相见恨晚1945

听到拉赫玛尼诺夫的时候，第一感觉是--不会吧。著名的音乐必然会引发观众一定的联想或者调动一定的情绪，但那与电影本身无涉。
我的联想是《七年之痒》，那首用来勾引玛丽莲梦露的曲子。
也许是我期望太高，总希望在中年厌倦婚外感情对家人内疚之外看到一些别的什么，好像没有。
表现这一类女人内心的挣扎，还是《廊桥遗梦》中的斯特里普更让我印象深刻。
爱需要勇气的，其实。

那天看到这部电影《相见恨晚》，名字很诱人，于是点击来看了。

故事还是那样的老套，一个3、40年代的住在伦敦郊区的家庭主妇，每周四都来伦敦市区进行采购，会会朋友，或者娱乐一下，看场电影而已。在晚上的时分，在火车站坐火车回到自己的家，日复一日。某天这样的平淡而单调的进程回家的生活被打断，因为在车站候车的时候在咖啡馆遇到一个英俊帅气的医生，当然，不出意外，他也结婚了，他也有小孩。因为她在车站侯车的时候被扬起的煤灰吹到眼睛去，于是医生帮助了她，于是他们认识了。于是他们在下周四的时候又遇到了，于是开始打招呼，于是开始聊天，于是开始一起吃饭，于是开始一起看电影，于是开始爱了，于是开始悲剧了。

女主角一直在纠结之中，久违的激情牵引她走向这个医生，但是一方面，善解人意的丈夫和可爱的孩子等道德伦理方面的感觉又向回拉她。某次她和医生已经早到了危险的边缘，但是理智又把她拉了回去。他们一边克制地表达着自己的爱，一边又迫不及待地靠近。终于，下一次，理智冲破了防线，在医生暂居的房子里，正准备开始亲热，没想到医生的朋友回来了，她只好委屈的仓皇逃走。医生的朋友看到沙发上女主角留下的丝巾，对医生的道德表达了鄙薄之意。医生也没法解释，只能郁郁地离开了朋友的家。

最后结果是女主角感觉失去了魂魄，在伦敦夜晚的大街上游荡，她没法带着这个心情和状态回家，几个小时后，在车站遇到了一直找她的医生。两人相拥，但是那种屈辱和焚烧的感觉，让他们觉得生不如死。医生对她发出了很多爱的誓言，说一辈子会想起她，记得她，然后说自己全家要到非洲去行医。他们将再也不会见面。他们在车站的咖啡馆里说着这些，女人想着生离死别般的痛苦滋味，当医生走后，她两眼空洞地走到了铁轨边上，她差点跳了下去，但是她依然没有勇气。她回家了，带着死了一般的身躯，体贴的老公好像没有发现意外，依然和她说着平时说的那些细枝末节的事情。

其实爱，什么是爱？为什么总是了解并不深的人，那些不常在一起的人会因为偶尔的灵光乍现彼此吸引？在同类电影中，都有这样的爱情。如果放在女人的角度，女人确实爱那个医生，她只是想到她的时候她全身心的快乐，她的身体都在兴奋地颤抖，虽然他们并没有实质性的接触，当然她无时不刻不想全身心接触并彻底燃烧。那个医生男人，也是适当地用甜言蜜语问候她：我爱你，我知道你也爱我，我很喜欢和你在一起的感觉，我要把你留在心里，我不会忘了你等等等等。

在别的很多人看来，比如在医生的朋友看来，婚姻外的情感，当事人再尊重再觉得宝贵的情感，当事人以为是爱情，在其他人看来，不过是欲望，不过是奸情，是不齿的，不道德的，无法引以为豪的。所以当朋友鄙薄医生的为人为事的时候，医生倒也没有辩驳，因为情感这样的感觉确实是解释不清楚的。尤其，当站在道德的角度审势婚外的情感的时候，被戴上了枷锁的情感，无法得到最公正的评价。婚姻虽然是一个印在已婚人士身上的印记，但是内心的汹涌的情感，仍然会喷薄而出，其实很难被婚姻这个印记，仿佛唐僧的咒语一样那样经久有效被困。因为心，虽然受制于身，但是它依然可以无限制地飞翔一番，当然最后也不得不限制于肉身的控制，而无奈回归或者破损不回归。

