激辩风云

    好久没写关于电影的评论了，因为好久没有看电影了，自从参加工作以来，忙了个不亦乐乎，等到休息的时候，自然有比看电影更好的放松方式，看电影，尤其是看一些严肃的电影，有时候更累。

    昨天看了一部标准立志片《伟大辩手》，影片聚集了两位黑人影帝：丹泽尔·华盛顿、福里斯特·惠特克，就凭这两个名字，影片就值得一看了。

    简单地把我的一些感受说一下。

    影片发生的时间是美国20世纪30年代，那时美国种族隔离制度正猖獗，尤其以美国南方为盛。据说影片是根据真人真事改编，讲述了美国一位黑人诗人调教了一支黑人学生辩论队打遍全美无敌手的故事，不过这些人物我都不认识，我的美国史显然学得比较粗糙。

    我一直怀疑丹泽尔·华盛顿是一个种族主义者，因为他经常参演关于美国黑人民权的影片，比如《光荣》、比如《记住巨人们》，这一次更是亲自操刀指导了这部电影。当然这些影片所宣扬的理念都是正确的。

    这部影片恐怕是为了纪念马丁·路德金而拍摄的，理由有二：首先今年是马丁·路德金遇刺身亡40周年，马丁·路德金于1968年4月4日被害；其次是影片最后，主人公们和哈福大学辩论队比赛，辩论的题目是关于“非暴力不合作运动”，这正是金博士所倡导的斗争理念。

    作为一部关于辩论的影片，电影的台词可以说是至关重要，必须得充满思辨和动人情感的力量方能服众。可以说影片合格的完成了任务。作为一部励志片，影片必定会安排一段动人的演讲，这是美国主旋律电影的保留曲目，尤其以励志片为最，而美国人的煽情水平确属神仙放屁，不同凡响，刚好迎合我的低级趣味，每每满足我的廉价情感需要。所以我从影片一开始就憋着被感动，直到影片的结尾我留下了鳄鱼的泪水，演讲的内容我就不透露了，我的影品还算不错吧？

    想要被充分感动，还要先了解一下伟大的非暴力不合作运动，这一运动由圣雄甘地创造，马丁路德金将其发扬光大，可惜这两个人最终都死于非命，看来这是一个受诅咒的理念。

    关于非暴力不合作理念的思想内涵，金博士的一段话阐述得淋漓尽致而又激动人心，我就不班门弄斧直接引用吧：“在争取合法地位的进程中，我们不要用错误的行动使自己犯罪。我们不要用仇恨的苦酒来缓解热望自由的干渴。我们必须永远站在高处，使我们的斗争方式保持尊严，坚守纪律。我们一定不能使富有创造性的抗争沦为使用暴力的低下行动。我们必须努力不懈站在以灵魂力量来对付肉体力量的神圣高度。”

    我真正想要说的是，像非暴力不合作运动这样伟大的理念并不是放置四海而皆能生根发芽开枝散叶的，它需要特殊的土壤，那就是法制与人权，说来好笑，为谋求人权而生的理念却需要人权的呵护，然而事实如此。

Resolved: civil disobedience is a moral weapon in the fight for justice. But how can disobedience ever be moral? Well, I guess that depends on one’s definition of the words. Word. In 1919, in India, 10,000 people gathered in Amritsar to protest the tyranny of British rule. General Reginald Dyer trapped them in a courtyard and ordered his troops to fire into the crowd for ten minutes. 379 died, mean, women, children shot down in cold blood. Dyer said he had taught them a moral lesson. Gandhi and his followers responded not with violence, but with an organized campaign of non-cooperation. Government buildings were occupied. Streets were blocked with people who refused to rise, even when beaten by police. Gandhi was arrested, but the British were soon forced to release him. He called it a moral victory. The definition of moral: Dyer’s lesson or Gandhi’s victory? You choose.

From 1914 to 1918, for every single minute the world was at war, four men laid down their lives. Just think of it. 240 brave young men were hurled into eternity every hour of every day, of every night, for four long years. 35,000 hours, 8,281,000 causalities, 240, 240, 240. Here was a slaughter. Immeasurably greater than what happened at Amritsar. Can there be anything moral about it? Nothing, except that it stopped Germany from enslaving all of Europe. Civil disobedience isn’t moral because it’s non-violent. Fighting for your country with violence can be deeply moral, demanding the greatest sacrifice of all: life itself. Non-violence is the mask civil disobedience wears to conceal it’s true face, anarchy.

Gandhi believes one must always act with love and respect for one’s opponents, even if they are Harvard debaters. Gandhi also believes that lawbreakers must accept the legal consequences for their actions. Does that sound like anarchy? Civil disobedience is not something for us to fear. It is, after all, an American concept. You see, Gandhi draws his inspiration not from a Hindu scripture, but from Henry David Thoreau, who I believe graduated from Harvard and lived by a pond not too far from here.

