塞尔玛

一部关于马丁路德金的电影。

我有一段时期非常崇拜这个人，如今可是没有时间了。

六年前还心血来潮翻译了一篇他的演讲《I've been to Mountain top》，花了我不少时间，但是我要说一边听录音一边看英文，然后想着怎么翻译过程很享受。

说说电影，刚开始，感觉人不像，但是演讲的腔调还是有板有眼的，中规中矩。

看到最后也就接受了，但是背影倒是很像的。

每个国家都有一本难念的经，美国也一样，60年代外面是越南战争，国内是种种的运动，正是《阿甘正传》的时代。

不过在新闻自由上，美国这一点绝对的可圈可点，警察用催泪瓦斯、棒子、鞭子、枪对付那些手无寸铁的黑人，居然电视上可以现场直播，几千万人同时可以看到。

佩服佩服。

这在中国完全没有可能性。

一个国家不敢正视自己的历史，怕把历史的真实展现出来，会有报应的而且是现世报。

而且这报应还会一代一代传下去。

没有历史的国家，靠着瞒和骗的国家，不可能真正的fuxing。

在当前的国际社会风云变幻下看这部电影，莫名感慨。

自由民主平等博爱貌似在慢慢进步了，突然，有那么个特殊时点特殊地点特殊事件，温情脉脉的面纱乍然撕开，狰狞的真相刺瞎了世人的双眼。

人性要战胜兽性是不是一场没有尽头的拉锯战，衣食无忧世界太平时候是一副光景，利益冲突你抢我夺时候又是另一副光景。

那些莫名优越霸凌同类者们请把此片当作每日的圣经吧，一日三省，尤其是身居高位者别干蠢事别说蠢话，生而为人要善良。

大赞金博士，冷静理智勇敢坚定地引领弱势群体争取正当权利。

今日的华莱士州长又回血重生，今日的金博士你在何方。

记得是在看转播的奥斯卡颁奖，表演了电影《塞尔玛》的原创歌曲《Glory》，黑人演员们重现了毅然决然的走过大桥时的坚定与勇气，气势磅礴，歌曲结束全场起立鼓掌，扮演剧中马丁路德金的演员泪流满面。

后来过了好久找了电影来看，前前后后看了三遍，永远都无法忘记，居住在塞尔玛的黑人居民，明知道走过大桥，桥的那一端就是人间炼狱，等待他们的是警棍，是催泪瓦斯，是令所有人都无法容忍的滔天罪行，甚至是死亡，但是他们还是坚定的走了过去。

这个场景至今无法忘记。

《塞尔玛》。

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.

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。

《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。

黑人的主旋律电影。

美国种族问题神马的从来都不是新闻，而估计是由于某些问题的考量，马丁路德金从来也没有在中国的教科书上大书特书过。

这电影，好的地方，是没有死抓马丁路德金不放，而把视觉也放在了其他普通被人身上。

不过，由于是黑人主旋律电影，白人的角色就...大家懂的。

反正金博士已经死了，或许也是好事，死于壮年，死于名望的巅峰，才能封神。

主旋律之外感受更深的是，人没必要去热爱自己无法选择的东西。

出身、父母、国家、文化、信仰包括长相…你只是刚好幸运出生在了一个美满家庭没有禽兽不如的双亲，形象尚可，地域政局稳定，每天享受到的物质条件是很多人穷其一生也无法得到的稀有资源。

而那些出生在贫困战乱地区没有信仰自由的地球公民呢

在丝毫不了解这段历史得情况下来看，会显得有些漫长，不过看完之后恰恰勾起了我对这段历史的好奇心电影地色调配乐很合我心，好几个镜头非常震撼我一个炸弹瞬间将几个闲聊地小女孩炸没了

一群警员压着绿衣妇女往地下去，她挣扎地表情

被警察毫不犹豫地枪杀

在烟雾中隐隐约约挥着警棍地骑警而那位女士鼓舞夫人时说的那番话也极为妙，在那么艰难地环境下，一个民族生生不息地原因，大概就是民族自信。

在白人刻意营造地黑人“低贱”社会地位下，不受环境影响，为自己地肤色血脉感到自豪，坚定不移

在这部电影中，没有一面倒地宣扬金博士，而是多方位地展示了作为一个领导者，一个活生生地人在做这件事时背后地情绪与波折是人都会有胆怯，对未来地不确定，对自己所做事情对错地迷茫

不是一腔热血就能成事儿地，会有争执、牺牲、背叛、疲惫、安慰、和恐惧“我们争取到餐桌上的位置 可是要没有足够的钱买汉堡 又如何能帮助黑人朋友吃上午餐呢 更糟的是 连菜单上的字都看不懂 因为他出生的地方没有黑人学校 这算什么？

平等吗？

” 我很难感同身受地体会到这种困境，但我目前身处地这个世界的的确确是在被这些人一砖一瓦地填满。

也在这么一瞬间，让我觉得日子可期，活着就能看见更多世界在慢慢变好，变得更丰富，变得更包容也对活着的每一天怀有感激之心每一个我们习以为常的今日，都是过往先辈一砖一瓦铺平地路

赶上BLM于是Amazon Prime限免。

本来以为是个如《林肯》一般令人昏昏欲睡的片子但是看了10分钟之后发现完全不是那么回事。

本片没有小马丁路德金牧师（以下简称MLK）塑造成一个高大全形象，从一个胜利走向另一个胜利，反倒是化了不少时间拍MLK如何沮丧退缩徘徊艰难地向妻子坦白出轨，使得人物形象更丰富也更真实。

本片也是一部美国黑人如何争取投票权的简史。

理论上美国宪法第十三修正案赋予黑人投票权但是南方州用人头税和教育测试。

片中阿拉巴马州SELMA一个黑人大妈去注册投票，注册员先是让她背宪法序言然后再问阿拉巴马总共有几个县，大妈都答上来了结果再被刁难说要把县治安官的名字一个个都报出来。

另一方面因为黑人没有投票权州一级行政立法司法机构都被白人种族主义者把持，针对黑人的种族仇杀层出不穷，如电影里表现的伯明翰四女孩。

看片的时候可能要了解一下知识背景。

于是为了争取关注MLK组织了从SELMA到阿拉巴马首府蒙哥马利的进军以推动赋予黑人实质投票权的立法。

影片展现MLK如何动员，如何协调组织内部的分歧，如何将暴行展示在媒体尤其是电视媒体前，如何同更激进的Malcolm X分进合击，如何预演可能遇到的冲突，如何争取总统林登约翰逊（LBJ），如何争取国际同情，如何在法院挑战对行军的禁令，如何唤起白人尤其是宗教人士的支持和加入，如何认怂，如何安排后勤保障，如何安排医疗救护。

有勇有谋，简直如百科全书一般。

电影里MLK问LBJ，为啥美国能派成千上万的人去越南打仗，却无法派军队去阿拉巴马保护美国人民，LBJ哑口无言。

60年代民权运动之所以能取得胜利，跟美军深陷越战泥潭不无关系。

最后要说的是MLK的演说真的是很富有感染力，比后来那位同肤色的诺贝尔和平奖得主也就强个几十倍吧。