甚至重新来看这个医生男人，他对这个女主妇表达了欣赏爱慕等之类的情感，然后他的内心，到底是怎么想的呢？电影中并没有过多的描述，几百年前的男人也罢，几十年前的男人也罢，甚至是现在的男人也罢，他们是任由他们的情感和欲望像野草一样地疯长吧。在他们的内心，不要说别人分不清楚，他们对女人的情感，几分是新鲜，几分是欲望，几分是出于自己的内心，几分是出于对女人真挚的爱恋？所以豆瓣里有人评价说，当女主角在那里异常痛苦纠结的时候，以为自己遇到了这一生最爱最爱的男人，最想不顾一切的男人，而男人，也许只是把她当做一辈子中偶然遇到的一次艳遇而已。听他那些热烈勾人的话语，当然也许是性格使然率性表达，但是总而言之，太过轻率的炙热，而并没有后期结果的安排，还是显得有些轻飘飘的。

所以备受煎熬的总是那些在外遇中的女人，她们知道自己的情感所属以后，就渴望能够将形式和内容彻底统一，她们无法犹疑她们的心在不同的身体和心灵之中。噢，男人，有几个男人有这样的问题呢，如同那个医生一样，当遇到难以割舍的问题的时候，大不了消失无踪，远走高飞。留下那个女人，一辈子在其中煎熬。

我有个男性朋友对我说，其实男女之间的友谊很难让人记得，因为不深刻。所以能记住的异性，多半是因为有深刻的情感才能记得的，那些真情实感的爱情（极少人堂而皇之说那是单纯的欲望），就被赋予了这样的重任，于是男人们在女人心上狠狠划下深刻的一刀，然后便潇洒远去了。女人，如果选择被人记住，或者记住别人，只能用伤害自己的方式去获得，当然，在伤害发生前，都以为自己会获得更大的快乐，而不是更大的伤害。

同类电影，我想起了最近的美国电影《出轨》，也有名字翻译成《不忠》，李察基尔在里面演那个事业成功，对妻子呵护备注的好老公，但是那个什么都有的美丽妻子，还是对日复一日的家务，操持唧唧歪歪的孩子有点倦怠了，在某一日在城里买东西的时候因为大风认识了一个年轻英俊的外籍男孩，而陷入了他布下的局，因为激情的勾引而不顾一切地和小情人约会。当然，女主妇也会认为和小情人的爱才是爱，不然绝对不会那么身不由己地狂放，甚至把老公赠与的最珍贵的礼物送给了情人，而让丈夫最后怒不可遏，从而造成了一个惨剧。

爱情是个什么东西，是新鲜的想法和新鲜的身体带来的吗？因为那个人让你有新鲜的想表达自己的想法，新鲜地想展示自己的身体，从而让自己对自己充满信心和兴趣？婚外情，即使不会让人觉得不齿，但是，这真的是一个大问题，到底是什么而让女人奋不顾身地舍弃一些，而一头扎进去？在情感中，到底是爱上了那个让自己新鲜的人，还是那个人能让自己新鲜后，从而爱上了这样的让自己满意的自己？在后者中，难道说某个男人，英俊也罢，温柔体贴也罢，睿智博学也罢，他们只是让女人发现自己本身潜力的一把钥匙？

当然，说起这个，不得不提起韩国最有名的婚外情电影《婚外初夜》，38岁的温柔娴静的有孩子的姐姐爱上了自己妹妹的27岁的男朋友，两人发生了一段缠绵悱恻的爱情故事，当然里面有很多交织难耐的欲望床戏。最后姐姐也想抛弃一切和情人走。在那个时候，那些自己现在拥有，曾经拥有的东西和感觉，都抵不过几个月和这个小11岁，年轻帅气激情的男人所让自己发现的自己。她最后也是志得意满地想出走，遭到所有人的反对和不屑。她最后能出走成吗？离开了婚姻的庇护，失去了孩子的依赖和爱，一个没有多少独立生存能力的中年女子，会用什么得到那样一个小情人的长久的爱呢？事实真的很让人担忧。

很麻烦的是，这几部电影中的女人都是家庭主妇，虽然她们有自己看似很幸福的家，有善解人意的成功的丈夫，有可爱的孩子，但是这些都没让自己有什么大的成就感。当然，在某一时期大概还是有成就感的，但是她们内心的需要，平时一直被自己善意锁闭着，直到不经意，有天，一个人拿着钥匙走来，打开了她们的心扉。她们会发现，原来自己不仅仅只是像平时那样，还有一个更让自己喜欢的自己等待被人发现，欣赏，在被人赏识的时候，自己也感到巨大的喜悦，喜欢并爱上这时候的自己，顺带爱上这个拿这把钥匙的人。

抛掉这个家庭主妇这个外衣，那些工作中的女人的情感，难道就会有明显的差别吗？电影中只所以安排那些主妇，是因为主妇更有时间来营造这些故事吧，换了牵牵绊绊的工作女人，故事展开的时间和地点总是显得有限了。但其实，不管是哪种女性，她们内心里，其实都时刻期盼着有人拿着打开她们心扉的钥匙，一辈子持续地高水准发现她们已经有的美丽魅力，欣赏并让双方都愉悦于这样的魅力；一辈子引导她们发觉自己还暂未发觉但是即将要发觉的美丽魅力，双方不断地有激情来寻找这样的魅力，从而让自己一辈子都欣欣向荣。

