我雖不明瞭莎士比亞 Caesar 的劇情, 但 Good Night, And Good Luck 裡面 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.' 真是畫龍點睛! 根據板友提供的原劇本和翻譯, 這句話的寓意大概是: 要想有更美好的明天, 就看我們自己今天怎麼做. 把這層寓意反扣回該劇的劇情, 尤其是 Murrow 在演講中所提到的, 反對 McCaethyism 的時代意義, 再對照 1960 年代以來民權運動發展的軌跡, 在在可見美國的抗暴傳統, 給這個國家和人民帶來的珍貴思想遺產 -- 這是一個有自省能力和思想活力的社會. 美國聯邦體系雖管理著一個不折不扣的現代帝國, 但這個帝國的臣民卻多的是不怕凱撒 的 Cassius 和 Brutus, 處處可能出個張良或譚嗣同, 人人能跟你處士橫議歪打正著; 這樣一個充滿批判性和活力的公民社會, 最低限度, 斷不可能出現一呼百諾的專制獨夫. 這套用在開發中國家或嫌囉唆, 放在新陳代謝重於擴張發展的已開發強國倒是恰到好處. ※ 引述《filmwalker (夢想起飛的季節)》之銘言： : http://city.udn.com/v1/blog/article/article.jsp?uid=chenglee&f_ART_ID=260743 : 作者 : 雪梨情緣 : Good Night. And, Good Luck! 是電影《晚安，祝你好運》中主角記者艾德華蒙洛 : 在其節目結束前做為結尾的一句話，聽他念得真是好聽。也感謝讓我找到了網誌簽名檔。 : 《晚安，祝你好運》喬治克隆尼自編、自導、自演的電影，以黑白片方式拍攝， : 加上間雜配以當時的爵士歌曲，讓全片看來猶如老紀錄片般有著懷舊的藝術氣息。 那個時代, 電視主播可以大喇喇地拿著根點燃的香菸播報新聞, 世界變得真是多啊... [恕刪節] : 電影描寫美國50年代時的恐共氣氛下，來自威斯康辛州的麥卡錫參議員趁機大搞政治運作 : ，隨意指控、誣陷無辜同僚與官員，甚及於任何反對他任意指控的人是共產黨或其同路人 : ，讓全美陷入一片白色恐怖，將恐懼擴大到人人害怕如驚弓之鳥，就在人民的言論及 : 新聞自由面臨空前未有的打壓與迫害時，以CBS哥倫比亞電視台的記者艾德華蒙洛 : （Edward R. Murrow, 大衛史翠森飾）和他的節目製作人佛瑞德芬德利 : （Fred W. Friendly, 喬治克隆尼飾）為首的節目團隊記者六位，決心挺身而出對抗， : 揭穿麥卡錫制造恐怖的卑劣行徑。他們在人身和工作可能遭受迫害下，成功的扳倒麥卡錫 : ，宣揚了公義與自由。 : 大衛史翠森演主角記者艾德華蒙洛，演得真是出色，把以媒體為悍衛全民權利、權益與 : 自由人權的記者角色演得真好，這樣成功塑造了兩個偶像，一個真實中的記者和演員自己 : 。喬治克隆尼演得也蠻有趣的，不過更佩服他編導的功力，雖然90來分就結束得好像有點 : 快，不過他大量運用的那些爵士樂包括名家柯爾波特、納京高、艾靈頓公爵、 : 艾拉費茲傑拉、路易阿姆斯壯等大師的名曲，還邀當代爵士女伶黛安瑞芙在電影中演唱 : 詮釋，真是極為出色，令人激賞，這奪下今年第48屆葛萊美獎最佳爵士演唱獎的 : 電影原聲專輯，該去買。那當時的爵士樂和黑白拍攝真是非常成功烘托出時代的氛圍。 下面分享一些我從這部電影裡面抄下來的 lines: 首先, 看看 CBS 主播 Edward R. Murrow 是怎麼跟恐共氣氛瀰漫的軍方槓上的: [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. 