翻相關文章的時候讀到這段，完全解釋了情海驚魂被忽視的微妙情感關系，以下為節選段落及原文：


奧弗爾斯作品的這一特征值得特别關注。人們常會誤以為他的電影遵循着某種熟悉的戲劇模式——即女性角色遭受男性角色（通常是其丈夫）的壓迫、虐待或操控。喬治·庫克的《煤氣燈下》（1944）正是典型範例，而奧菲爾斯熱衷展現權威男性在家庭關系中造成的傷害，或許能佐證此種解讀。然而存在一個關鍵且具有啟示性的差異：在奧菲爾斯的影片中，鮮少出現個體明确懷有惡意或獨自承擔傷害他人的責任。盡管其影片中的男性角色常以特定性别化的方式傷害他人，但他們往往自身也深陷不幸結局的羅網之中——被迫去執行那些他們既不渴望、也并非出于意願的行為。他們隻是更大結構的一部分，而正是這種結構在最初就制造了問題。
這種區别揭示了自主性的本質特征及其在奧菲爾斯電影中的缺失。若說情感劇往往通過處理某類倫理問題——如個體間的控制關系、意志薄弱等——來展開叙事，那麼他的電影則呈現出截然不同的圖景。對個體及其自主性的威脅，其根源在于超越個體的社會、文化與政治力量。角色們被困于一套明文規定的規則與實踐之中，這些規則與實踐本身就充滿危險，它們明确限定了角色可能的行為模式、思考方式或行動路徑。在奧弗爾斯的電影裡，個體——尤其是女性——屢屢渴望掙脫禁锢自身的結構，卻始終未能如願。這種失敗的根源在于淩駕于人物之上的社會秩序，但同時也與人物對社會規範的内化方式有關。奧菲爾斯展現的失敗涉及這樣一個世界：它未能賦予個體必要的資源，即他們能夠吸收并運用新的事實與價值觀，從而成功應對所面臨的挑戰。這些資源包括情感、思辨、創造力……一部開放式的實踐能力清單，影片在叙事各處展現它們——或更常見地，展現它們的缺席。
我所描述的奧弗爾斯電影這兩大特征相互交織，那些呈現“雙重調諧結構”（dual attunement structure）的鏡頭運動，具有倫理意義。換句話說，它們在影片所讨論的“自主性問題”中獲得了倫理内容。這些鏡頭為影片呈現的世界提供了道德視角，而角色們自身既無法企及這種視角，甚至最初都未能意識到其可能性。正是這些鏡頭運動——影片的核心"美學形式"——勾勒出倫理困境的輪廓——但影片中或許根本不存在這樣善解人意的世界。


This feature of Ophuls’s work is important to keep in sight. There is a temptation to think of his films as following a familiar kind of melodrama, in which a female character is oppressed, mistreated, or manipulated by a male character (usually her husband). George Cukor’s Gaslight (1944) is a characteristic example of this, and Ophuls’s penchant for showing the harm done by male figures of authority in their domestic relationship might be evidence for such a reading. Yet there is a key and telling difference: in Ophuls’s films, it is rarely the case that individuals have an explicitly malignant presence or bear sole responsibility for the harm done to others. Even though male characters in his films cause harm to others and frequently do so in specifically gendered ways, they are often shown to be themselves caught up in a web of unhappy outcomes, doomed to actionsthey neither desire nor will; they are part of, and shaped by, a larger structure that creates the problems in the first place.
This distinction reveals an important aspect of the nature of autonomy and its absence in Ophuls’s films. If melodrama tends to operate by working through one type of ethical problem—the control of one individual by another, akrasia, and so on— his films suggest something different. The threat to individuals, and to their autonomy, originates with sources that are supraindividual in nature: society, culture, politics. The characters are caught up in a set of rules and practices that explicitly prescribe their possible modes of behavior, deliberation, or action, and the rules and practices themselves are dangerous. In Ophuls’s films, individuals, especially women, repeatedly desire to break out of the structures that enclose them yet prove unable to do so. The reasons for this failure lie with the rigid
social order above and beyond the characters, but they also have to do with the way characters have internalized its norms. The failures Ophuls shows involve a world that does not equip individuals with the resources that would allow them to incorporate and work with new facts and values, to successfully negotiate the challenges they face. These resources would be emotional, deliberative, creative . . . an open-ended list of practical capacities that the films show in action— or, more frequently, not in action—at various points in their narratives.
These two general features of Ophuls’s films that I’ve been describing are bound up with one another; the camera movements that exhibit a dual attunement structure take on ethical significance—in a sense, they gain ethical content—in relation to the problem of autonomy in the films. They provide a moral perspective on the world the film shows, a perspective the characters are themselves unable to achieve, or even to recognize as a possibility in the first place. It’s these camera movements, the central “aesthetic form” of the films, that give a sense of the shape of the ethical demands raised by the characters, demands we would want a world to meet— but such a responsive world may not be possible within these films.

最後這句跟我之前的某段解析講到一塊去了，有點感動（在感動什麼）