这部电影其实是4月份就和The Butterfly Effect 3一起前后看了的，颇有感触，但是一直也没写些什么。一半是醉翁之意的缘故，再加上电影的主题明确情节非常紧凑，而且我也无力用更好的方式表达影片所要阐述的，所以下面的内容会有严重剧透，没看过但还打算看的人请自觉回避。
———————————————————————————————
相信对于每个倾向消极自由的人来说，美国在法制方面，尤其是在宪法及修正案中体现出来的对个人自由的保护，以及在多数案例中大法官对于案件的判决，不得不赞叹其中智慧的光芒。或者说，在使消极自由免于受来自公权力或是民众短视的道德判断的压力影响，多数案例中体现出智者深邃长远的思考。而这部影片中，焦点正是在于公权力对于美国宪法第一修正案即《权利法案》第一条中所造成的事实上的侵犯。恐怕这个话题也是美国的知识分子最为自豪的事之一吧：“国会不得制定关于下列事项的法律：确立国教或禁止信教自由；剥夺言论自由或出版自由；或剥夺人民和平集会和向政府请愿伸冤的权利。”为避免公权力或是多数人的短视带来的对美国最崇尚的基本个人权利——正是美国人所津津乐道的自由——的侵害，当一些可能会伤害宪法所赋予的自由的法条时，常常会有人站出来“以身试法”挑战法条的正义性，并每每得胜。印象中，以此为题材的电影也算是屡见不鲜了，而且往往是正义一方胜出，自由得到了应有的保护。但在这部影片最终却没有happy ending，几乎可以说，任何一方都失败了。
影片的开始是美国总统遭枪袭，美国政府迅速把矛头指向委内瑞拉，很快发动战斗机袭击其军事基地。紧张的镜头切换中，突然来到了一辆欢歌笑语的小学校车内，故事在几个小孩子的争吵中埋下了伏笔：
—— You're a tattletale!
—— I am not!
—— You just told on Nicky.
—— That's because he won't stop.
—— You're a tattletale…
—— Timmy, that's enough. Stop it. That's enough. But you're not supposed to tattle.
很快，整个电影的话题都围绕着tattletale展开，当然不是因为小女孩被揪辫子那么简单。故事的核心是女记者Rachel发表了一篇文章，认为美国总统遭袭并非是委内瑞拉主使的，其依据是一位CIA特工对委内瑞拉的调查结果。美国政府非常紧张，空袭这件事下不了台似乎已经不重要了，CIA特工身份的泄露才是事关重大、真正有威胁的事。于是很快，司法部成立的关于特工身份泄露的特别调查组的检察官找上门来，要求Rachel交待线人的名字：虽然她有发表自己获得的情报的权利，但泄露特工身份的人却违反了《情报人员身份保护法》，她不应隐瞒。
接下来的故事就不难猜到了，Rachel认为自己应当并有权保护线人的身份，而特别调查组想尽办法折磨她（当然是在法律允许的前提下），包括长达两年的看守所监禁，但一无所获。同时，报社的同行一直鼓励女主角坚守自己的信念，律师们也在找各种可能帮助她，然而见不到心爱的孩子、与丈夫长期不能见面又让她承受着巨大的压力。这一事件的后续变化，也在让Rachel愈加困惑。被泄露身份的CIA女特工的孩子，就是前面被揪辫子告状的Erica，刚好和女主角的孩子Timmy在同一所学校里就读。而CIA对Erica的妈妈的不信任，导致了她愤然辞职，但之后不久却被激进分子枪杀。
于是接下来的两段对话把影片推向高潮，鉴于台词实在是很精彩，这里我就直接贴出来了。第一段是在律师与Rachel之间展开的：
—— A man can live a good life, be honorable, give to charity, but in the end, the number of people who come to his funeral is generally dependent on the weather.
—— What? I'm sorry. I'm not following.
—— The weather has changed, Rachel. I'm sorry, but it has. That's the truth. In the old days, this would have been a lot easier to fight. The public would have called you a hero. But I don't know, somewhere along the line, the press...the press stopped being the white knight, and started being the dragon. That's the way people see it. You want to know why no paper in this country, including your own, has continued covering your story?
—— Why don't you tell me?
—— Because your 48-hour news cycle dried up months ago. I mean, look at you, Rachel. You look like shit. Your kid is growing up without you...
—— Don't bring Timmy into this. It's not fair. Okay. I'm a good mother.
—— Fair? Fuck fair! Look, you may not want to bring your son into this, but I do. You want to know why?
—— Why?
—— Because I'm defending Rachel Armstrong, not a principle.
