曼哈顿1979

高楼林立的大街小巷，川流不息的人群，行色匆匆的男女，被商业气息亲密包裹着，容不得有一丝喘息的高效率节奏，纽约这座让无数人魂牵梦萦的地方，同样具有着经济蓬勃发展的城市惯有的“物质面貌”，但是它的开放、接纳和包容，多元文化潮流的汇聚和碰撞，也让无数个沉甸甸的精神种子在此生根发芽，就像踩着跷跷板过活的无数个艺术家那般，一边为生存而禁锢在乏味的三点一线的工作岗位上，一边为生活而自由惬意的汲取着灵感的闪现和迸发，别于巴黎的古典和傲娇，纽约的前卫随意，充满着更多值得挖掘的故事，它超前的现代感有着无限的魅惑，看完无敌老头才华尽显巧思布局的《曼哈顿》，对这个只在长夜漫漫的睡梦中一闪而过的城市，有了更多的向往和想法。

这部电影不带任何色彩的介入，纯粹就是一部看似带有些许年代感的黑白片，但和过往因技术不成熟只能呈现出劣质的黑白效果不同，这种画面的制造更像是艺术表现形式上的有意而为之，通过构图的讲究和精美，场景与人物之间协调的空间划分，惊为天人华丽动人的摄影技巧，加上光影特性的巧妙利用，在看似单调色彩的映衬下，丝毫没有让这座美妙的城市黯然失色，反倒更具魅力和质感，察觉不到任何瑕疵的精致和绝美，将无敌老头奔涌而至的文艺才情注入其中，立马锦上添花的为这座城市增添了一件高达上的气质外衣，无论是随意游走在街头的交流，还是悠闲的穿梭于博物馆，抑或停留在文艺气息弥漫的室内，完全就是一幅幅想要定格下来再三欣赏的经典画作。

影片一开始和电影《不夜城》有点异曲同工之妙，各式各样迷人的著名地标、建筑、街景和生活映入眼帘，抓人眼球的将观众的注意力牢牢的把握住。镜头顺而转向一家富有情调的咖啡馆，无敌艾伦式机关枪般，威力似长枪短炮的齐力发射，一贯滔滔不绝喋喋不休的对话拉开了精彩好戏的帷幕，上下嘴唇之间就像是涂了润滑剂的机械般，一直处于亢奋而精神奕奕的工作状态，听命于永不停歇的唇枪舌战，强词夺理、冷嘲热讽、得理不饶人，言辞间时而像一把尖锐犀利的刀锋伤得人毫无还击之力，时而又能一语破的精准的道破世事的真谛，转而还能兴致盎然毫不避讳的将文坛大将影坛大师抨击个底朝天或大肆的赞扬一番，而这就是无敌艾伦的一贯作风，一股浓郁知识分子流派的味道，而理智和情感之间形成的反差对比，却也因此显得异常的强烈和讽刺。

一个个宛若精灵般优雅灵动古典的音符在耳边徘徊，形象生动的丰富了人物的意向和情境的感染力，配乐极具品味的选用加之出现的时机也是这部电影被人所津津乐道的地方，就像是寂静无声蔚蓝的海面上迎来了一缕金灿灿的阳光，无不让人陶醉的投入其中。叽叽喳喳“饱读诗书”文艺范的无敌艾伦，举手投足美丽气质无处不在的梅姨，魅力四射亲和力十足让人不由为之倾慕的基顿，加上海明威漂亮稚嫩的孙女，已是实实在在的品质保证和大大的看点。沉溺于文化圈齐刷刷文青的着装打扮，不是在看展览就是在赶去博物馆的路上，开口必是名人、词藻、学问、主观思想乱飞，集体从事文字工作，打眼的书堆和打字机少不了，咖啡馆和公园果断成了爱情的革命根据地，抛开这些文艺范畴的显著特征外，这部电影的主轴其实就是一场恼人而摇摆不定的多角恋爱。

