塞尔玛

Selma是Alabama的一个小镇的名字，是当年马丁·路德·金（MLK）领导的为黑人投票权而游行的起始地，是The Voting Rights Act （投票权法案）这一关键联邦法律的得到通过的动力之一。

这部片子的上映实在是不能再合时宜了。

首先是以John Roberts为首的最高法院在几个月前废除了The Voting Rights Act里面几个关键的条例，其理由竟然是盲目的“现在南方各州已无种族压迫或歧视，少数种族的人们已不再需要联邦法保护。

” 接着是不断涌现的无辜黑人公民被警察草率处决的事件（Michael Brown，Eric Garner），以及纽约的两位警察刚刚被谋杀的事件。

纷纷上街的人数逐渐增加，而改变的前景却不容乐观。

人们很迷惘很沮丧。

美国的人权的现况在明显的倒退。

在太平洋的另一边，一场小火也奄奄一息。

Selma及时的出现了，在大荧幕上带领我们回到了那个媒体技术刚刚起步的时代，一个人们冒着生命危险上街的时代。

它在大处讲述了MLK 为了呼吁国会通过保护黑人投票权的法案而做出的台前幕后的努力，从小处也对事件一些关键当事人——MLK及他的妻子，总统LBJ，Alabama州长George Wallace，当时随MLK游行的现任国会议员John Lewis等等——进行了聚焦，不仅刻骨展现了演讲、游行造势、以及警方残暴镇压的大场面，也非常生动的刻画了不同立场的各方（MLK的非暴力运动、学生领袖们、Malcolm X领导的暴力反抗组织、LBJ的白宫、Alabama的GW和Selma的警长）之间的政治纠葛。

这部电影非常精彩，进电影院的时候眼睛很累，进了之后才发现自己买的是IMAX第二排，庆幸的是电影院很人性化，第二排离荧幕有足够的距离，电影从头到尾都吸引人，眼泪也让眼珠更舒服了些，看着看着就一点都不累了。

整部电影的演员表其实非常强大，但它却是不声不响的来到美国大众面前的。

David Oyelowo饰演MLK，让我一时记不起真正的MLK的外表和谈吐是怎样的了。

他并没有特别细致的临摹MLK，但是他在演讲中的感染力和气势都有MLK的灵魂，也让我听到了以前不曾察觉的愤怒。

而在一些台下的戏里，他对于小细节的处理也非常逼真，使得MLK成为了一个生动的人，而没有停留于一个高大上的印象。

George Wallace竟然是Tim Roth饰演的，一上来我有些吃惊，但是他将这个人物的可恨演得非常成功，他的台词说的也很好，有些荒唐的台词让人不得不笑。

Tom Wilkinson饰演的这个版本的LBJ也很好。

电影中将LBJ总统刻画成了法案推进中的阻力之一：电影中投票权并不是他的首要政治议题和目标，他觉得MLK的运动阻碍了他的议程，是在MLK不断的批评和激励之下才最终发表演说支持他。

这可能不符合史实，我认为如果可以将LBJ更积极参与的一面放进剧本，电影的意义可能更大，尤其是当今民族融合出现裂痕的时候。

但剧本要造势也是情有可原。

无论如何，Wilkinson出色的完成了饰演这个版本的总统的任务，将LBJ口无遮拦满嘴脏话让人发笑的一面、以及他在政治上的立场和他对立法困境的头痛都表现了出来。

我看完并没有觉得LBJ是不想立法，是他真的没有足够的筹码，而最终还是MLK给他增加了筹码。

小配角们的表演也很好，制片人Oprah 饰演一个没有多少词的想要投票却投不了的小角色，她出镜的第一场戏从让人紧张到让人愤怒，非常动人。

饰演小配角的有大牌（比如Cuba Gooding Jr.饰演一个只有两场戏的律师，Martin Sheen也只演一个在那两场戏里出现的法官，Dylan Baker演J. Edgar Hoover，还有Rapper Common、The Wire的Wendell Pierce等等），也有小牌（Marmen Ejogo饰演MLK妻子Correta，Stephan James演现任议员John Lewis、Short Term 12的Keith Stanfield饰演Jimmie Lee Jackson）。

