。

劳拉的丈夫很绅士；或者是她的丈夫很迟钝
吕玲珍：还有一点非常不错，影片最后劳拉丈夫对劳拉说，你终于又回到我身边了，这很绅士。
何 吉：我看，这是她丈夫很迟钝。

最后亚历克要去非洲行医，看来导演是把故事结局做了一个保守态度的处理
严柏华：我是恒庐影吧的老影友。现在活动能安排在周六，也让我能重新参加了，非常高兴。影片有这样的情节设计：劳拉自己闯到了医生亚历克寄住的朋友寓所，导致了亚历克与自己朋友的失和。最后亚历克要去非洲行医，这是否为导演刻意设计的？看来导演是把故事的结局做了一个保守态度的处理。

在战后普遍存在人的心灵的创伤的情况下，这样的影片是有必要的
王义钢：中国人现在来看这样一个英国的故事，我在考虑，我觉得它有点贵族与灰姑娘故事的味道。劳拉身上有点灰姑娘的特质，害羞，单纯，而男主人公亚历克则有帅气的外貌、绅士的风度。在战后普遍存在人的心灵的创伤的情况下，这样的影片，是有必要的。我认为社会也需要有这样的作品。

影片似提出了让我们必须来选择的问题，究竟是婚姻重要，还是感情重要？
王增光：如果我们认为影片男女主人公之间是一种真爱，那么影片似也提出了这样一个让我们必须来选择的问题，究竟是婚姻重要，还是感情重要？如果是后者重要，那么影片也就是一个“娜拉”的故事。当然正像鲁迅说过的那样，“娜拉”最终又是回来了。
（此时有诸多影友同时抢着发言，气氛过于激烈，无法做文字记录。以下三段均为会后补充的笔谈）

劳拉脑海中出现的幻象，我觉得都是映射现实中关系的某种危险性
支 音：今天来这里欣赏了大卫•里恩导演的《相见恨晚》，我个人打分：8分（10分制）。《相见恨晚》导演镜头下的光与影，让观众的视觉体验很美妙。开场和结尾是同一情节，但导演使用了不同的人物视角来叙事，作用也就不同。女主人公劳拉的脸部特写加全黑背景，这种舞台剧式的处理很有趣。劳拉脑海中出现的幻象，譬如跳舞（旋转）、海边（危险）、空中（摇摇欲坠）等等，我觉得都是映射现实中关系的某种危险性。而在影片结尾处，劳拉的脸部特写镜头，开始由倾斜慢慢变回水平，它也是在暗示观众，生活正由失控慢慢趋于正常。

异性间的互相吸引会在婚姻这条红线后自动终止吗? 从人性上来说不会
蔡玲：说“相见恨晚”，那么早见又如何？异性间的互相吸引会在婚姻这条红线后自动终止吗? 从人性上来说是不会的，吸引了又没有故事发生是因为人们的潜意识中有那个社会公认的道德规范，有对个人行为的道德约束，所以片中男女的互相吸引到了有出轨之可能时便觉得全世界的眼睛都盯着他俩了，挣扎在相恋的甜蜜和相爱的错误之中，电影所处时代人们普遍的那种道德洁癖其实每个国家每个时代或多或少的都有，自由度高的国家的道德洁癖会弱些，中产男女的感情生活也会更丰富些，那么世界也就不会显得那么窄，但由此那些该发生的或者不该发生的爱情也就没有那么凄美和古典了。我想，没有经过一丝阻力的爱情是支撑不起剧情的走线的。

编导在剧情处理上用足了脑筋，把人物内心的矛盾冲突强化到极点然后物极必反
范达明：说到影片的片名，所谓“相见恨晚”，其实是把中国旧文人写爱情诗文喜欢用的一个成语，不太准确地甚至是主观地强加给影片与影片编导的。查影片的原名，其实是Brief Encounter，直译就是“短暂的遭遇”——从中，我们或者也能看到影片作者的基本思想与对男女主人公全部行为的审美评价了。换言之，片中男女主人公的这段婚外情关系，不过是各人生命长河中的“短暂的”支流或浪花，不管你是欣赏它还是否定它，它终究翻不起大浪，也不会有最终结果。应该承认，劳拉与丈夫的婚姻关系平和、温顺，但确实少了一些激情，但他们的婚姻也没有到了应该破裂的地步。编导在剧情处理上用足了脑筋，是要把人物内心的矛盾冲突强化到极点然后物极必反。影片中特别安排了一个次要人物，那个戴帽子的中年女人，她可真是个大煞风景的讨厌角色——她在不该出现的场合出现而且大大咧咧唠叨个没完，让互相认可要最后告别的男女主人公在最后一次见面分别前本该说说话的机会全给耽误了。正是在这样的前提下，已上了火车的劳拉才突然又下火车，甚至赶到亚历克暂时寄住他朋友的寓所。这是他俩关系中劳拉唯一的一次主动行动。那么劳拉为什么要这样做？完全是为了对方考虑，是觉得亚历克还有要说的话没有说完，这样也恰恰因亚历克朋友的意外归来而造成了他们之间的难堪局面，甚至朋友友谊的破裂；而劳拉自己呢，不得不从后窗偷偷溜走的窝心也让她受到了人格与自尊的最大挫伤（似乎她正与亚历克在所借他人房内干着见不得人的苟且之举），她因此觉得自己没有了做人的尊严，甚至想卧轨自尽。我想，这部影片之所以成为世界电影史上的经典，正是在处理男女感情问题在达到一个危机点时能做到极至而化险为夷、转危为安，没有造成像列夫•托尔斯泰《安娜•卡列尼娜》中安娜那样的悲剧结果。影片根据于一个舞台短剧改编，原剧名叫Still Live，直译《依然活着》。与“相见恨晚”名头的浪漫相比，“依然活着”的说法让人联想到普希金童话诗《渔夫与金鱼的故事》的无奈结局，似又显得太消极了一些。

