我虽不明了莎士比亚 Caesar 的剧情, 但 Good Night, And Good Luck 里面 CBS 主播 Edward Murrow 引用的那句: Cassius was right, 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.' 真是画龙点睛! 根据板友提供的原剧本和翻译, 这句话的寓意大概是: 要想有更美好的明天, 就看我们自己今天怎麽做. 把这层寓意反扣回该剧的剧情, 尤其是 Murrow 在演讲中所提到的, 反对 McCaethyism 的时代意义, 再对照 1960 年代以来民权运动发展的轨迹, 在在可见美国的抗暴传统, 给这个国家和人民带来的珍贵思想遗产 -- 这是一个有自省能力和思想活力的社会. 美国联邦体系虽管理着一个不折不扣的现代帝国, 但这个帝国的臣民却多的是不怕凯撒 的 Cassius 和 Brutus, 处处可能出个张良或谭嗣同, 人人能跟你处士横议歪打正着; 这样一个充满批判性和活力的公民社会, 最低限度, 断不可能出现一呼百诺的专制独夫. 这套用在开发中国家或嫌罗唆, 放在新陈代谢重於扩张发展的已开发强国倒是恰到好处. ※ 引述《filmwalker (梦想起飞的季节)》之铭言： : http://city.udn.com/v1/blog/article/article.jsp?uid=chenglee&f_ART_ID=260743 : 作者 : 雪梨情缘 : Good Night. And, Good Luck! 是电影《晚安，祝你好运》中主角记者艾德华蒙洛 : 在其节目结束前做为结尾的一句话，听他念得真是好听。也感谢让我找到了网志签名档。 : 《晚安，祝你好运》乔治克隆尼自编、自导、自演的电影，以黑白片方式拍摄， : 加上间杂配以当时的爵士歌曲，让全片看来犹如老纪录片般有着怀旧的艺术气息。 那个时代, 电视主播可以大喇喇地拿着根点燃的香菸播报新闻, 世界变得真是多啊... [恕删节] : 电影描写美国50年代时的恐共气氛下，来自威斯康辛州的麦卡锡参议员趁机大搞政治运作 : ，随意指控、诬陷无辜同僚与官员，甚及於任何反对他任意指控的人是共产党或其同路人 : ，让全美陷入一片白色恐怖，将恐惧扩大到人人害怕如惊弓之鸟，就在人民的言论及 : 新闻自由面临空前未有的打压与迫害时，以CBS哥伦比亚电视台的记者艾德华蒙洛 : （Edward R. Murrow, 大卫史翠森饰）和他的节目制作人佛瑞德芬德利 : （Fred W. Friendly, 乔治克隆尼饰）为首的节目团队记者六位，决心挺身而出对抗， : 揭穿麦卡锡制造恐怖的卑劣行径。他们在人身和工作可能遭受迫害下，成功的扳倒麦卡锡 : ，宣扬了公义与自由。 : 大卫史翠森演主角记者艾德华蒙洛，演得真是出色，把以媒体为悍卫全民权利、权益与 : 自由人权的记者角色演得真好，这样成功塑造了两个偶像，一个真实中的记者和演员自己 : 。乔治克隆尼演得也蛮有趣的，不过更佩服他编导的功力，虽然90来分就结束得好像有点 : 快，不过他大量运用的那些爵士乐包括名家柯尔波特、纳京高、艾灵顿公爵、 : 艾拉费兹杰拉、路易阿姆斯壮等大师的名曲，还邀当代爵士女伶黛安瑞芙在电影中演唱 : 诠释，真是极为出色，令人激赏，这夺下今年第48届葛莱美奖最佳爵士演唱奖的 : 电影原声专辑，该去买。那当时的爵士乐和黑白拍摄真是非常成功烘托出时代的氛围。 下面分享一些我从这部电影里面抄下来的 lines: 首先, 看看 CBS 主播 Edward R. Murrow 是怎麽跟恐共气氛弥漫的军方杠上的: [Edward R. Murrow] Good evening. A few weeks ago, there occurred a few obscure notices in the newspaper about a Lieutenant Milo Radulovich, a lieutenant in the Air Force Reserves, and also something about Air Force regulation 35-62, that is a regulation that states that a man may be regarded as a security risk if he has close and con- tinuing association with Communists or people who believed to have Communist sympathies. Lieutenant Radulovich was asked to resign in August – he declined. A board was called and heard his case. At the end it was recommended that ha be se- vered from the Air Force, although there was also stated that there was no question whatever as to the lieutenant's loyalty. We propose to examine, insofar as we can, the case of Lieutenant Radulovich. […] We have told the Air Force that we will provide facilities for any comment or correction it may wish to make in regard to the case of Milo Radulovich. We are unable to judge the charges against the lieutenant's father or sister because neither we, nor you, nor they, nor the lawyers, nor the lieutenant, know precisely what was contained in the manila envelope. Was it hearsay, rumor, gossip, slander, or hard ascertainable facts that could be backed by creditable witnesses? We do not know. We believe the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, even thought the iniquity be proved, and in this case it was not. But we believe, too, that this case illustrates the urgent need of the Armed Forces to communicate more fully than they have so far done – the procedures and regulations to be followed – in attempting to protect the national security and the rights of the individual at the same time. Whatever happens in this whole area of the relationship between the individual and the state, we will do it ourselves. It cannot be blamed on Malenkov or Mao Tse-Tung or even our allies. And it seems to us, that is Fred Friendly and myself, that this is a subject that should be argued about endlessly. Good night, and good luck. 一位美国空军尉官, 是东欧移民的第二代, 被军方引用保防规定迫其辞职, 没有具体原因. Murrow 为这位尉官的权益辩护, 说老爸就算是老共, 也跟儿子没关系, 更何况没有证据 说人家老爸是老共. 他又说, 这是政府和公民权利之间的问题, 不必扯到外国的共产党. -- 上述新闻披露之前, 军方已经得知消息并派员关说不要播, 但电视台还是照播不误. 