所有这些人的表演都值得尊重。

影片的感情很充沛，如果不反抗的话，两行泪迹是免不了的。

但同时剧本里也有些让人发笑的台词和情节，有时眼泪还没干就哈哈大笑了。

影片激发的感动是超越了种族的，因为影片中既不过度向自由派白人鞠躬，也不忽视超越种族的信仰的力量。

它使人感动的不仅仅是演说和压迫的大场面，它将片中人物的伤心、恐惧、愤怒、坚定、决心统统的传播给你，让人感受到的是那份对自由和平等的向往，对无理强权的绝望和抗争，对现实的反思，以及跟荧幕上角色和自己周围的观众对于一种信念的分享和彼此的精神拥抱。

虽然少数场景中犯了用音乐告诉你应该怎么感受的老毛病，但整体上观众还是有不加烹饪的、赤裸裸的情感反馈的。

这不仅是一部让自由派的人很受激励、让种族歧视的人很愤怒的感情造势上很成功的电影，它还是一部纯粹的好电影。

那些当年说Fruitvale Station是liberal propaganda的人，其中有些可能也饶不过这部影片。

但他们忽略了Fruitvale要讲的是什么，忽略了此片要讲的是什么。

有些人出国几年，听了一些美国极右派的论点，觉得正好可以扶持自己的偏见和恐惧，便马上采纳将自己武装起来，哪里可以出头就去哪里叫两句。

如今这种行为已经不再新鲜，已经让人觉得无聊了。

我去的这场放映非常有意思，现场黑人居多，白人也有，我这种亚洲人也不少。

电影一开场第一句话，我就没听到，因为坐在我前面第一排的一黑人小姑娘不能克制的哈哈大笑起来。

除非一位刚进来的老爷爷摸黑坐到了她的大腿上，我想不到任何她这样笑的理由。

而电影进行中Tim Roth出场的一刹那，她又发起了诡异的大笑，貌似还笑得喘不上气了。

我不认识这个女孩，姑且把她当成所谓帮倒忙的队友，为种族歧视提供借口的那种队友，但其实我们每一种团体里都能找到这种队友。

在她第二次大笑的时候，我正前方的一位老人一个箭步冲到她面前，指着她说，“小姐，我等了几十年就为了看这部电影，你最好给我安静点”，马上让她闭了嘴。

影片结束，伴着Common和John Legend的新曲Glory（歌词里还提到Ferguson）老人振臂举起左拳，并在结束后起立面对观众高呼：“记住Michael Brown，记住Eric Garner，我们的游行还没有结束！

” 我不了解这个老人，但我愿意相信他代表了某种脊梁，任何一个团体也都需要这种脊梁。

影片要大家做的其实很简单，而且其实在重复几十年前To Kill A Mockingbird里面告诉大家的东西：You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view... Until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it. （除非你站在另一个人的立场上想问题，你永远无法理解她…你得穿上她的皮肤走上两遭。

）同情心和同理心——这就是电影让我们去拥抱的。

因为有些时候，套用电影The Interview里那句无厘头的真理——"They Hate Us 'Cuz They Ain't Us. (他们恨我们就因为他们不是我们)."这个道理讲了几十年，却依然需要讲，就说明Selma这部电影是有存在的必要性的。

得克萨斯州议会民主党议员以集体逃离首府奥斯汀的戏剧性方式抵制共和党力推的选举法改革，类似的举动在全美至少有十多个州已经或正在施行，其州议会全都由共和党人士掌控。

修改选举法的用意并不错，包括防止选举欺诈、保障选举过程的完整性与公正性，问题在于这些可能的差错都源自想象，美国联邦和州一级的实际选举运作中并未系统发生过欺诈。

按照目前多个州的方案，实际造成的结果是提高投票门槛，尤其在选民登记、身份证件、邮寄投票、提前投票等环节。

所有这些调整对我参与投票不太可能造成任何影响，但有少部分选民会因此受到阻碍，他们未必有灵活的工作时间、方便的交通工具、基本胜任的语言能力，他们也不一定生活在种族关系更为包容的东西两个海岸或者都市区。

