塞尔玛

说点电影以外的一点个人感受：

1， 马丁实在是一个出色的演讲家，他的演讲非常具有鼓动性，他天生就是一个演讲家和活动家！立志提高自己演讲能力的同学，不可不参考马丁啊。尽管马丁不是一个完美的人，野史总被人勾出来说，但我依然觉得他很伟大。因为作为民权活动家，本身就冒着巨大的风险，但是他有勇气，不畏强权，而且坚持下去。对一个人指指点点很容易，但做到他这份上，我敢说没多少人会这样。

2，南北战争打破了贩卖奴隶的习俗，而马丁的民权运动才真正free the black。美国能够从当黑人作猪狗一样（见《为奴十二载》），到现在黑人能当总统，真是了不起。没错，现代美国还是有对黑人的歧视（何止是黑人，还有其他肤色人种），但是一个国家能够有如此飞跃进步，不容易！看看别的国家能不能让有色人种当总统？让我感动的，是黑人们选择非暴力的方式，如同甘地提倡的一样（见《甘地传》），看上起很weak，但最终战胜邪恶的，却是非暴力。这让我想到伦茨的中篇小说《灯塔船》，为什么船长坚持非暴力对抗罪恶。

3，游行。游行的背后有多少准备和力量的较量，有多少鲜血铺路啊。游行能够聚集人的力量，能够感化更多的人，从甘地到马丁，都意识到这个力量。这也许是为什么我朝极力压制不让人们三五成群了。虽然不同国家不可比，但内心默默觉得在我朝事件死掉的人悲哀。人们努力了，却依然无法撼动民主自由的巨轮。

       第87届奥斯卡金像奖颁奖典礼将在明天早上举行，而直到前一天完上我才看了这部电影。睁大眼睛、竖起耳朵，仔仔细细地在没有字幕的情况下看完这部电影。总觉得不能在颁奖礼之后才去看这部获得奥斯卡最佳影片提名的电影。

       在我的心里好电影一直有一个标准：一部好电影要讲好一个好故事。举几个我喜欢而且大家比较熟悉的例子：《暴雨将至》《低俗小说》《卧虎藏龙》《大鱼》《本杰明·巴顿奇事》《纳德和西敏：一次别离》。《塞尔玛》是部好电影，它讲了一个好故事：MLK引领众人去完成一个伟大的梦想。千万不要把这个故事单单理解为MLK带领大家搞民权运动，用游行示威的方式争取选举权。

       不过，这部电影好像没有完全讲好这个好故事，我在这里点出两个问题。第一，虽然主角表演很卖力，但配角比主角还惊艳，每个黑人演员表演也很卖力，万万没想到蒂姆·罗斯会饰演州长George Wallace，一出来就那贱贱的样儿。第二，虽然剧情很流畅，但总觉得叙事结构和叙事方式略显单调，而且对这段历史不太了解的国内观众很可能会觉得这部电影有些无聊，比如有的观众会问“I have a dream去哪儿了”，好在配乐对其有所弥补。

       另外，这部电影在美国上映时正遇到了弗格森事件等一系列涉嫌种族歧视事件的社会问题，电影结尾曲也提到了弗格森（本人很喜欢John Legend）。广大爱好和平、民主和正义的美国人也正需要这样一部《塞尔玛》去安抚受伤的心灵，在美国好评如潮情理之中。啰嗦一句，可惜啊！贾樟柯的《天注定》······
       （PS： 这是本人第一篇豆瓣影评，近来豆瓣水军太多，不喜勿喷。）

总是把马丁路德跟马丁路德金搞混了，为了加深自己对这个美国著名民权人士的印象，很高兴的看了他的自传式电影。有关美国黑人人权的电影也很多了，在这里也要提到一个人马克西姆X，也在本片中露脸。关于马克西姆也有一部自传式电影《黑潮》，原名就叫马克西姆X。马丁路德金是个温和派的领导者，虽然他们俩被暗杀的命运是一样的，但是我觉得马丁路德金是正确的。仇恨和冲突并不能让彼此的关系变得更好，就像今日缺乏马丁路德金这种领袖的美国，也依然不断爆发出种族矛盾的骚乱。在这里更要提到一部电影《美国X档案》爱德华诺顿主演的，就是对仇恨所产生的原因进行了反省，就是因为白人和黑人之间没有真正的和解。