My opponent is right about one thing. Thoreau was a Harvard grad, and like many of us, a bit self-righteous. He once said “any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one.” Thoreau the idealist could never know that Adolf Hitler would agree with his words. The beauty and the burden of democracy is this: no idea prevails without the support of the majority. The people decide the moral issues of the day, not a majority of one.

Majorities do not decide what is right or wrong. Your conscience does. So why should a citizen surrender his or her conscience to a legislator? No, we must never ever kneel down before a the tyranny of a majority.

We can’t decide which laws to obey and which to ignore. If we could, I’d never stop for a red light. My father is one of those men that stands between us and chaos: a police officer. I remember the day his partner, his best friend was gunned down in the line of duty. Most vividly of all, I remember the expression on my dad’s face, nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral, no matter what name we give it.


In Texas, they lynch Negroes. My teammates and I saw a man strung up by his neck and set on fire. We drove through a lynch mob, pressed our faces against the floorboard. I looked at my teammates, I saw the fear in their eyes, and worse the shame. What was this Negro’s crime that he should be hung, without trial in a dark forest filled with fog? Was he a thief? Was he a killer? Or just a Negro? Was he a sharecropper, a preacher? Were his children waiting up for him? And who are we to just lie there and do nothing? No matter what he did, the mob was the criminal. But the law did nothing, just left us wondering why. My opponent says nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral. But there is no rule of law in the Jim Crow South, not when Negroes are denied housing, turned away from schools, hospitals, and not when we are lynched. St. Augustine said, “an unjust law is no law at all,” which means I have a right, even a duty to resist with violence or civil disobedience. You should pray I choose the latter.

没看影片之前单纯的觉得这跟其他的竞技类励志片一样，讲述伟大辩手成长的故事，这确实是一部传记片没错，但更多的聚焦于美国黑人在上个世纪初期受到的歧视和不公待遇，即便面对如此困境，他们依旧坚持不懈的用和平方式追求着自由和平等，片子整体还是挺积极向上的，虽然诸如小树林里吊死并焚烧黑人小孩的镜头触目惊心；节奏控制的挺好，剧情也很吸引人，格外喜欢这部影片的打光.

现在我片尾凝重优美的旋律里写这个影评。
准确的说，没有评，只有感觉。在现在我抑制不住的眼泪里，我无法用我的逻辑来组织出“评论”。

就像这结尾的音乐一样。
生活是严肃的，甚至是沉重的，像鼓声，沉沉的敲下去，让你颤抖。是什么让这些，有了大提琴的婉转，有了钢琴的撩拨？或许就是那句台词——“坚持说出真理的声音”。

我们会怀疑，会彷徨，但一定要坚持。

这个影片常用的标签有一个叫“励志”。
我对励志没有什么感觉。
有愤慨，有担心，有热血沸腾，有血泪共存的暂时胜利、、、、、有很多，可是，没有励志。我想，是，安慰。

当别人生活中的苦难以一种如此震撼的形式呈现的我面前，被烧死，那伤痕累累的身体，掉下来的时候像是干枯的木头，咔嚓的就断了，我有点傻的感觉。这种在书里写的东西，看的时候只要不想象就深究那种情形，只会轻描淡写的说“真残忍”就过去的东西。当这些东西血淋淋的呈现在你眼前的时候，无话可说的傻掉。
而这样难以置信的事情，竟然是某些人真实的生活。那么常见，那么普通，那么自然。
我终于可以遥远的试图感受了。
于是我不由的愤怒。

每个人生活里都有这样那样的不公平，伤心，甚至是恐怖的经历。这些痛苦，不用对比。
鸡蛋对会鸡蛋过敏的人，一样是致命的。即使鸡蛋，看起来实在不起眼。
正因为我们有“同情”，我们看到别人的胜利，就像自己战胜了自己的胜利一样。
安慰。同是天涯沦落人。

-Qui est le juge ?
-Le juge, c'est Dieu !
-Pourquoi est-il Dieu ?
-Parce qu'il décide qui perd et qui gagne, pas mon adversaire !
-Qui est votre adversaire ?
-Il n'existe pas !
-Pourquoi n'existe t-il pas ?
-Parce qu'il n'est qu'une voix discordante qui conteste la vérité
两次重复这段话，所含有的分量绝不相同。
首次，教练向队员讲述这段话，队员们其实是不太懂的。其后，这些学生亲眼见到种族屠杀，种族歧视的事件后，深深了解到黑人极为劣势的地位和对改变现状的无力感。
     他们选择了自己能做的努力，用语言做武器。
     辩论员一路披荆斩棘，打进决赛，来到Havard。主角在决战前选择相信自己的队友，放弃荣耀的机会，让队友上场。这是很了不起的。在决定让队友代替自己上场的决战前夜，两人重复了这段话，泪流满面。这眼泪包含着对现实的无力，也包含着志气和决心。
     故事有个大团圆，黑人胜了比赛，全场都支持他们获胜。我比较悲观，我来写这个故事，一定是悲剧。