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。

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。

The political lessons behind SelmaAll right, this is not going to be a review of Selma, not even a synopsis, as what 99% so called review in douban actually are. It touches on the hidden lessons of Selma. But don't expect I will talk about the obvious black-white conflict or current issues in Ferguson, Missouri.哈好吧，这不是一篇属于Selma的影评，连读后感都不是。

我说它是属于Selma的政治课，但是，它其实连黑人问题的毛都没动。

The shadowy political lessons Selma convolutes into the sub-consciousness of its viewer. They cast lights onto the current political issues, hence below the scenarios if we solve current issues with Selma wisdom: Be cautious that the content below may contain spoiler. 警告，以下内容脑洞大开。

1.Palestinian Israeli conflictWhat do you think would be the best way to solve Palestinian Israeli problem and bring peace into Gaza? Pressure onto Benjamin Netanyahu and his Israeli government to sign the peaceful treaty to acknowledge the two states solution, right? But the question is, how.. All right, don't tell me Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas are going to the ICC (International Criminal Court) for a reconciliation. Hamas and Palestinians are losing their golden opportunity when they fought back with terrorism against Israel. What can Palestinians do with a couple of human bombs when faced with the missiles and drones from Israel…. See what Martin Luther King was doing - inciting public anger against by provoking the opponents to act violently. George Wallace was a born fool to react against the Selma march with violent and tear gas. The televised violent scenes went viral, whites joined and the astonished and enraged public pushed President Lyndon Johnson to pass the bill to congress.The hotly discussed occupying central movement in Hongkong was another lively case. Killings with tanks as in 1989 did not occur, much to the western media’s disappointment. So the event went on calmly. True there are featured coverages for those curiosities from western world to find fulfilment. But as enthusiasm from both the outside and inside died, occupiers retreated. So I would say, good luck Palestine in the ICC…… 以上摘要，巴勒斯坦和Hamas是傻X，几个人肉炸弹斗得过以色列无人机和导弹么。

学习人家MJK怎么激起群众 愤怒的，先挑起对方动手，打不还手，然后靠舆论压力迫使总统讨论选举法案。

这种时候，谁先动手谁就输了。

占中神马的大家多乖，西媒预期的坦克都没有。。

好桑心的样子，头条又没了，也只能三版了（哦我说的真的不是太阳报）。

2.The strength of non-violence and Charlie HebdoAs we have already touched on this subject, non-violence is key strategy to win over public support. So in the issue of Charlie Hebdo, the most sensible ways for islamic fundamentalists are probably – fight back, with another mockery on the mockery of disrespectful western infidel. However, the western rule is not played by the terrorists, for whom the offenders of blasphemy should face death. 对这个问题，有个神回答说，恐怖分子你肿么玩不起，人家骂你你干嘛打人，还把人打死了。

套用上边的范式，恐怖分子，这场舆论战，你先动手的，你输了。

恐怖分子可不是这个逻辑。

亵渎神灵就该死，不然你以为我恐怖分子是浪得虚名啊。

坏孩子逻辑知道吗，谁让你上课笑我做不出题，下课就要挨揍。

3.Two faces of terrorism and double standard Who doesn't have two faces of evil and divine? Who doesn't use double standard whenever personal feelings are involved? Such is the fact that ISIS has its modified Islamic law. Blasphemy is rewarded with beheading. Therefore the calmness and gentile of the Paris criminals were so shocking and disturbing. There are countless works depicting the complexity of human nature and thus sides of criminals and police. So there might one day the other face of terrorists. Such is the fact that the western governments have double standards on ethnic issues ranging from overreaction out of political correctness in criminal investigation of Dieudonné over his speech defending terrorists (which is obviously against free speech) to old fashioned discrimination in the dark Ferguson nights.Religious laws are seemingly in conflict with the democratic and humanitarian western systems. But what in deep rift is, as the most tragedy in the film, irreconcilable collision between various edges of human complexity. 以上提要：恐怖分子也能有血有肉，“正义人士”亦会两面三刀。