历史传记题材电影《塞尔玛》由阿娃·杜威内执导，蒂姆·罗斯、大卫·奥伊罗、小库珀·古丁、汤姆·威尔金森主演，影片聚焦美国民权斗士马丁·路德·金1965年组织的“由塞尔玛向蒙哥马利进军”行动。我看过了我看过了我看过了我看过了我看过了我看过了我看过了我看过了我看过了我看过了我看过了我看过了我看过了我看过了我看过了我看过了

《塞尔玛》真的是一部“主旋律电影”吗？
在中国大陆的语境里，“主旋律电影”暗示该电影或多或少地有官方参与投资、制作和发行，又或者暗示该电影顺从甚至直接宣扬官方的意识形态。据我所知，美国政府并没有在前者有明显的行为，所以我将对后者的进行简单讨论。
诚然，马丁·路德·金早已成为美国官方历史中的一个正面形象，甚至还有一个以他命名的公众假期；毫无疑问，他是家喻户晓的“非暴力抗争”德谟克拉西斗士。问题是，很多人听到更多是“非暴力”的一面，而有意无意地忽略“抗争”；于是，当人们把金理解成一位宣扬和平的好人时似乎忘记了一点：“非暴力”是抗争的手段。为何轻视“抗争”的一面？当大家通过电影知道他抗争的对象是谁的时候，便应该清楚为何有人希望淡化“抗争”了。
稍有常识的人都知道，金并不是唯一一位非裔民权社运家；对历史有过思考的人也应该都知道，当官方不得不把这些非裔社运家写进历史的时候会作怎样的选择。
举另一个更有名的例子。金在1963年的华盛顿游行中讲到他做了的一个梦，但正史甚少提及的是，他在同一篇演说中还提到黑人这次游行到华盛顿是来兑现一张支票的，一张关于“生存权、自由权和追求幸福权”的支票，但美国政府一直都“没有足够的经费”来兑现。于是，当我们把这篇演说放在心灵鸡汤栏目时，是否应该思考如下问题：如果我们把该文章的题目改成“没有足够的经费”，那它是否还有同等的意义？我们为何会被引导去“梦”这一块而不是“经费”这一块？官方历史会希望你去记住哪一部分？
我们应当如何看待非裔的斗争历史？我经常会看到一种很有问题的表述：非裔能争取到权利是因为他们受到宪法保护。这样的表述在我看来是本末倒置。我们应该问：美国有宪法和修正案，为何非裔还需要作流血牺牲来争权？假设宪法和修正案真有根本解决问题的效力，那种族问题早应该在十九世纪七十年代就得到解决了；那时国会一连串地通过十三、十四和十五修正案，分别废除奴隶制、保障公民受到法律的同等保护以及不能因肤色而剥夺一名男性的投票权。正如历史所示，问题并没有得到解决。首先修正案存在很多漏洞让人钻空子，比如在投票方面，不同州可以在投票处设立各种表面上不打种族主义旗号的限制（如《塞尔玛》开始所示）；其次，也是更显而易见的一个问题：法律通过了就能消除人心中的种族歧视吗（试想一下曾经被你瞧不起的商品突然和你有一样的权利）？
另一方面，自奴隶制废除后，种族问题显得越发复杂。奴隶们被解放了，但他们没有经济基础（在佃农和城市化中继续被剥削）或政治基础（限制投票和参选的手段多的是，于是非裔难被选上，就算被选上，他/她有多大程度不受白人政治影响？）。于是在平权运动的发展过程中，人们越发认识到种族与经济和政治息息相关；歧视并不止表现在奴隶主打奴隶上，还表现在政策、就业和住房分配等的各个方面；这些复杂的关系使得种族歧视者能够打着其他的旗号（如貌似客观的统计数据）、通过貌似不分肤色的机构手段来实现（如“管理高犯罪率或低收入的社群”），并能轻易否认“种族主义者”的身份；另一方面，政府在让社区增权益能、受教育和就业等方面则是敷衍了事，官僚体制更让其效果大打折扣甚至起反作用，同时还紧抓着个别成功的例子宣称美国已进入“后种族时代”。在这样复杂的局面下要再谈论种族问题，进步社团只能冒着被贴“种族主义者”的标签来大喊“黑人生命很重要”了，又或者像费格森示威者那样通过简单直接的方法来凸显种族和经济之间的关系，又或者在主流政治内艰难地反对着投票者身份证法案（又一限制投票的手段，Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States ）。当种族涉及到美国的政治和经济基础问题时，“黑”与“白”便不仅仅是肤色区别了。
上述的大多数内容在美国主流文化输出中可能甚少被提及，于是我们只看到被“净化”过的马丁·路德·金在步出塞尔玛时的伟岸身影，并觉得那一刻正是所谓“美国德谟克拉西优越性”的重要体现，而难以察觉该逻辑的荒谬，更别提其背后的复杂历史和社会背景了。
可惜的是，《塞尔玛》也正是美国主流文化输出的一个商品。它有着大片厂的投资和发行，制作精良，内容上走着好莱坞文艺片简单的煽情和二元对立，虽尝试表现金的人格弱点以及联邦政府的暧昧态度，但中规中矩的戏剧套路让其丧失了批判力度和联系古今的机会，成为又一部“通过诉说历史让历史成为过去”的电影。当然，在好莱坞越来越保守的今天，让一部主流叙事片去直接质疑和批判其国家的政治和经济基础并煽动普通民众走上街头未免要求过高，毕竟它要保证不引起争端，从而顺利制作、发行和提名小金人。从这方面看，如果美国的终极意识形态是资本主义的话，那《塞尔玛》还真算是一部“主旋律电影”。
（写于“塞尔玛血腥星期天”五十周年）