头发稀疏人到中年灵泛的艾萨克，瘦小的身板行事作风非常的文艺附体，谈吐风格永远是自我论调的狂轰乱炸般袭来，“学富五车”的架势却掩盖不住自私、傲慢、孤独、敏感等性格上的缺点，事业上不顺心爱情路上更烦心，前妻爱上了同性因而离开了自己，还要写一本揭露他们隐秘生活的书公开发行，让他懊恼担心不已。没法认真对待的小17岁的鲜肉女朋友翠西又爱自己爱得无法自拔，这时有妇之夫耶尔（好友）又将自己没法负责的情人玛丽推给了艾萨克，从一开始的话不投机半句多，到熟络后观念、思想、兴趣各方面的志同道合，自然的坠入爱河，但柔情蜜意后，善变纠结的本性展露无疑，玛丽发觉自己还爱着耶尔，而落寞孤独的艾萨克又将一手推开的翠西试图挽留。在无敌艾伦的镜头里无疑刻画出了一群再典型不过性格特征十分明显极具代表性的人物，他们看上去那么的自信、高尚和体面，但内心却又无比的脆弱、心虚和焦虑。

有种情感与理智上的微妙对比，在理智上他们可以将充斥在脑海中的学问要领得意的思想论点，还有对于爱情独到的看法，和你不间断的探讨个三天三夜，但落到自己的情感上却像个小孩子一样毫无能力的做出精准的判断、理解和选择，他们始终相信着自己的那一套，玛丽死不愿意当破坏别人家庭的第三者，和艾萨克一起过得也自在快乐，结果在耶尔变卦的追求下，让好马吃起了回头草，到头来还是满足了自己伤害了别人，艾萨克还无奈背了个黑锅。艾萨克一而再再而三的为翠西洗脑灌输给她另寻同龄新欢并实现梦想的建议，结果被甩后空虚寂寞冷的时候又想起了她，他们摇摆不定令人难以琢磨的性情和爱情观，看似荒谬无语，但他们那缺乏安定感渴望激情和欢愉的欲望，定心一想可以说也是都市里一类阶级中男女生活的形象缩影，最后艾萨克努力的挽留要赶赴伦敦学习的翠西，翠西看穿了他的心思，说出了那句正中下怀的经典语录：不是每个人都会变，你应该对人有一些信心。嘴巴从不停歇的艾萨克意味深长的沉默了。

记得片中寂寥的艾萨克对着录音机说着他生存的理由，除了为了一大堆装字母的艺术家外，借艾萨克之口无敌艾伦也深刻道出了自己对于这类人的看法：他们总爱自找麻烦，在自己一手制造的烦心事中郁郁寡欢自我纠结和苦恼，从而忘却了更大的痛苦和灾难！无疑一贯非常傲娇的点评同样也至理，突然想到了性格决定命运，命运决定人生这句俗话，事实也的确如此。看完这部电影顿时觉得爱情真是一门变幻莫测而高深困顿的学问，它既复杂多变充满了危机又生性坚贞美好，它是带刺的玫瑰也是雨后的彩虹，它会将你伤得体无完肤也会为你抚平伤口，它会是一闪而过的短暂流星，也会是坚如磐石的永恒代表，它的存在取决于很多因素，毫无疑问“我”是最重要的一块。我会永远铭记无敌和基顿一起坐到天亮，在公园里划船和热吻，两人谈笑风生的画面，必会成为最难忘的电影记忆，纽约曼哈顿在无敌老头的镜头里不失繁华也不失平静，不失犀利也不失浪漫，一座让人迷恋心醉而流连忘返的城市。