电影《塞尔玛》(Selma, 2014)为了解美国公民履行投票权的抗争提供了历史样本，故事发生在1960年代初民权运动在南方逐渐展开的时候。

电影开头，欧普拉·温芙瑞扮演的黑人护士安妮到阿拉巴马州法庭完成选民登记，申请表格的“种族”栏里填写的是“Negro”，这个词因歧视意味现在已经不再使用。

她看上去需要深呼吸以后才能调集勇气，捧着表格走到登记窗口。

白人登记员通过心理暗示设置了第一道障碍，“你为老人院的杜恩先生工作，对吧？

”安妮：“对”。

白人登记员：“如果我告诉杜恩先生他的护士在这惹麻烦，不知道他会说什么。

”安妮：“我没有要惹任何麻烦，我只是要完成选民登记。

”接下来登记员要求安妮背诵美国宪法的序言。

我对美国政治和历史有一丁点了解，但只能说出序言的开头”我们合众国人民”(We The People of the United States)，其他内容可以大致讲出来，无法做到准确背诵。

在中国做学生时强记路线、方针、政策、计划的能力到了美国已经基本丧失，这里基本上“转述”(paraphrase)清楚就行，无需标准文本。

安妮可以，她一字一句背诵出完整的宪法序言，“我们合众国人民，为建立更完善的联盟，树立正义，保障国内安宁，提供共同防务，促进公共福利...”。

白人书记员此时已经知道安妮完整背诵不存在任何问题，所以立即打断她，并设置新的障碍，“阿拉巴马州有多少县一级的法官？

”安妮再次深呼吸以后回答，“67个。

”白人书记员紧接着要求，“他们的名字？

”谁能记住67个县级法官的名字？

安妮因此无法完成选民登记。

这种刁难在国内不容易见到，因为并不知道有谁实际参加过选民登记。

但想象一下，如果一对新人去民政局领结婚证，办事员冷不丁地发问，政治局有多少成员？

特别熟悉国家大事的少数年轻人或许知道“25”这个答案。

但如果办事员接着要求背诵所有成员的名字，否则无法领取结婚证呢？

中国一定会出现大面积的晚婚晚育。

安妮或许好几代都生长于美国，她完成选民登记需要经历爬雪山过草地般的艰辛，成年以后才移民过来的我做同样的事情却如同水桶里抓鱼一样手到擒来。

马里兰州的选民登记表格只有一页，填写内容非常简单，包括年龄、是否美国公民、性别、出生日期、家庭地址、联系方式等基本信息，引起我注意的是表格的第九项“政党”，说明文字为“为了参加初选和政党大会，你必须完成登记。

”无需介绍人、漫长的考核期、一次又一次的思想汇报，我只需要在“民主党、共和党、面包与玫瑰党、独立身份和其他党派”5个选项中找一个划勾就算入了党。

表格寄出后就会收到马里兰选举委员会的确认信，自此以后我就成为登记选民，有权在联邦、州和地方的政治选举中投票，过程简单方便。

安妮的选民登记之难与新移民选民登记之易，最粗略地概括，几十年民权、平权、选举权运动的历史性努力起着关键作用。

地理因素也很重要，自由派聚集的都会区与南方偏乡有很大不同。

针对共和党在州一级开展的选举法改革，民主党人士以“开历史倒车”回应，包括拜登在内。

有的说这是要退至南方推行种族隔离的Jim Crow时代，更有语出惊人者说是要退回到1860年代的美国内战，电影《塞尔玛》中马丁·路德·金等人带着安妮们勇敢抗争获得的权力有可能略微缩水。