一位美國空軍尉官, 是東歐移民的第二代, 被軍方引用保防規定迫其辭職, 沒有具體原因. Murrow 為這位尉官的權益辯護, 說老爸就算是老共, 也跟兒子沒關係, 更何況沒有證據 說人家老爸是老共. 他又說, 這是政府和公民權利之間的問題, 不必扯到外國的共產黨. -- 上述新聞披露之前, 軍方已經得知消息並派員關說不要播, 但電視台還是照播不誤. 播出之後, 主播 Murrow 就被 Joseph McCarthy 盯上了. 在參議員和部分官方人士的施壓黑函之下, 電視新聞製作單位的成員也很不爽, 有了 "開戰" 的覺悟; 製作人懇求單位成員有任何紀錄可能被拿去當把柄的自己退出, 以免拖累電視台的信譽, 自行消毒之後, 便開始反擊當時橫行輿論的 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 在這則報導裡面, 指出 McCarthy 捏造事件, 移花接木的伎倆; 然後訴諸美國 追求自由獨立的建國傳統, 表明不吃他唬人的那一套. -- 連番批評之後, 為了平衡報導, Murrow 讓出一整集節目的時間, 邀請 McCarthy 自己 現身說法; 結果 McCarthy 老實不客氣地在節目裡指稱 Murrow 也是共產黨同路人. 於是, Murrow 在下一集裡作出以下的回應: [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 收受一本社會主義人士的贈書大作文章; Murrow 則以剖白關於 "政治認同" 與 "友誼" 的觀念作為回應 -- 二次世界大戰時, 我在英國做戰地廣播, 交了一個信奉社會主義的朋友, 啊這樣是不可以 ㄏㄧㄛ...? Murrow 又藉此指出 McCarthy 的另一個慣技, 那就是 "凡不同意他的都說是共產黨人"; 他還發揮了幽默感, 說: "如果真是這樣的話, 那國內的共產黨人還真不是普通地多". 最後, Murrow 表示不再繼續這個沒營養的話題, 下禮拜起要來談點比較實際有用的課題. -- 這陣風波過後, 電視台老闆決定把 Murrow 的節目從原本的熱門時段移到下午冷門時段. Murrow 跟老闆 William (Bill) Paley 抗議了一番, 質疑他對政治壓力妥協讓步; 老闆則明白告訴他, 調時段不是因為言論的關係, 而是收視率的考量. Paley 也跟 Murrow 講, 難道你播報時就都不會選擇性地略過對自己不利的部份嗎...? 劇中 Paley 的話如下, 提到的那個案例我不熟悉, 有機會查查; Murrow 聽完無言以對. [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. -- 從主播檯上退下來以後, Murrow 受邀到新聞記者協會的餐會演講, 以下是他的部份講詞: [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. 回顧自己幾年前與 McCarthyism 的一場論戰, Murrow 覺得那是大眾傳媒的責任. 他說, 人人都在寫歷史; 如果大眾傳媒對今天社會上的不公不義裝聾作啞的話, 後人 讀史所見的當代, 將會是一個墮落, 逃避, 漠然的時代; 勇於發聲, 或能扭轉世風. 他感嘆商業取向的電視台, 很容易就成為麻醉人民的兇手; 呼籲大眾傳媒從業人員製作 更多針砭時政的節目 -- 就算是對牛彈琴, 撥一些些時段給這些節目, 電視台也倒不了. [恕刪節] : 那個麥卡錫這樣亂搞，在美國歷史上是很重要的事件與記錄，以下摘引兩書中對這段歷史 : 的描寫。 : 麥田出版《美國夢》一書第152頁寫到： : 「共和黨重新控制參議院以後，麥卡錫擔任了常設調查小組委員會的主席，利用 : 小組委員會來擴大他的反共調查。