播出之後, 主播 Murrow 就被 Joseph McCarthy 盯上了. 在参议员和部分官方人士的施压黑函之下, 电视新闻制作单位的成员也很不爽, 有了 "开战" 的觉悟; 制作人恳求单位成员有任何纪录可能被拿去当把柄的自己退出, 以免拖累电视台的信誉, 自行消毒之後, 便开始反击当时横行舆论的 McCarthyism. [Edward R. Murrow] Because a report on Senator McCarthy is by definition controversial, we want to say exactly what we mean to say, and request your permission to read from a script whatever remarks Murrow and Friendly may make. If the senator feels that we have done violence to his words or pictures and desires, so to speak, to answer himself, an opportunity will be afforded him on this program. Our working thesis tonight is this quotation: “If this fight against Commun- ism has made a fight between America's two great political parties, the Ameri- can people know one of these parties will be destroyed, and the republic cannot endure very long as a one-party system”. We applaud that statement, and we think Senator McCarthy ought to – he said it seventeen months ago in Milwaukee. [Joseph McCarthy] The American people realize that this cannot be made a fight between America's two great political parties. If this fight against Commun- ism has made a fight between America's two great political parties, the Ameri- can people know one of these parties will be destroyed, and the republic cannot endure very long as a one-party system. On one thing the senator has been consistent. Often operating as a one-man committee, he has traveled far, interviewed many, terrorized some, accused ci- vilian and military leaders of the past administration of a great conspiracy to turn over the country to Communism. [Joseph McCarthy] Well, may I say that I was extremely shocked when I heard that Secretary Stevens told two Army officers that they had to take part in the cover-up of those who promoted and coddled Communists. As I read his state- ment, I thought of that quotation: ‘On what meat doth this our Caesar feed?’ […] The Reed Harris hearing demonstrates one of the senator's techniques. Twice he said: “The American Civil Liberties Union was listed as a subversive front.” The Attorney General's list does not and never has listed the ACLU as subver- sive, nor does the FBI, or any other federal government agency. And the Ame- rican Civil Liberties Union holds in its files letters of recommendation from President Truman, President Eisenhower, and General MacArthur. Earlier the senator asked, “Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed?” Had he looked three lines earlier in Shakespeare's Caesar, he would've found this line, which is not altogether appropriate: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” No one familiar with the history of this country can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one, and the junior senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. We must not con- fuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason. If we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and re- member that we are not descended from fearful men – not from men who feared to write, to associate, to speak, and to defense the causes that were, for the mo- ment, unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape the responsi- bility for the results. We proclaim ourselves, indeed as we are, the defenders of freedom wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad be deserting it at home. The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create the situation of fear, he merely exploited it and rather suc- cessfully. Cassius was right, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” Good night, and good luck. Murrow 在这则报导里面, 指出 McCarthy 捏造事件, 移花接木的伎俩; 然後诉诸美国 追求自由独立的建国传统, 表明不吃他唬人的那一套. -- 连番批评之後, 为了平衡报导, Murrow 让出一整集节目的时间, 邀请 McCarthy 自己 现身说法; 结果 McCarthy 老实不客气地在节目里指称 Murrow 也是共产党同路人. 