维拉·德雷克

「What is it that you do, Mrs. Drake? → I help young girls out.」

「You perform abortions, don't you? → That's not what I do dear. That's what you call it. But they need help. Who else they got to turn to? No one. I help them out.」

「Whatever she done, she's done it out the kindness of her heart.」

「It don't seem fair. Look at my mom: six of us in two rooms. It's all right if you're rich, but if you can't feed them, you can't love them, can you?」

The morality behind this movie is related to the problem of having unwanted babies. In fact, the United States has the highest rates of births to teenage mothers of all industrial nations, and the United Kingdom ranks the 2nd.

As far as I observe, some of the same people who complain about women delaying childbearing while they wallow in unbridled sexual consumerism, are also among the loudest critics of abortion. Some these concern stems from a disguised critique of feminism, which enables women to explore a healthy and safer sexuality. Efforts to stop unwanted motherhood have included, for example, increasing restrictions on access to birth control and even birth control information and restrictions on abortion, including parental consent and waiting periods.

Take, the statistics on rates of teenage motherhood for example. In the mid-1950s, 27 percent of all girls had sexual intercourse by age eighteen; in 1988, 56 percent of girls and 73 percent of boys had sexual intercourse by age eighteen. In 1991, the rate of adolescent childbearing-births to teen mothers per 1,000 girls — was 62.1, the highest rate since 1971, which was the year before abortion was legalized. This accounts for 9 percent of all births in the nation. Sixty-six percent of these young women were unmarried, compared with 1960, when only 15 percent were unmarried.

Such numbers can be "read" in several ways. For some, such numbers illustrate a calamitous increase in teen motherhood, attributable to wanton teenage sexuality and rampant immorality, an erosion of respect for the institution of marriage, and the growing crisis of fatherlessness. But for others, such numbers illustrate the erosion of access to adequate birth control information, the steady attacks on women's right to choose that restrict women's access to abortion and other means of birth control, and the increased freedom of young people from their parents' insistence on "shotgun weddings."

On these questions, the research is unanimous: Restricting access to information about birth control, access to birth control, and access to abortion has no bearing on rates of sexual activity. In fact, virtually all studies of the effect of sex education indicate a decrease in rates of sexual activity, greater sexual selectivity, and higher rates of safer sex practices. Young people will continue to become sexually active in their mid teens, whether or not they have access to birth control or information about it. In fact, restricting access is the surest way to encourage unwanted pregnancy. No wonder the highest rates of teen pregnancy occurred before abortion was legal.

The problem of “having unwanted babies” is also a way to blame women for men's irresponsibility. Politically, we are saying to young women that if they are going to dance (become sexually active), they will have to pay the piper (bear the consequences of unwanted pregnancies). But if, as we also know, it takes two to tango, perhaps the solution to the crisis of young motherhood lies in both increasing the abilities of these young women to become responsible (adequate health care, birth control information, and access to birth control) and in fostering a more responsible young manhood. In fact, casting the crisis as "having unwanted babies" masks another serious problem — girls' sexual victimization by men whose predatory sexual behavior goes unnoticed when the problem is cast in this way.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, over half (54 percent) the women raped in 2000 (a typical year) were juveniles under eighteen years old, and 21.6 percent were younger than twelve. Another study found that 96 percent of those female rape victims under twelve knew their attackers. In one of five cases, their rapist was also their father. Although there is some evidence that suggests that females under eighteen are also the most likely to file false reports of rape with the police (though virtually none of these allegations ever went to trial, and all the reports were retracted in the interview stage), these false reports seem to be the result of fears of pregnancy and the hope that declaring they were raped would permit the females to get an abortion, because in many states, abortion is legal only in cases of rape or a threat to the mother's health.

With those argument mentioned above, I prefer the translation "地下观音". And it could probably explain why people like Vera Drake was guilty but insisting never do things wrong.

那场戏，全家人和大女儿的男友的对话戏，1h39min30s，镜头、台词和表演都很值得学习。 “dirty”那句对德雷克太太的控诉是由儿子说出来的。

“如果你们养不起，就爱不了，不是吗”（if you can't feed them you can't love them，can you）这句话是由男友说出来的，他家里六个孩子，以身说法。这句话触动了儿子。

儿子在后面两场戏用和父亲的对话解释了他这一行为——他十三岁就参军了，他当然黑白分明，不理解世事。父亲则说，我要求你原谅她，你原谅她这件事，她会原谅你所有事（年少孟浪啊啥的），而且法律已经惩罚过她了。潜台词，在我看来是，好的，你不是军人吗。那我就像你十三岁那年一样，要求你，那时你答应我了，抗下来了，现在你也必须抗住这些你最厌恶的东西。

夹在这两场戏中间的那场戏也很好：夫妻俩在床上说，可怜的孩子，他还太黑白分明，不问世事。寥寥几句，那种父母对孩子的爱和无奈都出来了。最后德雷克太太还是很难过地哭了，和丈夫抱在一起——这段戏之后，你就知道丈夫背负着什么，下一场戏，你就特别希望儿子原谅母亲。

然后，儿子去找母亲和解了。这段的台词也特别好。

1h47min的圣诞节戏也很好。前面垫了两场那个金发女人的对维拉的糟糕反应，她甚至还哭得很委屈，所以氛围其实很糟。但大女儿的男友却说，这是最好的圣诞节，谢谢维拉。他吃了一颗维拉递过来的巧克力。这场戏就结束了。

最后的判决，“对他人起吓阻之效”，判了两年零六个月。

真的拍了监狱戏……另一个温和的阿姨问德雷克太太，那个女孩死了吗？德雷克太太：死了还得了？另一个阿姨：我的女孩死了。而且还有一个冷硬的太太，和那个温和的阿姨都是再犯。所以这个女人会再犯的吧，会再犯吗？

感谢这个结尾，我的娘啊。

题外话环节。

因为最近看的快节奏的东西太多了，一些同理心和伦理感确实有所消亡。而这部电影，这种节奏缓慢的、人物丰满的电影，就算讨厌其中某一个人，都不会说出来，我不愿意伤害他们其中的每一个人。

当然你看，这故事里的一些元素可以用到商业故事里。一家两个孩子，姐姐那样，弟弟那样，其实是英式的喜剧效果，可以拿去用。但是那些人物坏的地方，真的必须要给解释，而不能随便拿去用。

我没有那么喜欢这部电影，因为更多时候我还是需要一些强刺激的东西。但这部电影大概会成为我反复反复反复观看的电影之一。

反人类发言：我觉得对于一些电影来说，从结尾看，往开场找原因，比从开场看更能领会其魅力。

德雷克太太真的是一个特别好的银幕形象：圆圆的脸，一双又蓝又圆的眼睛，温润，通透，会说话一样。皮肤白白的，“娇小的女人，手很小”，柔软。

另一个对于法理问题的思考：欧美法系愿意从“善因论”来思考问题，是不是由于他们的善意真的是从圣经上批发下来的，然后圣经的解释又可以随着时代做出不同解说啊……我这样说可能过于偏颇。但我的意思是，他们需要有个东西在那里，才能去反另一样东西。如果没有一个东西在那，他们想象不到好的也想象不到坏的。他们其实会被一些抽象的“善”打动，所以才出现“善因”这么个东西。