价值准则没有谁对谁错，人性惨淡才是悲剧根源。

4.States of failed public scrutinyThere are states with failed public scrutiny where the above public pressure doesn't exist anymore. Tight control on media freedom encourages social injustice and state terror of massacre of its own citizens. Tragedies stage unchecked in countries like Myanmar, Syria and Egypt to name a few. Ironically, when the suppressed do fight back, few sympathy would be felt by the victim this time…. Just like the Kunming massacre was coldly received in the international community. When no one can judge with confidence the nature of such a murder, it is the victim to be blame for inviting such a violence.Indeed, I am actually wondering why the terrorists attack did not occur in India, China or Russia where the Muslim population are miserably treated? Is it because these countries are too uninteresting to be attacked and cause public chaos, or is it because the control of religion is so tight that normal teachings are ruled out, let alone fundamentalism ideas? Therefore European is becoming the warm bed of extremists.. So should anyone wish to stay distant from the public, either stay strong and independent, or get ready to swallow the bitter part. For anyone wishing to stay in the community, a backfire might be ready.5.Executive power and failed democracyIt’s fairly strange that I am putting the cliche of failed democracy as the last lesson. It is simply because it is least relevant. Lyndon Johnson might have wanted to sign the bill already, but he could not persuade his congress to pass it. Poor mister president cannot force the passage of any state command unless he has the executive power. So Obama is hungry for executive power at such a low support rate from the congress. From the much failed Obamacare to the quarrel on Middle East action. Obama is distinctly a loser. But who isn’t? I don't believe David Cameron or Angela Merkel is having a sweeter time with their parliaments. The poignant love is cursed and, politicians in such democracy are doomed to fail themselves from the first day of their inauguration because they are just one against many.So what is the best antidote? Martin Luther King has taught you: make the public support for dear mister president. Chinese should be praised as they are unravelled masters of this dark art of gaming theory (水) and expectation management (军). If there is one leading third sector industry that Chinese can export with uncontested advantage, it is not the culture of charismatic and meritocratic autocracy, it is the manipulation of mass expectation. World’s leader matching on the Paris street, you will win your war against terror if you hire our 水军. It (魔) is (高) a (一) war (尺) of mentality and morality (道), you (高) know (一) it (仗). 上面正是：白宫一入深似海，黑奥空哀内阁远。

唐宁十号丫鬟乱，小卡莫妈讳莫深。

天下事，管我毛，洗洗睡觉是王道。

莫问博士研究啥，多请吃饭感情牢。

所有向往“美国梦”的人，恐怕看了这部电影要失望了，因为这部电影明确的告诉你：美国梦，不是对于所有人都是平等的。

明白这个道理当然并不意味着什么，它的深刻之处在于，这种不平等所带的对于种族和肤色的歧视和杀戮是多么的惨无人道和蛮不讲理，我想请你们记住，这是发生在一个标榜自由和平等的国家，这是一件发生在1965年的新近故事，这是一个看似完结，其实永无终点的历程。

故事的开篇不是讲马丁路德金的斗争历程，这个时候的金已经在林肯纪念堂前发表了那篇震撼人心的演讲，他的人权运动也取得巨大的成功，为此，在电影开篇，他就获得了诺贝尔和平奖，之后，他受到总统接见，在总统看来，金的事业已经差不多了，所以，不要让他从越战上再度分心，金听出了总统的深意，他想断然拒绝，却欲言又止，在他的心里，行动远比言语重要，他要回到黑人当中，忘记那些荣耀，再度的和那些黑人同胞一起，走向下一个胜利。

他将目标选在投票权上，地点是塞尔玛。

这座城市是美国黑人问题最严重的阿拉巴马州的一座小城，在这里，他遇到了故事的反派——乔治华莱士，这个人是种族主义者的坚定支持者，我觉得如果有可能，他的人生同样是一个精彩的电影故事，但在这部电影中，他只是个固执的成见者，一个凶狠的刽子手。

于是，双方开始爆发矛盾，在电影中，矛盾有三个：第一个矛盾，白人与黑人的矛盾，这个矛盾最终激化的结果是，一个黑人被白人警察无故打死，在这件事上，总统约翰逊保持了沉默，显然，它激怒了那些并未加入民权运动的黑人，并在一定程度上引起了白人种族的同情。

第二个矛盾，美国情报局利用收集到的情报恶意攻击马丁路德金，破坏其领袖形象，在电影中，这主要涉及金的家庭矛盾，他的妻子坚定地支持金的事业，但却饱受各种恐吓与威胁，她想确信金是否还爱她，对于这份事业是否还坚定不移，他们的爱情在最终经受住了考验。

第三个矛盾，白人同情者遭到了塞尔玛当地警察的围殴，结果，致其死亡，在这里，多多少少涉及到了一点3K党的故事，但是电影并没有展开，这也是美国历史最为黑暗的一部分，也正是由于这位白人同情者的死亡，巨大的民愤在美国被激起，于是，约翰逊终于不能沉默，不能保持其中立立场（其实暗地里反对民权运动），站出来，承若会兑现黑人的投票权，马丁路德金终于达成了自己的胜利。