当然，这完全是一个梦想而已。因为没有男人那么坚持不懈，他们总是有空的时候顺道过来看几下，享受一下美丽；也许偶尔会突发奇想挖掘一下深层的潜力，趁机攫为己有后扬长而去。至于之后的收场的问题，那不是他们所考虑的问题，所以后期都是女人在那里哀怨，自己的美丽献给了别人，只让别人消耗成了一具没有生气的躯体。女人，在这样的情感战役中，几乎是，接近于100%，处于被掠夺的下风，因为老是用等待被发现的心态来接受处理方式，老是要想到天长地久，而不是一时拥有。悲哉乎！

其实在以上三部电影中，家庭主妇都有一个好老公，他们知道身边这女人平常的魅力，只是他们没有力道再挖掘，所以才会让女人们觉得生活和老公都平淡寡趣，从而内心伸出飞翔的翅膀。想起有一对夫妻，当然是电影中的夫妻《史密斯夫妇》，这一对势均力敌的夫妇大概就是那种时刻有激情，永远发掘不完的那种宝贝。当然，只能在电影中是如此，才显得那样特别。

It all started on an ordinary day in the most ordinary place in the world...当女主人公终于开始讲述她自己的故事的时候,我知道这个故事是...my cup of tea...

他们从相识到告别不过几个星期,不过一同渡过了几个下午...但是他们心里明白或许又是有点混乱的...她和他之间的关系是无法确切定义的...是的,brief encounter 是最合适的描述...当时光将一切冲淡,关于她和他之间的事,最妥贴的...不过就是这一场简短的相遇了.

他终于还是说出了This is the beginning of the end...虽然大家从一开始就心知肚明,这是他们之间所有的基调...但当他说出来的那刻,作为看客的我,还是落了泪的. 他们之间一定是有那一刻觉得彼此是如此靠近的,只是有些细碎的"意外"发生了,譬如:她被她的朋友在餐厅撞见她和他一道喝香槟; 又好比: 他的朋友提早回到了公寓,打断了他们那唯一可能的独处的机会, 她仓惶离去时留下来的丝巾却明白告诉了别人有个女人来过...于是她和他之间的所有戛然而止了，他们在相遇过后，各走各路...她告诉自己一切只是普通纯粹的碰个面，但内心却是个做错了事的小女孩，还有少年时代玫瑰色的梦...

第一次看得时候，并没有特别留意那个列车员和女掌柜之间的对话, 但其实他们之间也是一场相遇...Time and tide wait for no man...是的，总有那个最敏感的时刻，只是她和他都没有把握住，于是他们之间只是...不过...除却短暂的相遇，什么也没有发生过。

她和他，一个固定碰头的时间和地点，一座桥，一次游园，一段路，一段车程...还有火车.

最后她丈夫的那一句--Thank you for coming back to me...在长久相处的男女之间那些细微的变化其实是瞒不过彼此的眼睛的...她其实最清楚变化是什么时候发生的，她大约一直在冷眼旁观着,在他还在自欺和挣扎的时候.因为她知道他长久的过去里一直有她的参与, 仅这一点就足以和那短暂的插曲相抗衡,更不要说其他的了...

I shall see all this again but without you...

1999年，BFI评出了英国影史百大影片排行榜，本片位居次席，仅在《第三个人》之后。影片打动我们的原因，不是因为David Lean的大名（获奥斯卡提名），不是因为男女主角的精彩演绎（女主角获奥斯卡提名），不是因为巧妙地倒序和细腻的独白（编剧亦获奥斯卡提名），不是因为娴熟的黑白光影或悦耳的钢琴协奏曲。它的伟大之处在于其准确描绘又真诚探讨了一个人类社会的无解难题：如果禁忌之恋发生了，你该怎么办？
人类历史最终选择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。事实证明，一个人是可能同时爱上多个人的，而审美疲劳喜新厌旧本就是人之本性；这就意味着一个人在结婚之后，完全有可能再爱上另一个人，即使他/她仍保持着对当前伴侣的爱意。这个时候，对家庭的责任感和对道德谴责的害怕将约束着人们的出轨，就像剧中人那样，即使两情相悦难以自已，也只能“相见恨晚”，此情可待成追忆。他们纵然最终保持了贤妻良母和翩翩君子的良好形象，但他们失去的可能是一生难求的刻骨铭心的幸福。既然人都有追求幸福的权力，此时，谁又能说这样压抑人性的道德标准是百分百正确的呢？

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.

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。