Response to SelmaLast week, I went to see the movie Selma in the theater. The reason I went to watch this movie is not because I wanted to watch it, but because I needed to get the extra credit for my EWRT 2 English class. Before I went to the theater, I watched the trailer of this movie, so I basically knew that this movie was about Martin Luther King, Jr. I only knew a little bit about Martin Luther King, Jr., who was the leader in the African-American Civil Rights Movement and delivered his famous “I have a Dream” speech. I guessed that the movie might be about what happened before and after Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous speech. After watching the movie, I was surprised because this movie talked more about the speech, and it made me feel touched since it talked about the conflicts, struggles, and feelings of people. I think Selma is an amazing and meaningful movie to watch because of its story, actors, and emotion. The story of this movie talked about how African American people fought for their voting right and freedom by expressing conflicts between different positions of people and feelings of them, so I think this movie is a meaningful movie. In the movie, it basically talked about how Martin Luther King, Jr. appealed to Congress to pass the bill in order to protect the voting right of African American people. Besides, the movie showed a few main characters of the movement in the past, such as, Martin Luther King, Jr., his wife, the thirty-sixth president of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, and the governor of Alabama, George Wallace, etc. There were scenes that were showing speeches, demonstrations, and the brutal repressions of police. In addition, there were political conflicts between many different groups of people, such as Martin Luther King, Jr.’s non-violent movement, leaders of students, the President Lyndon B. Johnson’s white house, Alabama’s governor George Wallace, and the police of Selma. Since this movie talks about African Americans fought for their freedom and the right to vote, which is an important political history to Americans; also, people should watch this movie and learn more about Martin Luther King, Jr. and his movement. Selma not only has a good story, but also has a group of amazing actors who tried their best to successfully act their characters. David Oyelowo is the actor who played the role of Martin Luther King, Jr. I do not know how the real Martin Luther King, Jr. looks like. Even though Oyelowo did not particularly copy Martin Luther King, Jr., the way that he gave out the speech had the feeling and momentum of the real Martin Luther King, Jr. Also, Oyelowo really focused on some small details of Martin Luther King, Jr., which made me feel like that Oyelowo was exactly the Martin Luther King, Jr. in the movie. Moreover, Tim Roth played the role of the governor of Alabama, George Wallace. Also, Roth played this character successfully, and some words that he said make me laugh. Besides, the version of Tom Wilkinson’s President Lyndon B. Johnson is very good (“Selma (2014) Full Cast & Crew”). In the movie, President Lyndon B. Johnson became one of resistance of the bill advancing because the movie showed that the right to vote was not his primary political issues and goals, and he thought that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s movement hindered his agenda. However, he started to support what Martin Luther King, Jr. did and said after hearing the criticism and encouragement from Martin Luther King, Jr. In my opinion, Wilkinson did a great job of playing his version of President Lyndon B. Johnson. I think the President actually wanted to pass the legislation, but he did not have enough power to do it, and Martin Luther King, Jr. gave him the power or enlarged his power to pass the bill. Furthermore, there were a lot of powerful supporting actors, such as the film producer Oprah played a supporting character who wanted to vote, but could not vote in the movie. Also, Cuba Gooding Jr. acted a lawyer who only showed up twice in the movie. Even though there are many famous actors who played supporting characters in the movie, I think they did a good job to expressing each character’s emotions, and I respect them. Therefore, this movie Selma has a group of powerful and famous actors, and they all did a good job to perform in this movie. The movie Selma is an amazing movie, and it made a lot of people feel touched. When I went into the theater, there were a lot of African Americans and a few white people, and there were some Asian people like me. I could not pay my attention at the beginning of the movie because an African American little girl who sat in the front row kept laughing. When Tim Roth showed up at the scene, she laughed even harder than before. I did not know this girl, and I had no idea what she laughed about. Suddenly, I heard an old man walked up to her and said to the little girl, “Little girl, you better be quiet. I have been waiting this movie for many years.” I could feel how much the old man cared about this movie, and I knew that he really wanted to watch this movie carefully and intently. Also, I was glad that the little girl did not laugh again, so I could pay my attention on the movie. After two and a half hours, the movie ended with John Legend’s new song Glory, which was a nice song because I think this song helped me understand the feelings of the movie better. Suddenly, I saw the old man stood up, and he said out loud, “Remember Michael Brown, Remember Eric Garner. Our parade is not over yet.” I did not know this old man, and I did not really pay attention to what he said about. I thought this movie encouraged him something. Later, I did some research about what the old man said, and I found out that the two names that he mentioned were two African Americans who were dead because of some unfair reasons. Therefore, this movie made people sympathy because some people knew the feeling of inequality of people of color; also, I am an Asian, and some white people have treated me unfairly or looked down at me. This amazing movie not only made people touched, but also made me sympathy. In fact, I cried and laughed while I was watching the movie. Sometimes, there were funny scenes and dialogues that made me laugh right after some scenes made me cried. The reason I became sympathy about this movie is not only because of its powerful speech and memorable scenes, but also because I could directly feel the sadness, fear, anger, or determinations of the characters in the movie. I could see the struggles of how people fought for their freedom and equality and the feeling of how they really wanted the right to vote and freedom. Each actor put lots of emotions and effort to perform the characters, and each staff who worked behind the scenes tried their best to produce an amazing movie. Also, the background music helped me a lot to understand the feelings of the scenes. Therefore, staffs and actors put a lot of efforts into the movie, and they produced a wonderful movie that truly expresses the emotions of each character in the movie., which made me touched. From my point of view, I think people should go to watch this movie Selma because of its story, a group of powerful actors who accomplished their tasks on performing each character, and a group of staffs who put many efforts into the movie. This movie talked about an important political history that Martin Luther King, Jr. led a group of people to fight for the right to vote and freedom of African American. Also, there were a lot of powerful and famous actors who played main or supporting characters in the movie, and all of them perfectly accomplished their jobs to express each character’s feeling. Furthermore, staffs behind the scenes put music, set up the scenes, and edited the movie in order to make the movie powerful and emotional. Therefore, I think this movie is a very meaningful movie, and we should produce more movies like Selma. Work Cited“Selma (2014) Full Cast & Crew” Imdb. IMDb.com, Inc., 2014. Web. 14 March 2015.