在影片最后，黑人从塞尔玛走向蒙哥马利的游行震撼人心，这是一场多么来之不易的胜利，在蒙哥马利的议会大厦，马丁路德金发表了一场震撼人心的演讲，我不知道这已经是第几次说“震撼人心的演讲”这个词了，但毫无疑问，这场压轴的演讲是精彩无比的，它让我们从压抑和悲观中解脱出来，呼吸到了自由和胜利的气息！

影片在此戛然而止，结束的干净利落，是的，作为传记片，它所传达的作用已经达到，但是，作为历史呢？

也就是在故事的三年后，即1968年4月，马丁·路德·金在前往孟菲斯市，领导工人罢工后，被人刺杀，那一年他年仅39岁，领导美国民权运动12载！

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《塞尔玛游行》，至今仍在感动中。

虽然身在大洋的彼岸，也没有亲身的体验过种族歧视的感觉。

但是我有感受到地域的歧视。

由于家乡太过于贫穷，我们很多人被迫离家到其他地方寻一口饭。

我们的抱团取暖，有时可能会让人误解，也有一部分的人素质不够高，受教育程度比较低，名声在时间的流逝中慢慢的败坏。

我们不敢表明自己的籍贯，怕一说，别人就一脸的了然，然后说：哦，听说你们那里人怎样怎样。

可我身边没有这样的人，他们辛勤劳动，他们不偷不抢，他们和蔼可亲，我不想让他们蒙受这样的莫须有的骂名，所以我一般难以启齿我来自于哪里。

可是在美国，黑人面对的不仅仅是这些简单简单的不痛不痒的骂名，而是他们被剥夺的选举权，他们被禁止的言论自由，甚至于他们没有作为人的尊严与平等生存的权利和宝贵的生命。

黑人在公交要让座与白人，没有选举的权利，他们被随意的殴打，枪杀，法律形同于虚设，宪法上的自由平等被种族的歧视所践踏。

我不禁的愕然，这是在20世纪世界最强大，制度最民主的美国吗！

对于马丁路德金，我找不到一个贴切的词来去赞颂他的伟大。

无惧威胁，无惧辱骂，无惧殴打，一直坚持着民主斗士形象。

他的演讲，入木三分，慷慨激昂，极具力量，给人信心。

佩服他，一直很理性的让游行的人们不要以暴力来面对暴力。

这得具备多大的勇气。

我记忆犹新他初到塞尔玛，被一白人重重打了一拳，却没有反击，以身做到他的主张；吉米的死，让他痛苦万分，动摇了他的初心，他要的是选举权，不想为了游行牺牲了谁；白人牧师应征到塞尔玛，却惨遭不幸让他愤怒万分，打电话总统，请求早点通过法案，希望吉米家属也能得到总统同样的问候；在约翰的劝说，关心自己的生命安全，他说；他躲不了，所有人都躲不了，他时刻怀着慷慨就义的心。

感谢影片还原了一个鲜活的马丁路德金，有血有肉。

他的伟岸，望尘莫及，他的理念，永垂不朽！

最后便是影片中浓浓的宗教虔诚。

宗教的信仰，让疲惫不堪的马丁路德金得到力量，走出困惑，坚持走下去；宗教的信仰，让许许多多的白人，不远万里，奔赴塞尔玛，参加游行，为黑人声张正义，争取平等；宗教的信仰让无数的黑人们，在绝望中，依然乐观面对，不畏前路的坎坷崎岖，当下痛失至亲的痛苦。