          “He adored New York City.” (Manhattan)Of course. Why else would Woody Allen title his film Manhattan? He makes it clear from the very beginning that this film is dedicated to the city. Seeing Midtown in black and white unfolding to the rhythm of “Rhapsody in Blue”, the audience romanticizes the city together with Allen and eagerly awaits what he has to say about the city. And then through the hustle bustle of daily street scenes of Manhattan, we hear it, “a metaphor for the decay of contemporary culture”(Manhattan).
          Before we proceed, we shall ask ourselves, what is the “contemporary culture” that Allen is referring to? The film was released in 1979 and the “Manhattan” he refers to is the one in the 70s. New York City in the 1970s was “dirty, dangerous and destitute”(Tannenbaum). Crimes were rampant around the city and Times Square was filled with hookers and drug dealers. The economic chaos and political upheaval brought by the war and Watergate rendered the city powerless in the face of crisis. It is not surprising that Allen was heartbroken, seeing his beloved city turning into a nest of crimes and drugs. While Manhattan is not Taxi Driver, which exposes the crimes of New York unreservedly and praises actions against them, that doesn’t mean Allen shies away from all the trouble the city and the society is in. He turns it, instead, into a celebration of New York and the people living in it. Allen, born in Brooklyn, has spent his entire life living in the city, knowing all the bits and pieces about it. Certainly it is far from perfection, but neither is anything else. Nonetheless Allen knows that New York is a great city, and the reason is written all over Manhattan, from the stunning 59th Street Bridge at dawn to the enchanting and dark Planetarium in the American Museum of Natural History.
          The film centers on four people living in Manhattan, Isaac (played by Allen himself), Mary, Yale and Tracy. These characters embody the spirit of the city. All of them are highly educated and possess rich cultural knowledge. Cultural debates take place among them throughout the film. The most heated debate happens when Isaac meets Mary at an art fair, where Mary criticizes the photography Isaac likes as derivative and witless and praises the steel cube Isaac dislikes as textual and “has a marvelous kind of negative capability”, which is clearly a reference to John Keats. These polished critiques of art clearly reflects their knowledge and insight in art. Thanks to the city’s inexhaustible amount of cultural institutions, numerous scenes in the film take place in museums, art galleries and special art exhibits, which allows these debates to happen. These characters themselves also work in television, book editing and universities. They are supposed to represent the intellect of this city that is famous for its huge international media conglomerates, Broadway and several of the greatest museums in the world, among others. Allen himself obviously takes pride in the status of New York as one of world’s greatest cultural capitals. When Mary later says that she is from Philadelphia, believes in God and does not want to have this conversation, Isaac is confused by what Mary means by that. But we know for sure that Allen himself isn’t. From these characters, we can see how the status of New York as a cultural capital affects the way they live and shape them as who they are.
          However, apart from their glamorous appearance and fanciful cultural glossary, what is truly intriguing about those characters is the problems they each have, just as in the case of New York City. A lot of their problems have to do with their relationships and emotions. For Isaac, the fact that he is involved with a teenage girl, Tracy, bothers him greatly. Upon knowing that Tracy goes to a high school, Mary wittingly remarks that “somewhere Nabakov is smiling”, referring to the devastating relationship between Lolita and Humbert in the novel Lolita. If anything, the feelings Humbert has for Lolita, a girl much younger than his age, ruins his life almost completely. After Lolita disappears all of a sudden one day, Humbert goes on a frantic search for her that lasts years. When he finally finds her at the end, he goes on a killing spree of her abductor that ends in a disaster. Though not nearly the case of Lolita, the relationship between Isaac and Tracy is equally troublesome because of the age gap. The difference here is that Isaac keeps things under control because he knows that he might wind up in a similar situation as Humbert if he lets things go freewheeling. But at the end, feelings still get the upper hand. Yet the struggle of Isaac is the battle between his ideal and his morality. The same thing can be said about Mary, who is involved in an extra-marital relationship with Yale. She constantly repeats that she is from Philadelphia and her parents are married for 43 years and “nobody cheats at all”. This indicates her repulsion towards the nature of her relationship with Yale because she knows that “this is going nowhere” and she’s merely wasting her time. She knows that she is “young, highly intelligent and got everything going for [her]” yet she is “wasting herself on a married man”. This happens to the best of us. Regardless of how much knowledge one has or how well-to-do one is, it seems inevitable that we at some point struggle to find the right places for ourselves. This is especially true for New Yorkers in the 1970s who all of a sudden find themselves in the middle of an ailing city. Allen’s film, clearly dedicated to this city and all the problems it has, rings a bell among audiences.
          Is there anyway that these problems can be solved? Allen certainly explores some of the possibilities in this film. He has an earnest appreciation for great minds, which he constantly shows in various films. Notably, Interior is written in the style of Ingmar Bergman and Stardust Memories is a remake of Federico Fellini’s 8 1/2. There are also several references to Bergman and Fellini in Manhattan itself, showing their tremendous influence on Woody Allen. When Mary includes Ingmar Bergman in her “Academy of the Overrated”, Isaac rebuts with “Bergman? Bergman is the only genius in cinema today.” Later on, after meeting Mary’s friends at MoMA, Isaac remarks that “it’s an interesting group of people, your friends. It’s like the cast of a Fellini movie”. Apart from the apparent influence, is Allen suggesting that we should rely on them to solve our own problems? Mary doubts so, harshly criticizing that “it is the dignifying of one's own psychological and sexual hangups by attaching them to these grandiose philosophical issues”. It suggests that appreciation for the great minds is merely a hypocritical dignification of one’s own problems, but not the solution to them. In the case of Manhattan, we can see that the abundance of culture institutions and marvelous exhibits still cannot save Times Square from becoming the haven for prostitutes. Maybe art merely provides us a way to recognize or discern the problems, but fails to actually prevent them from happening.