《塞尔玛游行》影片讲述了60年代，在塞尔玛市黑人受到的不公的待遇，这其实是全美国的问题，影片集中在黑人对待公交车上不公平的政策出现了大游行。

马丁-路德金博士身为民权运动的代表人物，自然成了黑人领袖，他一直致力于黑人受歧视的努力，他发表过的《我有一个梦想》的演讲，使他上了《时代周刊》，获得了诺贝尔和平奖。

他主张非暴力游行，不对抗，静坐的方式，深受甘地的影响。

他主张黑人具有投票权，只要有了投票权，有了公民权力，才能保护黑人的自由，不受不公平法案限制。

据说，在1955年，一位黑人妇女因在公交车上不给白人让座，被法庭判了两年监禁，一系列的事件，引起了马丁-路德金参与了黑人运动。

经过努力，最终，约翰逊总统通过了法案，至此，黑人才终于有了选举权，可惜，马丁-路德金在1968年遭暗杀，享年39岁，美国人也投桃送李，每年都有马丁-路德金纪念日，在2011年还给他在国会前做了雕塑，之前只有华盛顿，林肯，罗斯福等总统才有的规格。

Resentfulness, inspiration, sadness… Those feelings were mixed in my heart after watching the film, and I could hardly tell. It reminded me of the lines in the book To Kill A Mockingbird: “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view…Until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.” I was just a person living in the contemporary time, watching a period of the unfair past revealing in front of my eyes by means of a film, an entertaining tool. I guess I could never share the similar feelings with those people, black men or white men, living in those days. But I admire those who fight for equality, even lost their lives. The plot was simple. The film focused on the event of marching from Selma to Montgomery, which was led by Martin Luther King in year 1965. All they wanted was the right for the black men to vote. This path to right was paved by many people’s sacrifices. But it was also because of the power and unity of people that they made it to the destiny. I was impressed by how David Oyelowo interprets the role of Martin Luther King. He just got the point. During the speech, he possessed the invisible power that could drive the audience’s emotions and inspire them. Moreover, he depicted a vivid King in everyday lives, ordinary but real. The hateful mayor George Wallace was successfully played by Tim Roth. The only pity is that I think the role of Lyndon Johnson (acted by Tom Wilkinson) was not fully interpreted. I would recommend that more positive participation he took in this activity could be added into the film. If so, then the march may mean a lot more. Besides the round characters, those flat characters surely surprise me. The producer Oprah Winfrey played the role of a woman who wanted but couldn’t vote. Her first scene was so impressive and moving. When I saw her slowly and carefully filled out the form and wrote “negro” on the “RACE” blank, my heart nearly stopped beating. Other minor characters such as Jimmie Lee Jackson (by Keith Stanfield), Coretta King (by Marmen Ejogo) are all successfully portrayed. Because of them, I was touched to tears for more than one time. Every character and actor is worth respecting. In the film, Dr. King said one thing that left me with a deep impression. He said, “You young people believe in working in the community in the long term, and raise black consciousness. What we do is negotiate, demonstrate and resist. We raise white consciousness.” I couldn’t agree more with him. It was said that one-third of those taking part in the march were white men. When Dr. King made the well-known speech I Had a Dream, it was reported that among 250 thousand audiences, 25% were white men. I think the reasons those white men were present was not only because they showed sympathy with the black men and desired for equality, but also that they showed up for themselves. There was no invitation or website announcing this speech, but an ocean of people appeared. What you do proves what you believe. And what Dr. King said on the speech precisely touched the audience. He was not only arguing for the black men, but also those who wanted the right and democracy. The speech was I had a dream, not I had a plan. He inspired the nation. That was his glamour. The film didn’t talk too much about Dr. King himself. It was about things around him. His friends, his wife, the suffering black men, the enemy, the era he was situated in, and his belief. We didn’t see him as a super hero, but as an ambitious person fighting for the right to vote. I would say that there was an invisible hand behind him, pushing him, and accomplishing the merge and trust between all races and societies in America. Maybe who Martin Luther King is doesn’t matter. He was not worth talking about. Maybe during a peaceful period of time he would be an ordinary person with an ordinary life. But he was worth reflecting upon and contemplating about. To some extent it was because of the time and place he was in that made him a big name. No one is a born hero. Maybe we should focus more on the situation and era. In recent months, in America, a trial of news about white police gunshot black people has caused range among residents. Should we blame that it is the setback of the era? In China there is an old saying that “taking the history as a mirror can know the rise and fall of a nation.” The film came into the spotlight at the right time. It does remind us of the past. Perhaps it is the time to reflect on ourselves. For some time I would think it was because of the media that sensationalized such news and made it too big to be reversible. If instead a white man got killed in this way, the responses would not be so heated like it was now. So for a country, there are definitely some scares that can’t be touched on. Ultimately, there is no absolute in the world. No absolute democracy, no absolute equality. But there can be absolute in the world, as long as we see those exceptions as the flaws during progression and deal with them positively and in a proper way. This then can be the improvement and progression of mankind. The background music was appropriate and nice. It managed to express the emotion and meaning of the film, and in the meantime drive my emotions ups and downs. However I also noticed there were some shots that were shaking, which made me uncomfortable. I remembered that in the film when the lady was handing in the form, the white man ruthlessly said to her, “I say right when it is right. ” However we strive, there is no absolute equality and right. Power is owned by a majority of people, not all. But this film, Selma, tells us how to strive for that we are eager for. It is conveying a spirit. “They hate us because they aren’t us.” But we are the darlings in our own eyes. Be what we are. The film tells us.