他们选择主，他们坚信主，主一定不忍心他们收到不平等对待，光明必将降临！

我羡慕美国民众的公民意识。

记得马丁神父在波斯顿犹太人屠杀纪念碑上书：当他们来抓共产主义者的时候，我没有站出来反对，我想我反正不是共产主义者。

当他们来抓犹太人的时候，我没有站出来反对，我想我反正不是犹太人。

当他们来抓工会组织者的时候，我没有站出来反对，我想我反正不是工会的人。

当他们来抓天主教徒的时候，我没有站出来反对，我想我反正不是天主教徒。

后来，当他们来抓我的时候，已经没有人能站出来为我说话了。

我倾向于自由党派站出来的原由不止于这个考虑以后有为他说话的人。

更重要的是他们的宗教信仰。

在美国，宗教氛围很浓，绝大多数人都有自己的信仰，并恪守它，用它来指引自己的生活。

也可以说，他们信仰的教条是他们共同的契约。

这契约中有，自由，平等，民主！

他们的宗教信仰力量在一定程度上，可视同于法律。

我想，我们的国民公民意识远没有美国强，在于我们没有这样的契约信仰。

我们没有信仰敬畏我们的法律，所以有那么多的贪污腐败，徇私枉法。

我们把我们的敬畏交给了虚无缥缈没有即时效力的神明，祈求用道德的约束，自觉遵守秩序。

可我们都知道，在一个没有强制力社会，这些是远远不够的。

我的理想社会是一个法制高度发达的社会，人民守法，敬法，护法！

法律虽然是死板的，但却是不可歪解的，公平的，我宁愿在高度法制的牢笼接受审判，也不愿在讲人情冷暖的舒适床上苟活。

写到这，发现自己写的不是影评，而是自己对影片的所感之处，不喜请拉过。

After watching the film, I was particularly（特别是） impressed by Martin Luther King, who was heavily punched（被击打） by white people when he first arrived in Selma. We may not have experienced racial discrimination （种族歧视）in our lives, but the inequality（不平等) and discrimination（歧视） of white people against black people shown in the film makes the audience outrage.As for Martin Luther King, I think he was great. He was not afraid of threats（威胁）, nor did he give in to insults（侮辱）. His speech was impassioned（慷慨激昂的） and inspiring（鼓舞人心的）.Born man, who is no more than one noble（高贵）, who is no less than one lowly. This movie is true and profound（深刻的）, which makes me look forward to the world of freedom（自由） and equality（平等）forever. （暑假作业，请见谅）

不得不说，下飞机没多久就看午夜场，很累，加上电影开头确实不是那么简单、容易消化，前二十分钟实在有些难以集中，几次差点睡着。

但随着电影中的气氛一点点积攒、升温，紧张感加强，就这样一点点build up，我竟变得异常清醒。

而且画面的处理也非常好评，视觉的冲击力极大地弥补了因电影的困难（其实困难这个词用的不是那么贴切，但又一时想不出如何形容，意会吧）而带来的沉闷。

总之，整体的情绪把握非常到位，加上超强的BGM，最后还是很震撼的感觉。

尤其因为当时我在美国，更能体会那样的心理，但文化之间的差异还是会影响很多人的欣赏，令人觉得枯燥、甚至是没必要的压抑。

打四分一点是因为文化差异必定是大问题，令一点就是作为一部具有历史性的影片不够严谨，不过为了不剧透就不再细说。

不是传统的传记片，它甚至不是一部传记片。

有人会埋怨，看罢此片，我们并没有对杰姬了解太多。

她甚至会显得更神秘，因为为她脱离了庸俗公共印象中的浅薄。

Jackie是一部室内心理剧而非特殊时期的史诗，是一出关于情感的印象派歌剧而不是从摇篮到坟墓的个人编年史。

由于它叙述的是一种极端的、在时间上狭窄的、悲恸的处境，由于它的影像蕴含一种碾压式的亲密感，我们其实很难窥见到杰姬的"全貌"。

电影只想讲述杰姬生命中的一个黑洞，表现这个处于情感漩涡的女人的稠密而游离的情感，然后表达一些关于人的情感的普遍主题和特殊的政治主题（如何保护逝者的遗产和美国政治神话的制造）。

它并不真的是一部关于杰姬的电影，它是关于杰姬的记忆，杰姬的悲伤，杰姬的内疚，杰姬的信仰，杰姬想把自己虚构的历史写进书面历史记载的企图。

Jackie整部电影的悲剧基调和葬礼氛围让人联想到«呼喊与细语»，同样的充满大特写的室内心理剧，同样关于死亡和后事。

和伯格曼其他一些电影一样，人物是疏远的，彼此间如此，对于观众亦是如此，大特写的亲密反而造成一种离间，他们的极端情感往往具有抽象的、象征的意味，揭示出深层的或分裂的自我。

观看Jackie时我也感到和杰姬的一种奇怪的疏远，并不是因为电影没有像一般化传记电影那样，让我们和她共同经历生活曲折所带来的大喜大悲，而是我无法用感同身受这个词。

如果说和伯格曼的人物的疏远是因为大特写下她们的极端情感的癫狂和不可理喻性，那杰姬和我的疏远则来自于她的痛苦超出了我的经验范围，所以我的观影情感是一个逐渐积累的过程，不仅是逐渐适应杰姬与众不同的仪态举止，更是逐渐融入她的痛苦和纠结的心理世界。

《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。