       Allen then goes on to explore other possibilities, again through Mary’s voice. At this point we can see that while Isaac clearly represents Allen himself, Mary can be considered the “other” in his mind that constantly doubts the “self” and proposes alternative ideas. In this case, in an intimate setting at the planetarium, their heads appear as silhouettes in front of a huge bright image of Saturn. The dark images of heads seem to suggest the insignificance of their appearance at this point and the importance of their ideas instead. Mary suddenly asks Isaac fondly how many satellites of Saturn he knows, and Isaac frankly admits that he doesn’t know any. As Mary boasts that she “got a million facts on [her] fingertips”, Isaac defends himself calmly with “nothing worth knowing can be understood with the mind. Everything really valuable has to enter you through a different opening”. “Where would we be without rational thought?”, asks Mary in disbelief, to which Isaac quickly responds with “You rely too much on your brain. And the brain is the most overrated organ.” What we have here is a debate between rationality and emotionality, which has certain connections with the previous discussion regarding the great minds but is one step further. Mary, critical of the importance of great minds, relies on her own instead and emphasizes on rational thought, while Isaac suggests that rational thought cannot get us anywhere. The “different opening” Isaac talks about here must be emotions, unrelated to mind and rationality, yet makes up a huge part of our lives. Isaac, thus, may appreciate the great minds precisely for their emotional capabilities, the way they stir up feelings inside us that we might not have before. But aren’t feelings the cause of all the problems in the film to begin with? Mary describes her extra-marital relationship with Yale as “a no-win situation” and the only thing that keeps them from getting out of that dreadful situation is their feelings for each other. However, when Yale rationalizes everything and finally decides to break up with her, he becomes “depressed and confused”. It seems that rational thought cannot really help them out here, and feelings only make it worse. It has come a full circle since we started.
          Isn’t it just like New York City in the 1970s? As the fiscal crisis loomed over the city, there was really little people could do. The police couldn’t do anything about the soaring crime rates since they needed money and thus were corrupted themselves. Anyone fond of rebuilding the city’s ailing infrastructure couldn’t change the situation because people have lost their faith and started leaving, which meant that bricks and broken walls of those demolished buildings in the Bronx just lay there without redevelopment. Even the federal government refused the city’s grant for bailout. Any form of rationality wouldn’t work because nobody had the strength to take actions anymore. Emotions didn’t help either as everyone was left in a hopeless and frustrated state. So what was it, as Allen may ask, that could change the fate of the city and the Isaacs and Marys living in it?
          In 1977, Ed Koch was elected the new mayor and he might have an answer to this. He did a marvelous job pulling the city out of its nadir and the most important factor for his success might be the active restoration of hope. At one of his most iconic attempts, he spent hours riding subways and asking passengers “How am I doing?”. In order to restore hope, he used his limited funds to refurbish city streets and subways. He also made a considerable effort clearing the city’s iconic parks such as Washington Square Park and Central Park from drug dealers and broken glasses. Though not the most financially profitable conducts, these acts essentially changed people’s attitude toward the city. People once again started having hopes for the city to come back to its glory. And that’s a starting point for any significant changes since you need to believe in them first. “Nothing’s perfect,” says Yale’s wife Emily calmly after acknowledging Yale’s affair with Mary. She is supposed to be the most agonized character in the film since she is the only one being cheated, while the others are just confused about their inappropriate relationships. Yet she seems to be the calmest and most understanding one. Because she, of all people, knows what a difference it makes if you just admit that nothing is perfect and prepare to make compromises along the way. She tolerates Yale’s affair with Mary and thus she still has her marriage unbroken. Just as how the Koch administration was willing to give up some financial profits in order to reconstruct the public faith in the city. If you are willing to take a look at anywhere in the city now, especially in the Bronx, you know these compromises in the name of hope and faith paid off tremendously.
           And fortunately, that is exactly what this film is trying to do, to give us hope. Just as Tracy’s final words before leaving for London, “you gotta have a little faith in people”, followed by some astounding images of Manhattan along with “Rhapsody of Blue”, as we are once again impressed by the beauty of the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building and the 59th Street Bridge. We can almost hear Allen whispering to our ears, “you gotta have a little faith in the city too.” Tracy cannot stay with Isaac and has to leave him for the time being, just as the city disappointed its people and was in disarray back then. But that doesn’t mean changes won’t happen. “Six months isn’t that long,” says Tracy. And we know she will be back eventually. As for the city, a decade is nowhere near the end of the world. It’s exactly because of people like Woody Allen and his Manhattan that we realize how difficult it is to be free of trouble and how little that matters when we have the right attitude, and a little faith.