注：本文无意就马丁·路德·金本人或其1963年华盛顿游行的演说（还有所有其他演说）作任何结论或猜测，更没有试图贬低其演说中的任何信息。

附1：
The selection of facts from the past involves an interpretation, a sense of priorities, a sense of values as to what matters. History can be a very strong weapon for people who wish to construct a certain movement in a certain direction. - Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

附2：

And we are not wrong; we are not wrong in what we are doing. (Well) If we are wrong, the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong. (Yes sir) [applause] If we are wrong, the Constitution of the United States is wrong. (Yes) [applause] If we are wrong, God Almighty is wrong. (That's right) [applause] If we are wrong, Jesus of Nazareth was merely a utopian dreamer that never came down to Earth. (Yes) [applause] If we are wrong, justice is a lie (Yes), love has no meaning. [applause] And we are determined here in Montgomery to work and fight until justice runs down like water (Yes), [applause] and righteousness like a mighty stream. (12/05/1955)

You have a dual citizenry. You live both in time and eternity; both in heaven and earth. Therefore, your ultimate allegiance is not to the government, not to the state, not to nation, not to any man-made institution. The Christian owes his ultimate allegiance to God, and if any earthly institution conflicts with God's will it is your Christian duty to take a stand against it. You must never allow the transitory evanescent demands of man-made institutions to take precedence over the eternal demands of the Almighty God. (11/04/1956)

First, there is need for strong, aggressive leadership from the federal government. So far, only the judicial branch of the government has evinced this quality of leadership. If the executive and legislative branches of the government were as concerned about the protection of our citizenship rights as the federal courts have been, then the transition from a segregated to an integrated society would be infinitely smoother. But we so often look to Washington in vain for this concern. In the midst of the tragic breakdown of law and order, the executive branch of the government is all too silent and apathetic. In the midst of the desperate need for civil rights legislation, the legislative branch of the government is all too stagnant and hypocritical. (05/17/1957)