於是, Murrow 在下一集里作出以下的回应: [Edward R. Murrow] Last week Senator McCarthy appeared on this program to correct any errors he may have thought we made in our report of March ninth. Since he made no refer- ence to any statements of fact that we made, we must conclude that he found no errors of fact. He proved again that anyone who exposes him, anyone who does not share his hy- sterical disregard of decency and human dignity, and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, must be a Communist or a fellow traveler. I fully expected this treatment. The senator added this reporter's name to a long list of in- dividuals and institutions ha has accused of serving the Communist cause. His proposition is very simple: anyone who criticizes or opposes Senator McCarthy's methods must be a communist. And if that be true, there are an awful lot of Communists in this country. […] The senator charged that Professor Harold Laski, a British scholar and politi- tian, dedicated a book to me. That's true. He is dead – he was a socialist; I am not. He was one of the civilized individuals who did not insist upon agreement with political principles as a precondition for conversation or friendship. I do not agree with his political ideas. Laski, as he makes clear in the introduction, dedicated the book to me not because of political agreement but because he held my wartime broadcasts from London in high regard. And the dedication so reads: “I believed twenty years ago, and I believe today that mature Americans can engage in conversation and controversy, the clash of ideas, with Communists anywhere in the world without being contaminated or con- verted. I believe that our faith, our conviction, our determination are strong- er than theirs, and we can compete, and successfully, not in the area of bombs but in the area of ideas.” I have worked with CBS for more than 19 years. The company has subscribed fully to my integrity and responsibility as a broadcaster and a loyal American. I required no lecture from the junior senator from Wisconsin as to the danger or terrors of Communism. Having searched my conscience and my files, I cannot contend that I have always been right or wise, but I have attempted to pursue the truth with some diligence and to report it. Even though, as in this case, I have been warned in advance that I would be subjected to the attentions of Senator McCarthy. We shall hope to deal with matters of more vital interests to the country next week. Good night, and good luck. McCarthy 拿 Murrow 收受一本社会主义人士的赠书大作文章; Murrow 则以剖白关於 "政治认同" 与 "友谊" 的观念作为回应 -- 二次世界大战时, 我在英国做战地广播, 交了一个信奉社会主义的朋友, 啊这样是不可以 ㄏㄧㄛ...? Murrow 又藉此指出 McCarthy 的另一个惯技, 那就是 "凡不同意他的都说是共产党人"; 他还发挥了幽默感, 说: "如果真是这样的话, 那国内的共产党人还真不是普通地多". 最後, Murrow 表示不再继续这个没营养的话题, 下礼拜起要来谈点比较实际有用的课题. -- 这阵风波过後, 电视台老板决定把 Murrow 的节目从原本的热门时段移到下午冷门时段. Murrow 跟老板 William (Bill) Paley 抗议了一番, 质疑他对政治压力妥协让步; 老板则明白告诉他, 调时段不是因为言论的关系, 而是收视率的考量. Paley 也跟 Murrow 讲, 难道你播报时就都不会选择性地略过对自己不利的部份吗...? 剧中 Paley 的话如下, 提到的那个案例我不熟悉, 有机会查查; Murrow 听完无言以对. [William Paley] Let me ask you this. Why didn't you correct McCarthy when he said that Alger Hiss was convicted of treason? He was only convicted of perjury. You cor- rected everything else. Did you not want the appearance of defending a known Communist? I would argue that everyone censors, including you. -- 从主播台上退下来以後, Murrow 受邀到新闻记者协会的餐会演讲, 以下是他的部份讲词: [Edward R. Murrow] This might just do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous ideas. But the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies, and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television. And if what I say is responsible, I along am responsible for the saying of it. Our history will be what we make of it. And if there are any historians about 50 or 100 years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes of one week of all three networks, they will there find, recorded in black and white and in color, evidence of decadence, escapism, and insulation from the reali- ties of the world in which we live. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable, and complacent. We have a built- in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at is, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late. […] I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us. Just once a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information. Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night, a time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan, is given over to a clinical survey on the state of American education. And a week or two later, a time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the shareholders rise up in their wrath and complain? Would anything happen other than a few million people would have received some illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country and therefore the future of the corporations? To those who say: “People won't look – they won't be interested. They are too complacent, indifferent, and insulated”, I can only reply: “there is one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention” But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse, and insulate, then the tube is flickering now, and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach. It can illuminate, and yes, it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to- wards those ends. Otherwise, it is merely wires and lights in a box. Good night, and good luck. 回顾自己几年前与 McCarthyism 的一场论战, Murrow 觉得那是大众传媒的责任. 他说, 人人都在写历史; 如果大众传媒对今天社会上的不公不义装聋作哑的话, 後人 读史所见的当代, 将会是一个堕落, 逃避, 漠然的时代; 勇於发声, 或能扭转世风. 他感叹商业取向的电视台, 很容易就成为麻醉人民的凶手; 呼吁大众传媒从业人员制作 更多针砭时政的节目 -- 就算是对牛弹琴, 拨一些些时段给这些节目, 电视台也倒不了. [恕删节] : 那个麦卡锡这样乱搞，在美国历史上是很重要的事件与记录，以下摘引两书中对这段历史 : 的描写。 : 麦田出版《美国梦》一书第152页写到： : 「共和党重新控制参议院以後，麦卡锡担任了常设调查小组委员会的主席，利用 : 小组委员会来扩大他的反共调查。事实证明，对麦卡锡调查活动的政治支持仍然和以前 : 一样强烈：一九五二年当选的二百二十一位共和党众议员中，有一百八十五人要求众议员 : 共和党领导人把他们分配到众议员非美活动调查委员会里。总统在竞选期间避免与麦卡锡 : 对抗，此时则集中利用隐秘的方式来削弱麦卡锡的影响。与此同时，在一九五四年三~四月 : 间，哥伦比亚广播公司的记者爱德华默罗立用他的「此时关注」节目播出新闻剪辑， : 向这个节目的二千五百万观众提供了关麦卡锡暴戾恣睢、卑鄙伎俩的第一手材料。 : 随着其声望下降，麦卡锡开始了一场非同寻常的活动，要铲除陆军里的颠覆政府份子。 : 参议院成立了一个特别委员会进行调查；该委员会组织了向全国进行电视转播的听证会， : 推翻了麦卡锡的指控，为一项谴责麦卡锡从事与一个参议员身份不相称的行为的决议 : 奠定了基础。正像他一举成名那样，麦卡锡也迅速地从全国注目的中心消失了。 : 麦卡锡仍然是参议员，但是已经没有任何实际的影响。他因酒精中毒而加剧了肝病， : 最终於一九五七年死亡。但是他帮助造成的那种政治气候使美国的政治辩论实质上转向了 : 右翼。」 : 麦田出版霍布斯邦着的《极端的年代：二十世纪史一九四一 ~ 一九九一(上)》第350页 : 写到： : 「其实当年美国国内会发生那阵污鄙的白色恐怖迫害运动，那股无理性的反赤狂风， : 始作俑者，并非美国政府，而是一小撮微不足道的煽动家之流*。这一群人发现， : 大量批发对内部敌人的告发责难，从中可以在官场上获得丰富的政治利益－－ : 就中如恶名昭彰的参议员麦卡锡(Joseph McCarthy)，本人甚至并不特别反共－－ : 其间的精彩好处，美国联邦调查局的万年局长胡佛(J. Edgar Hoover,1895-1972)， : 便深谙个中三昧。亦即藉反共之名，长保个人富贵之实。在一手建立冷战模式的诸人当中 : ，有一位甚至把共产势力的威胁冠以「原始人发动的攻击」之名(the attack of the : Primitive)(Acheson, 1970, p.462)。在这种情绪煽动之下，迫使华府当局的政策 : 不得不加速走向极端，尤以中国共产党胜利之後那段时期最为激烈。至於造成中国大陆 : 变色的罪名，自然也都怪到莫斯科的头上。」 : *在这批不名誉的迫害黑手之中，日後唯一具有分量的政坛人物只有尼克森，他也是战後 : 美国总统当中，最令人厌恶的一位(一九六八~七四)。 -- 代议民主, 言论自由, 为什麽有时候 (经常?) 会搞得乌烟瘴气, 鸡飞狗跳呢? 在怪东怪西之前, 我们这些用选票还有遥控器投票的小股东们, 实在也该扪心自省一番. 政坛乱象看多了以後, 深深觉得政治领袖 "人品重於立场", 尤其是代议士. 如果我们尽选些只会煽动挑拨的政治领袖, 那麽政治风气必定败坏, 因为这类政客最需要 结党互保; 任何政党只要是建筑在这种结帮立派, 扬长护短的关系之上, 结果只能是乱搞, 管他有什麽主张, 站什麽立场, 都不过是唬人而已, 因为这种党人眼中只有私利. 性格厚黑的人本来就容易在 "丛林法则" 之下存活, 而选票支持是唯一可以帮助有为有守 的好的政治家, 与厚黑政客角逐的一股力量; 选民如不能善用之, 难怪政坛风骨绝迹. 我觉得代议政治的选战, 本质上是一场 "利己者 vs 利人者" 的战争, 而非 "Pro-A vs Pro-B" 的战争; 关注的焦点若变成後者, 表示我们人民都已经中计了. --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 149.68.16.97 Typo, 已经修改, 谢谢! ※ 编辑: CousinPP 来自: 149.68.16.97 (05/09 03:28)