伍迪艾伦1979年的电影曼哈顿快到结尾 他自己演的叫色艾萨克斥责朋友耶鲁 你太放任自己了 你没有发现么 这就是问题所在 你的全部问题 什么事你都能找着借口 你对自己就不诚实

艾萨克不只是说 耶鲁为了干不那么有道理的事情 找些理由向他搪塞 他也是再说也录得自我欺骗 当然可以认为艾萨克是更泛泛的指摘人的自我欺骗和自圆其说 保持操守 或者说坚持个人原则 就要求我们既按一定的规则行事 也按这个规则思考 如果我们在不断找借口中太过纵容自己 就失去了可靠的行为指导 操守是曼哈顿的主题

我们应当把操守与坚持 执拗清楚的区分开 通常认为后两者近乎操守 有操守是褒义的形容 虽然坚持是操守的成分 但仅有坚持并不足以得到操守所具备的褒义 有很多不含道德色彩的坚持 比如在居室装修上坚持一种审美观 况且人还会有道德上不正当的坚持 比如专一的 不放过一个有太人的纳粹 性格缺陷也可以表现为一种坚持 比如影片安妮霍尔里艾伦扮演的角色艾维尔 他的爱情婚姻总是黄掉 通常说的忠于自我或许也是操守的成分 但仅仅如此又太过主观 不具任何价值 徒然的自恋者是典型的忠于自我 但这不成其为道义上的善

一段颇有造物恩宠的段子
耶鲁 好 我不是圣人 行了吧
艾萨克 可是你也太放任自己了 你没发现吗 这就是问题所在 你的全部问题 什么是你能找着借口 你对自己就不诚实 你说过你要写本书 可是到最后你宁可买辆保时捷 你知道吗 你现在对艾米丽不老实 跟我也耍花招 下次 你就该在参议院委员会前公出一串名字 出卖了你的朋友
耶鲁 你太自以为是了 咱们都是人 都有七情六欲 你以为你是上帝呐 艾萨克 我做人有标准
耶鲁 得了 你那样是不行的 太准求完美了
艾萨克 想想以后的人会怎么说我们呢 天哪 我们总有一天和他们一样 他过去美春也是个造物恩宠 没准儿也跳着舞 打着网球 想尽一切 到时候我希望人们能念我的好