2017年10月9-10日整理
整理者注：本纪要为杭州恒庐艺术影吧开创以来座谈成文的第140篇纪要（影天纪要1）。

    这是一部极其细腻的婚外恋题材的爱情片。
  很多女人在婚后都会遇见那一粒爱情的粗砂，被它折磨得痛哭流涕，惨然欲绝。这粒粗砂可能来得并不刻意，只是由于一阵风，一列火车，一次不经意的邂逅，就那么的一赶巧儿，然而紧接着便是汹涌如潮水的爱情。“这种爱情突然到来，像暴风雨从天而降，夹带着闪电，把生活兜底翻起，把意志如同树叶一般刮走，把整个的心都投入深渊。”
  有了他，一切都是璀璨多彩，熠熠生辉的。生活充满了趣味，生命如此美丽灿烂，每个约定见面的星期四都像是上帝赐予的幸福时光，一星期的其他六天全部都黯然失色。没有他，吃饭不香了，电影不好看了，有趣的人也变得乏味甚至可怜了。一切都黯淡了，一切都毫无意义了。没有了他，世界依然如故，可没有了他，她却仿佛丢失了整个世界。
  两人的热恋就如同那一列尖啸着离开站台的列车一样，张牙舞爪，喷薄出浓重的烟雾，带起狂风，震撼着整个世界。
  可是，或许就如《包法利夫人》中那样，婚姻生活中的平淡乏味，她也会在出轨中又全部体会到。
  所以，也许片中让人摧心剖肝的割舍是最好的解决方法了。
  这部片子为了弥补电影之于小说的不足，便采用了苏拉对丈夫无言的忏悔倾诉这一叙述方式来阐述整个婚外恋的过程，并无疑是成功的。电影中苏拉的自述把一位挣扎于爱情和道德、家庭、母爱、责任之间的女人刻画得惟妙惟肖，可谓是柔肠千千结，其复杂矛盾的心理搏斗堪比《红与黑》中德.瑞纳夫人的心理挣扎轨迹。
  片尾中，丈夫发现并谅解了苏拉的这次心理出轨。全片以丈夫一句“谢谢你回到我的身边”来结束，可谓是深情的感恩。感谢苏拉，理智战胜了情感，舍弃了自私的爱情，挽救了两个家庭。感谢上帝，赐予了人间这最美好的感情。
  爱情不一定非得长相厮守，若是真爱，定会不朽。
  

      曾经有一个问题在我的脑海里思索过，但至今不能有一个让人清晰的定案。我在想，如果有一天，你生命中的真爱降临在你眼前，而此时你却已经牵手他人，你会如何选择？你选择生活的继续，还是选择不顾一切跟真爱私奔。我很恐惧面对如此，所以希望能一次遇见对的人，而不是陷入纠缠。也许这世上的大多数人都是这么希望自己能如此被上天眷顾，但却尽不如人意。
    你又是否有“相见恨晚”的感慨呢？所以当我看见电影的名字叫此，就很难不想看它一看。一场人到中年的相知邂逅，看似浪漫平静却把两个幸福的婚姻家庭推向面临崩溃解散的悲剧边缘。但结局也没有逃出我的预料，它一如《廊桥遗梦》，一如《纯真年代》，因爱承担，因爱舍弃。
     女主人公劳拉眼里的一粒砂牵出了一场相见恨晚的邂逅。如果说人生是偶然，也正因为偶然造就了我们对命中注定有必然的误解。劳拉和亚力克多次的不期而遇给他们创造了彼此相处的机会，似乎也给了他们冥冥之中要注定发展的错觉。可能这是注定，可能这是错觉，但不能否认两人是多么情投意合，多么相知默契，这难道不是一切爱情的开端吗？在此我有个疑惑，难道他们当初与自己的爱人相爱不也如此吗？为何却又判定中途相遇的人就是一生所爱？那前半生陪你走过，又给你幸福感觉的人是什么呢？所以，所谓真爱是多么难以定案啊，也因此我们的人生充满着缺憾，也充满一种美丽。
     其实生活的幸福已经转为了不易察觉的平淡，就算你的爱人曾经跟你也是相知相爱而来，但爱情的热烈总归会趋于平淡，所以你会产生“这还是我当年爱的人吗”的犹豫和不确定。也许就在这时，一个怀着同样心情的人无意闯进你的生活，又有无数次的邂逅，焕发了你内心对曾经激情的渴望，于是你们陷入爱河。当然，你们的情感是真挚的，是因为彼此欣赏，彼此默契，而不仅仅是肉体的激情，但同时你们也经受道德和精神的折磨，因为这是不被允许和宽恕的，你们有家庭和孩子，你对他们仍也有爱。责任已经大于爱情。
     《廊桥遗梦》中的女主人公最终没能放下丈夫和孩子跟摄影师走，《纯真年代》中纽兰最终因为未婚妻和腹中孩子的挽留没有和海伦一起走，劳拉也没有选择一走了之。因为走了永远也不能了之，不能了之一份责任和牵挂，以及负罪和愧疚。其实他们的另一半都洞察了自己爱人的纠结和不舍，但他们都用最明智的方式挽留了爱人，那就是家庭和宽恕。
    因此，有些感情它只能埋藏在心底，也许你会悲伤，你会遗憾，但至少你的幸福里没有罪恶和歉疚。我们需要伟大，需要一种牺牲和奉献，因为一切的一切，是我们相见恨晚。如果你在我说“我愿意”的时候出现，我会义无返顾跟你走，可是你出现的时候却是孩子和爱人在家等我的时候，那我又能怎样呢？
    你就像是我眼里的一粒砂，刺痛神经，饱含泪水，便将你永留眼中，深埋心底一份永恒的灼痛。而用眼泪把你送走，留下一份让人无法忘怀的回忆。