—— A man leaves his family to go to jail to protect a principle, and they name a holiday after him. A man leaves his children to go fight in a war, and they erect a monument to him. A woman does the same thing, and she's the monster. If we back down, what are we saying, Albert? "Trust reporters as long as they're not mothers, because they'll crack." The truth is, if I had known that writing this fucking story would have separated me from Timmy, then maybe I wouldn't have done it. But here we are. The story's been published, and the path has been chosen, and there's no way back, and in the end, my son will be fine. You know, Ray is a great father, and Timmy's gonna be okay, but that will not be the case with my source. My source will be publicly saddled with the death of Erica Van Doren, and that, I promise you, will mean the destruction of the person we're talking about, and that, Albert, that is not fair.
—— Why? I mean, your source knew full well the ramifications of speaking to you.
—— My source didn't know what they were doing when I got the information.
———————————————————————————————
相信对于每个倾向消极自由的人来说，美国在法制方面，尤其是在宪法及修正案中体现出来的对个人自由的保护，以及在多数案例中大法官对于案件的判决，不得不赞叹其中智慧的光芒。或者说，在使消极自由免于受来自公权力或是民众短视的道德判断的压力影响，多数案例中体现出智者深邃长远的思考。而这部影片中，焦点正是在于公权力对于美国宪法第一修正案即《权利法案》第一条中所造成的事实上的侵犯。恐怕这个话题也是美国的知识分子最为自豪的事之一吧：“国会不得制定关于下列事项的法律：确立国教或禁止信教自由；剥夺言论自由或出版自由；或剥夺人民和平集会和向政府请愿伸冤的权利。”为避免公权力或是多数人的短视带来的对美国最崇尚的基本个人权利——正是美国人所津津乐道的自由——的侵害，当一些可能会伤害宪法所赋予的自由的法条时，常常会有人站出来“以身试法”挑战法条的正义性，并每每得胜。印象中，以此为题材的电影也算是屡见不鲜了，而且往往是正义一方胜出，自由得到了应有的保护。但在这部影片最终却没有happy ending，几乎可以说，任何一方都失败了。
影片的开始是美国总统遭枪袭，美国政府迅速把矛头指向委内瑞拉，很快发动战斗机袭击其军事基地。紧张的镜头切换中，突然来到了一辆欢歌笑语的小学校车内，故事在几个小孩子的争吵中埋下了伏笔：
—— You're a tattletale!
—— I am not!
—— You just told on Nicky.
—— That's because he won't stop.
—— You're a tattletale…
—— Timmy, that's enough. Stop it. That's enough. But you're not supposed to tattle.
很快，整个电影的话题都围绕着tattletale展开，当然不是因为小女孩被揪辫子那么简单。故事的核心是女记者Rachel发表了一篇文章，认为美国总统遭袭并非是委内瑞拉主使的，其依据是一位CIA特工对委内瑞拉的调查结果。美国政府非常紧张，空袭这件事下不了台似乎已经不重要了，CIA特工身份的泄露才是事关重大、真正有威胁的事。于是很快，司法部成立的关于特工身份泄露的特别调查组的检察官找上门来，要求Rachel交待线人的名字：虽然她有发表自己获得的情报的权利，但泄露特工身份的人却违反了《情报人员身份保护法》，她不应隐瞒。
接下来的故事就不难猜到了，Rachel认为自己应当并有权保护线人的身份，而特别调查组想尽办法折磨她（当然是在法律允许的前提下），包括长达两年的看守所监禁，但一无所获。同时，报社的同行一直鼓励女主角坚守自己的信念，律师们也在找各种可能帮助她，然而见不到心爱的孩子、与丈夫长期不能见面又让她承受着巨大的压力。这一事件的后续变化，也在让Rachel愈加困惑。被泄露身份的CIA女特工的孩子，就是前面被揪辫子告状的Erica，刚好和女主角的孩子Timmy在同一所学校里就读。而CIA对Erica的妈妈的不信任，导致了她愤然辞职，但之后不久却被激进分子枪杀。
于是接下来的两段对话把影片推向高潮，鉴于台词实在是很精彩，这里我就直接贴出来了。第一段是在律师与Rachel之间展开的：
—— A man can live a good life, be honorable, give to charity, but in the end, the number of people who come to his funeral is generally dependent on the weather.
—— What? I'm sorry. I'm not following.
—— The weather has changed, Rachel. I'm sorry, but it has. That's the truth. In the old days, this would have been a lot easier to fight. The public would have called you a hero. But I don't know, somewhere along the line, the press...the press stopped being the white knight, and started being the dragon. That's the way people see it. You want to know why no paper in this country, including your own, has continued covering your story?
—— Why don't you tell me?