艾萨克显然认为买保时捷是耶鲁缺法操守的象征 而不是证据 艾萨克的说法事项确保后人能年他的好 也去可以认为这是暗指操守或德行的唯一价值 在于后人对他有个好印象 艾萨克可能不那么认为 他认为讲道德价值是不能从主流观点里探知的 后来在电影里 艾萨克列举了若干特定的事物 没有操守就无法协调理智与情感 这样的不和谐造成内心冲突 带来没完没了的不满足 让人不能坚持做正确的有价值的事 少了德行 只能得到肤浅而短暂的欢愉

每个人都在对自己的行为辩护，为自己的行为找一个合理的借口。然后让自己相信自己的借口，之后再去说服别人相信自己的借口。
甚至有时，自己都深信了这个借口。并为此借口而行动。但这个借口是极其不理性的。甚至只是自己安慰自己的一个借口。

最开始Woody不想与年轻女孩在一起，甚至是找借口不与她做爱。
当他与Diane相遇后，与年轻女孩分手，借口是她年龄太小，以后的生活会发生很大改变。甚至连他自己都相信他们最终不会走到一起。

当Diane与他分手后，他情绪低落，安慰自己说：“没准和那个十七岁少女会有很好的结果。”直至他自己都相信这样的结果后，他去那个女孩的住处找那个女孩。认为他们真的会很好的在一起。所有这一切的起因只是因为Diane离开他之后他安慰自己心情的一个借口。而这个借口是不理性的，轻率的。甚至是不负责任的。

生活中，人们总是这样，先为自己的行为找一个借口，然后相信这个借口，再为这个借口而行动。在这个借口面前，一切不负责任，不理性，不道德，不人性的东西都因为这个借口而变得合理起来了。

人们总是为一切行为找借口，并试图相信这个借口是真的。

电影结尾，面对前男友（伍迪艾伦饰演）的苦苦挽留，翠西一句话点破玄机：你连6个月都等不起，还谈什么爱情。在中年男人让人回味无穷的无奈苦笑中，观众恍然发现了真正懂得爱情的不是那帮虚伪、脆落又自恋的知识分子们，而是这位刚刚成年的小姑娘。

这也许是伍迪·艾伦这部电影的重点所在。如同在《甜蜜的生活》结尾，费里尼为马斯楚安尼饰演的男主角安排的那个小姑娘，为了是向这位堕落于虚伪世界中的男人指出天真的可贵之处。不知道伍迪·艾伦在《曼哈顿》中是否借鉴了此片，但两部电影的主旨是一样的。

当你长大，进入社会，只会越来越被这个社会的虚假运作所卷入。如同电影中三个知识分子间的爱情往来，看似是一种自由的恋爱行为，实则已经变成通过爱情游戏来逃避枯燥现实的借口。当他们口口声声为自己的爱情行动辩护之时，暴露的是他们为这个社会（曼哈顿）所浸染的不自觉倾向。

这位尚未成年的小女友出现在电影中，因而具有象征意义。她依然保存着对爱情的美好向往，而不是将其看作摆脱苦闷生活的游戏。不懂生活的规则，可能会失去很多乐趣；但天真的人对世界有一种直觉的理解，这是费里尼告诉我们的真理。或许从这个角度理解这部电影。