看完《相见恨晚》（Brief Encounter）就觉得很好玩，不管你再怎么木呐，再怎么对邂逅或出轨嗤之以鼻，或者你再怎么不食人间烟火，躲入小楼成一统，一生中总有机会与人暧昧，总有机会打了个盹，火车一样偏离轨道。

主动的暂且不论，反正也说不清到底什么主不主动，像吵架一样，一张嘴它也吵不起来。你诱惑人家，人家冰冷不应和你再会搭讪也没折，换句豆瓣上一豆友说的话，更形象，你脱了人家的罩杯，人家扒了你的裤子，彼此彼此。

有意思的是，人家晚上来到你的窗前赏月，你就以为你是他的月亮。这还如何了得，他老是看着你，痴痴迷迷，色色迷迷的，你对他没意思还好说，不管他望月欲穿的眼，你只管视而不见，要是你对他也有点意思，趁机对他放下电，电压没达到你的预期，没有碰出火花，于是伤心欲绝，不是看我你来我窗前看什么月亮？瓜田李下，这么大的地盘哪里不能去赏月？

不知道哪一天你就像破土的芽觉醒了，像玩偶之家里的娜娜，得换个活法。敢确定的是，你和任何人一样会期待着给平淡的生活加点佐料，每天接送孩子，每天和另一半脱衣服穿衣服，玩遍了四十八式，每天上班为面包奶酪，每天下班为琐事烦恼，来点小插曲多有味道。这些小插曲不一定是你自己主动要求的，而是既然你会觉得乏味，别人也一样，街道上到处流浪的都是不堪乏味折磨的猎鲜人，你碰上他再自然不过。我一朋友说，她期望生活像白开水，无波无澜，另一层意思是无波无澜的白开水生活根本不存在，因为几十年同一个温度，同一口井提取的，同一口锅煮出来的水压根就是妄谈加扯淡。

如此篇幅地解释小插曲，调味品的不可避免其实是想说它的不可或缺。你要是不想为生活的平淡乏味所拘囿，就得自己寻找点，创造点新鲜，人对新鲜的追求永远没有停歇，而且这种一致性更像风吹墙头草一样步调一致，如果真叫你生活三点一线，百年如一日，一定是最简单，最夸张的生活方式，本可练就你满身的清心寡欲，但你乐意像尼姑一样吗？尼姑是压抑，要问你自己能不能压抑得住。

插曲给原本无味的生活平添几分乐趣，更重要的是，插曲毕竟是插曲，它翻身当家做主子难于上青天。你信不信那些第三者插足的大多都不会被纳为正室，为什么，即便你再味道鲜美，你还是调味品，酱油醋代替不了白米馒头。如果吃了酱油醋填补不了饥肠辘辘，回头更觉白米馒头的可口。

可怕的是你一旦有了插曲，就无法回头是岸。你悬崖勒马了却发现后面的退路已经被切断，有的是你自己挥刀自宫，有的是被你的后方驱逐出营。在前不着村，后不着店的地方叫天天不灵，叫地地不应，你就悔恨交加吧。

如果你有回头金不换的决心，恰好回头又有岸，这是我可以想到的最理想的回归状态。你要是破罐子破摔，或者ta要是再对你耿耿于怀恨在心，只能说你一招走错，悔得肠子都青了也没用，以后要么乖乖地出生求学，结婚老蔫死亡，以不变应万变，要么左右逢源，人鬼不同话，练就一身密不透风的本事。毕竟像相见恨晚里那样大度的丈夫克制的妻子还是少数。