看完的第一感受是非常平和，这种平和在一部描述黑人平权的电影中能体现出来非常难得。

我们可以经常在网上看到许多关于黑人，同志，变性这些话题的讨论，美国最高法院也做出了同性恋婚姻合法的判决，我觉得这种现象非常好，很多生活在社会角落的人得到了承认，但是我看这部电影关注的不是塞尔玛这个事件的本身，而是电影对于这件事的表述手法，以一种娓娓道来，心平气和，不煽情，不做作的方式表现出来的历史态度，同时这是一位43岁的女导演的作品，我为这样睿智，大气的女导演鼓掌。

人不是神，不可能完美，电影中的马丁不完美，有心计，会出轨，但却最真实，他一定知道游行会有这样的后果，同样他也知道这样才能赢得舆论，获得关注，可以说是他把这些人送到对手的棍棒下，当然他们的牺牲赢得了民主的胜利，那么不把马丁路德金描述成一个完美的英雄，而是真实还原一个肉身的马丁，这一点本身就很难得，一个美国记者说，不感恩戴德是一个强大民族的性格，这部电影对马丁的刻画也表现了这位女导演成熟的电影态度。

影片中马丁非暴力的游行方式和整部电影的基调是吻合的，就是一种平和，不激进。

看完这部电影没有痛哭流涕或者震撼人心，但是电影表现出来的理智让我非常赞赏。

另外我想起梅厄夫人在联合国关于以色列建国时的演讲，她不是在哭诉犹太人这些年来的悲惨遭遇，而是把重点放在这个民族是如何在苦难中艰难前行，顽强生存的一面，博得别人的同情是最坏的一张牌，赢得别人的尊重是最好的一张牌。