事實證明，對麥卡錫調查活動的政治支持仍然和以前 : 一樣強烈：一九五二年當選的二百二十一位共和黨眾議員中，有一百八十五人要求眾議員 : 共和黨領導人把他們分配到眾議員非美活動調查委員會裡。總統在競選期間避免與麥卡錫 : 對抗，此時則集中利用隱秘的方式來削弱麥卡錫的影響。與此同時，在一九五四年三~四月 : 間，哥倫比亞廣播公司的記者愛德華默羅立用他的「此時關注」節目播出新聞剪輯， : 向這個節目的二千五百萬觀眾提供了關麥卡錫暴戾恣睢、卑鄙伎倆的第一手材料。 : 隨著其聲望下降，麥卡錫開始了一場非同尋常的活動，要鏟除陸軍裡的顛覆政府份子。 : 參議院成立了一個特別委員會進行調查；該委員會組織了向全國進行電視轉播的聽證會， : 推翻了麥卡錫的指控，為一項譴責麥卡錫從事與一個參議員身份不相稱的行為的決議 : 奠定了基礎。正像他一舉成名那樣，麥卡錫也迅速地從全國注目的中心消失了。 : 麥卡錫仍然是參議員，但是已經沒有任何實際的影響。他因酒精中毒而加劇了肝病， : 最終於一九五七年死亡。但是他幫助造成的那種政治氣候使美國的政治辯論實質上轉向了 : 右翼。」 : 麥田出版霍布斯邦著的《極端的年代：二十世紀史一九四一 ~ 一九九一(上)》第350頁 : 寫到： : 「其實當年美國國內會發生那陣污鄙的白色恐怖迫害運動，那股無理性的反赤狂風， : 始作俑者，並非美國政府，而是一小撮微不足道的煽動家之流*。這一群人發現， : 大量批發對內部敵人的告發責難，從中可以在官場上獲得豐富的政治利益－－ : 就中如惡名昭彰的參議員麥卡錫(Joseph McCarthy)，本人甚至並不特別反共－－ : 其間的精彩好處，美國聯邦調查局的萬年局長胡佛(J. Edgar Hoover,1895-1972)， : 便深諳箇中三昧。亦即藉反共之名，長保個人富貴之實。在一手建立冷戰模式的諸人當中 : ，有一位甚至把共產勢力的威脅冠以「原始人發動的攻擊」之名(the attack of the : Primitive)(Acheson, 1970, p.462)。在這種情緒煽動之下，迫使華府當局的政策 : 不得不加速走向極端，尤以中國共產黨勝利之後那段時期最為激烈。至於造成中國大陸 : 變色的罪名，自然也都怪到莫斯科的頭上。」 : *在這批不名譽的迫害黑手之中，日後唯一具有分量的政壇人物只有尼克森，他也是戰後 : 美國總統當中，最令人厭惡的一位(一九六八~七四)。 -- 代議民主, 言論自由, 為什麼有時候 (經常?) 會搞得烏煙瘴氣, 雞飛狗跳呢? 在怪東怪西之前, 我們這些用選票還有遙控器投票的小股東們, 實在也該捫心自省一番. 政壇亂象看多了以後, 深深覺得政治領袖 "人品重於立場", 尤其是代議士. 如果我們盡選些只會煽動挑撥的政治領袖, 那麼政治風氣必定敗壞, 因為這類政客最需要 結黨互保; 任何政黨只要是建築在這種結幫立派, 揚長護短的關係之上, 結果只能是亂搞, 管他有什麼主張, 站什麼立場, 都不過是唬人而已, 因為這種黨人眼中只有私利. 性格厚黑的人本來就容易在 "叢林法則" 之下存活, 而選票支持是唯一可以幫助有為有守 的好的政治家, 與厚黑政客角逐的一股力量; 選民如不能善用之, 難怪政壇風骨絕跡. 我覺得代議政治的選戰, 本質上是一場 "利己者 vs 利人者" 的戰爭, 而非 "Pro-A vs Pro-B" 的戰爭; 關注的焦點若變成後者, 表示我們人民都已經中計了. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 149.68.16.97 Typo, 已經修改, 謝謝! ※ 編輯: CousinPP 來自: 149.68.16.97 (05/09 03:28)