Democracy is the greatest form of government to my mind that man has ever conceived, but the weakness is that we have never touched it. Isn’t it true that we have often taken necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes? Isn’t it true that we have often in our democracy trampled over individuals and races with the iron feet of oppression? Isn’t it true that through our Western powers we have perpetuated colonialism and imperialism? And all of these things must be taken under consideration as we look at Russia. We must face the fact that the rhythmic beat of the deep rumblings of discontent from Asia and Africa is at bottom a revolt against the imperialism and colonialism perpetuated by Western civilization all these many years. The success of communism in the world today is due to the failure of democracy to live up to the noble ideals and principles inherent in its system. (11/17/1957)

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." (04/16/1963)

It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain." (04/04/1967)

When the Constitution was written, a strange formula to determine taxes and representation declared that the Negro was sixty percent of a person. Today another curious formula seems to declare he is fifty percent of a person. Of the good things in life, the Negro has approximately one half those of whites. Of the bad things of life, he has twice those of whites. Thus, half of all Negroes live in substandard housing. And Negroes have half the income of whites. When we turn to the negative experiences of life, the Negro has a double share: There are twice as many unemployed; the rate of infant mortality among Negroes is double that of whites; and there are twice as many Negroes dying in Vietnam as whites in proportion to their size in the population. (08/16/1967)

In 1863 the Negro was told that he was free as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation being signed by Abraham Lincoln. But he was not given any land to make that freedom meaningful. It was something like keeping a person in prison for a number of years and suddenly discovering that that person is not guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. And you just go up to him and say, "Now you are free," but you don’t give him any bus fare to get to town. You don’t give him any money to get some clothes to put on his back or to get on his feet again in life. Every court of jurisprudence would rise up against this, and yet this is the very thing that our nation did to the black man. It simply said, "You’re free," and it left him there penniless, illiterate, not knowing what to do. And the irony of it all is that at the same time the nation failed to do anything for the black man, though an act of Congress was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the Midwest. Which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor. (03/31/1968)

当然，还有我最喜欢的一句：Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. （04/16/1963)

关于华盛顿游行的另一个观点：

It’s just like when you’ve got some coffee that’s too black, which means it’s too strong. What you do? You integrate it with cream; you make it weak. If you pour too much cream in, you won’t even know you ever had coffee. It used to be hot, it becomes cool. It used to be strong, it becomes weak. It used to wake you up, now it’ll put you to sleep. This is what they （民权领袖们） did with the march on Washington. They joined it. They didn’t integrate it; they infiltrated it. They joined it, became a part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. They ceased to be angry. They ceased to be hot. They ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all. You had one right here in Detroit — I saw it on television — with clowns leading it, white clowns and black clowns. I know you don’t like what I’m saying, but I’m going to tell you anyway. ’Cause I can prove what I’m saying. If you think I’m telling you wrong, you bring me Martin Luther King and A. Philip Randolph and James Farmer and those other three, and see if they’ll deny it over a microphone.

No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover. When James Baldwin came in from Paris, they wouldn’t let him talk, ’cause they couldn’t make him go by the script. Burt Lancaster read the speech that Baldwin was supposed to make; they wouldn’t let Baldwin get up there, ’cause they know Baldwin’s liable to say anything. They controlled it so tight — they told those Negroes what time to hit town, how to come, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn’t make; and then told them to get out town by sundown. And everyone of those Toms （汤姆叔叔）was out of town by sundown. Now I know you don’t like my saying this. But I can back it up. It was a circus, a performance that beat anything Hollywood could ever do, the performance of the year. Reuther and those other three devils should get a Academy Award for the best actors ’cause they acted like they really loved Negroes and fooled a whole lot of Negroes. And the six Negro leaders should get an award too, for the best supporting cast. （Malcolm X on March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, 11/10/1963. Malcolm X的思想在人生最后一年发生重大变化，故决不能就上述摘录而归纳其对民权运动的看法，就像不能用金的一篇演说来总结金一样）

再次强调：本文无意就马丁·路德·金本人或其1963年华盛顿游行的演说（还有所有其他演说）作任何结论或猜测，更没有试图贬低其演说中的任何信息。