I have a dream. ——Martin Luther King50多年前的美国，是一个种族主义横行、内有冲突外有战争的美国。

在这个公平正义开始被国家机器践踏侮辱的时代，马丁·路德·金站了出来，用一次次的游行与演讲号召黑人兄弟姐妹们将民权的声音传遍四方。

50年后的美国，一部讲述黑人抗争史中插曲被搬到荧幕上，以原名《赛尔玛》讲述着那些光荣斗争的岁月。

电影开篇是金博士身在瑞典荣获诺贝尔和平奖，而后前往白宫接受总统接见。

一切看起来已经走向和平的结局。

但就在平静中，一个南方小镇再度点燃了黑人们心中的怒火。

教堂中做礼拜开心归家的黑人女孩们被炸弹炸死，听到号召的博士再度离开可爱孩子与温柔妻子的身边，只身卷入一场争夺黑人选举权。

而在阿拉巴马州的赛尔玛，这座美国黑人问题最严重的南方小城，在这里，他遇到了故事的反派——乔治华莱士。

这个种族主义者的坚定捍卫者此刻坐在州府一把手的位上，十分愤怒的等待与金博士的对决。

说实话，如有可能华莱士先生的政治人生一样能精彩到被搬上荧幕，但可惜此刻他只是个固执的成见者，一个凶狠的刽子手，一名决心同民权运动死斗到底的“志士”。

于是金博士将自己的愤怒和同情用言语传达给了小镇黑人同胞，告诉占绝大多数的他们起来反对不让他们投票的专制。

于是人们走向街头，用非暴力的行动寻求着权利。

可华莱士哪会理会这些“暴民”？

对付他们，一群凶神恶煞敲敲打打还会开枪的州警就够了。

于是暴力威胁和污蔑丑化这群不听话的黑人成为掌权者们的灵丹妙药。

给当事人打恐吓电话、袭击领头学生，百般阻挠游行者的日常生活，华莱士为了驱赶这群被他看来是得寸进尺目无礼法的黑老粗下尽了功夫，甚至找到了FBI把金博士曾经招妓之事录下来寄给金博士之妻。

面对这些，妻子的大度与谅解让金明白，自己的奋斗不坚持到成功便毫无意义，自己也将成为平凡的抗争者。

联合学生组织第一次游行时马丁和大家在桥上被州警追着敲打，不甘示弱的金号召全国同情心爆棚的白人来到小镇开始第二次游行结果获得了深夜一位白人牧师惨死街头的报复。

回到小镇，马丁陷入深深的自责与怀疑中。

马尔科姆X的暴力对抗是否有用？

妻子对自己的怀疑与不信任感究竟如何解决？

面对游行分歧的领导者们究竟如何协调？

一长串的问题萦绕脑中让马丁头疼不已，面对狡猾的总统、固执的警长，马丁感到绝望。

开车回家的路上，李用马丁自己的话解开了马丁自己的疑惑：“我们会最终取胜，我们一定会取胜，因为不会有其他结果”。

是啊，面对已经走过半载的民权之路早已没有后退可言，无论如何进步总会到来，暴力的威胁不是害怕的理由。

重鼓勇气的金再一次站了起来，黑人兄弟们在白人们复杂的眼光下从塞尔玛走向蒙哥马利议会大厦，马丁路德金发表了一场震撼人心的演讲。

至此影片结束，可黑人维权和民主法治的美国梦之路还要继续走下去。

但赛尔玛无疑成了里程碑，让被欺压的黑人从压抑和悲观中解脱出来，呼吸到了同属他们的自由和胜利气息。

《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。

影片集中讲述的是在马丁路德金推动领导下的塞尔玛大游行及其后美国投票权法案的通过历程，有着满满的正能量，在如今种族矛盾仍比较尖锐的美国来说是有不少现实意义。

但从中看到的美国政法体制的改革与推动却是有多处值得借鉴及思考，政府允许什么形式的、什么程度的民主诉求，媒体如何可以做到在什么底线上的新闻自由，司法可以做到什么程度的独立，进而政客可以有多少程度的牵制与敬畏，从而促出符合民意及历史规律的条文，而这，几乎是环环相扣。

但是，却没有普遍性，只是时势造英雄，严厉点说，这事放在美国是有可推崇的进步意义，而放在其他国家就是需要借鉴而必须严防的，而这部《selma》，最终也只是美国文化的又一次失败侵袭。

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。

导演: 艾娃·德约列主演: 蒂姆·罗斯 / 小库珀·古丁 / 汤姆·威尔金森 / 科曼 / 大卫·奥伊罗 / 卡门·艾乔戈 / 维德尔·皮尔斯 / 洛莱妮·图桑特 / 泰莎·汤普森 / Niecy Nash / 凯斯·斯坦菲尔德 / Jeremy Strong / 科瑞·雷诺兹 / Stephan James / Andre Holland类型: 剧情, 历史地区: 英国, 美国片长: 122分钟上映: 2014-12-25(美国)