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.

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）

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。

F37:《塞尔玛》～导演：艾瓦.德约烈～从色调到化妆，电影一开始，你有点分不清，这部，应该是什么时期拍摄的电影，当配乐出来，你才抓到，只有现在的电影，音乐本身的录音以及与电影的贴合，才可以做得这样细腻，明显，导演是想让观众去掉时间的距离，回原到美国的60年代，体会黑人人权运动的艰辛与不懈～马丁.路德.金，这位诺贝尔和平奖得主，在黑人人权运动中，时刻用着生命来努力，用生命来争取，以最大的能来追求人权所应有的平等与权力...～昨天刚看完日本编剧桥本忍的那本书《我与黑泽明》，今天电影，有了从未有过的体会，电影分成了段，段的由来以及形成，每一位的表情和台词，段与段的连接、推进，血与肉慢慢的丰满，支撑起一部感人的电影～音乐和电影，在这部里面，音乐也承担着重要的角色，它直接跟那个时代连接了起来，我想，美国人应该更有体会。

似乎听到了鲍勃.迪伦的歌声，可能不是，类似，60年代初期，他也曾经为有色人群呼喊助威，他们的那个年代，年轻人需要分辨、可以分辨，有不同的选择，试想那个年代中国的情况，一代人被混绕意志、转变意志，消弱意志，最后磨灭意志，那隔空的一代文化，成了永远无法弥补的空缺与遗憾...～说回音乐，影片里面黑人的音乐，你细细聆听，每一个字，都来自灵魂的申诉与渴求，代入电影，是电影的另一种语言。

有我经常听的贝拉方提卡耐基上的一首歌，这位歌手，也是黑人人权运动的积极者，虽然他们受着久远以来的不公平，但黑人音乐里面，着自由的韵律，音乐是平等的，人权，也应该是平等的～这部影片，配乐里面，我最不喜欢的，是那次游行过后，一位年轻黑人被枪杀，然后路德金去安慰这位80多岁的爷爷那个桥段，沉痛氛围里，钢琴中低的声音在那里连贯着，那个声音，这时候，过于的华丽，如果轻微的以点状方式配合对话出现，轻轻浮点，只要延续一点悲意与坚强，就足够了～最好的配乐，我也觉得，路德金在听她老婆放的电话录音那个桥段，只有对话，在静默中展现两人的无奈，深深地抓住你，完全空白的背景音，没有配乐，只有对白，有时候，少一点，比多一点更可贵，沉默，也是一种声音～导演艾瓦.德约烈，黑人女导演，她身上有我熟悉的影子，但是，我确实没有看过她的片子，非常不错，非常棒的导演！

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。

正得不得了的传记+历史的美国主旋律电影，当历史科普教材看还是不错。

几段演讲都挺赞的，无论是金的缅怀，鼓动，振臂还是州长的偏激，总统的淡定都各有风格，演讲调子和节奏有种歌唱的味道我走偏了。

还是由衷尊敬民权斗士，无论这句话看上去有多虚幻，有些事情远在天边近在眼前，真切感受过才知道可贵。

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。

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。

）

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。