艾萨克：编剧，42岁。离过两次婚，人类的弱点的代言人。一心想成为“道德和原则”的拥有者，但是到最后他也摆脱不了“非道德非原则”的影响，所以至始至终他一直在做着“非道德和非原则”的事情。第一，他看到耶尔出轨这件事，他对埃米丽选择保持沉默，但是当最后玛丽耍了艾萨克重新做回耶尔的情人时，他选择向埃米丽“告状”，这表现出他的自私。第二，开始他对于他与十七岁的翠西谈恋爱这件事，称作“双方的暂时欢快”，对于翠西的真爱，他以年龄是问题为由，建议她多和班上的男士约会以及劝她去英国留学，这样可以见多识广，但是最后他为了不让翠西离开他，叫她不要去英国，从这里可以看出艾萨克的自私是伴随他到影片最后的，人性的弱点果然是弱点。第三，当艾萨克和玛丽吵架关于“四个星期”的问题，他责怪她竟然对于四个星期后的自己要做什么完全不知道，但是到了他说翠西去伦敦学习要“六个月”，他又觉得太长了，“四个星期”和“六个月”其实都是很短的时间，但是对于艾萨克来说，前者是为了挽回玛丽，后者又是为了让翠西留在自己身边，这表现了他可以为了自己的利益而置“道德和原则”不顾，多么自私。随着玛丽离他而去，他才发现，原来自己灵魂中一直追求的“道德和原则”其实就是翠西。

吉尔：作家，艾萨克前妻，通过写书把她与艾萨克分手的“真相”表达出来，虽然书里对艾萨克的某些描述是真实的，比如自我中心等，但是应该注意的是，她为这个“真相”添油加醋，如歪曲事实地写：最后艾萨克和她以及她的同性情人3P的结局。即使她之前对艾萨克说这是“基于事实的”。这对艾萨克是造成伤害的。这也是表现出她损人利己，不诚实，自私的一面——没有道德和原则。

翠西：道德和原则完美的化身，反抗世俗教条，敢于追求爱情，哪怕她爱上了一个比自己大25岁的艾萨克，也敢于追求爱。最后，艾萨克才发现，她是他心中“道德和原则”的完美化身，艾萨克在最后也终于领悟到了这一点，想把她追回，但是她并非为之感动，这是伟大的“道德和原则”的坚守者。

耶尔：彻底没有道德和原则。出轨的男人，作家，中途有过“反省”，但最后还是出轨了。他开始假装对艾萨克“处处关心”，担心他一个人在纽约过不好，其实这只是他为了逃避艾米丽想和他生孩子的借口。他是麻省理工学院的教职工，但是他没有“道德和原则”，让人想象到即使是世界文明和知识的宝藏地，也存在着“非道德和非原则”，这是不是在讽刺MIT？哈。最后通过埃米丽口中得知，他说是艾萨克把玛丽介绍给她的丈夫耶尔，背叛了朋友艾萨克，也欺骗了自己的妻子。

埃米丽：“道德和原则”的受害者，也是无力去反抗这一切的人，是耶尔的妻子。艾萨克向她告状他丈夫出轨的时候，她说任何事请都不可能完美，婚姻也需要一个妥协。这表现出她的在婚姻上没有基本的原则，连丈夫出轨都可以认为是不完美的一件事情。

玛丽：38岁左右。费城来的女记者，自带知识光芒，随时发光，亮瞎众人。离过婚，耶尔的情人。对于她和已婚的耶尔的感情，开始她认为不能接受，因为她不能完全拥有耶尔，分手的直接原因是耶尔不能随时陪她，让她觉得很委屈。中间，当耶尔提出可以搬出来和她住，但她说不想当破坏别人家庭的人，但是最后她甩了艾萨克和耶尔好上了。表现出她的虚伪、自私。


最后，艾萨克反思道：……（世界已经充满了各种“非道德和非原则”）……这样活着的意义是什么呢？他说出了最后一个：翠西。那是他心目中的完美的“道德和原则”的化身。影片最后告诉我们，虽然世界存在很多 “非道德非原则”的东西，比如伪善，自私，自我中心，欺骗，不诚实……但是最后通过“道德和原则”的化身翠西对艾萨克说的话中可以学到：只要我们能有原则地活着，能有原则地活着。