—— Because your 48-hour news cycle dried up months ago. I mean, look at you, Rachel. You look like shit. Your kid is growing up without you...
—— Don't bring Timmy into this. It's not fair. Okay. I'm a good mother.
—— Fair? Fuck fair! Look, you may not want to bring your son into this, but I do. You want to know why?
—— Why?
—— Because I'm defending Rachel Armstrong, not a principle.
—— A man leaves his family to go to jail to protect a principle, and they name a holiday after him. A man leaves his children to go fight in a war, and they erect a monument to him. A woman does the same thing, and she's the monster. If we back down, what are we saying, Albert? "Trust reporters as long as they're not mothers, because they'll crack." The truth is, if I had known that writing this fucking story would have separated me from Timmy, then maybe I wouldn't have done it. But here we are. The story's been published, and the path has been chosen, and there's no way back, and in the end, my son will be fine. You know, Ray is a great father, and Timmy's gonna be okay, but that will not be the case with my source. My source will be publicly saddled with the death of Erica Van Doren, and that, I promise you, will mean the destruction of the person we're talking about, and that, Albert, that is not fair.
—— Why? I mean, your source knew full well the ramifications of speaking to you.
—— My source didn't know what they were doing when I got the information.
另一段则是该律师在美国最高法院做出的讲话：
In 1972 in Branzburg v. Hayes, this court ruled against the right of reporters to withhold the names of their sources before a grand jury, and it gave the power to the government to imprison those reporters who did. It was a five-four decision. Close.
In his dissent in Branzburg, Justice Stewart said, "As the years pass, the power of government becomes more and more pervasive. Those in power," he said, "whatever their politics, want only to perpetuate it and the people are the victims."
In 1972 in Branzburg v. Hayes, this court ruled against the right of reporters to withhold the names of their sources before a grand jury, and it gave the power to the government to imprison those reporters who did. It was a five-four decision. Close.
In his dissent in Branzburg, Justice Stewart said, "As the years pass, the power of government becomes more and more pervasive. Those in power," he said, "whatever their politics, want only to perpetuate it and the people are the victims."
Well, the years have passed, and that power is pervasive. Ms. Armstrong could have buckled to the demands of the government. She could have abandoned her promise of confidentiality. She could have simply gone home to her family. But to do so would mean that no source would ever speak to her again, and no source would ever speak to her newspaper again, and then tomorrow when we lock up journalists from other newspapers, we'll make those publications irrelevant as well, and thus we'll make the First Amendment irrelevant. And then how will we know if a president has covered up crimes? Or if an army officer has condoned torture?
We, as a nation, will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over. And what then is the nature of government when it has no fear of accountability? We should shudder at the thought. Imprisoning journalists? That's for other countries…that's for countries who fear their citizens, not countries that cherish and protect them.
Some time ago, I began to feel the personal human pressure on Rachel Armstrong, and I told her that I was there to represent her and not a principle. And it was not until I met her that I realized that with great people, there's no difference between principle and the person.
故事的结局不得不说非常精彩而富有戏剧性。在检查官与Rachel的对话
—— You know, vilify me if you want, Rachel, but I had a job to do, and I had every right to do what I did.
—— I think you're confusing your rights with your power, Mr. Dubois.
后，最终没能挽救婚姻的Rachel刚刚离开看守所，我们以为一切都已经结束的时候，检察官却在路上拦住了她，将以妨碍联邦调查再次指控她。镜头一转，又回到了校车里，谜一般的original source的身份终于浮出水面：
—— What she found out?
—— When she was in Venezula.
—— Why was your mom in Venezuela? Was she on vacation?
—— No, she was working..
—— Working?
—— For the government.
—— But don't tell anybody it's me who told you. Okay?
—— You bet.
女记者一直保护的线人，正是didn't know what they were doing when I got the information的小Erica。显而易见的是，以小Erica的年龄，即便Rachel从一开始就说明是她无意间透露了妈妈的身份，法律最终也不会怎样小Erica。为什么守住这个承诺，Rachel究竟是怎么考虑的，在小Erica的妈妈被枪杀之前更不得而知。我也不打算分析如果她透露了，会产生哪些影响，包括对小Erica家庭以及她的未来影响。这部影片承载了太多元素，单单前面两段精彩的台词就已经振聋发聩了。
据说影片取材于真实事件并加以改编，但我才疏学浅未能找到其来源。但透过一个弱女子无助的眼神和她对原则的坚守，足以清晰表达对伟大人格的赞美。司法独立和智者的坚持，正是民主这一比较烂的形式免于侵害自由原则的保障。当贪婪的公权力企图扩张时，短视的民众不一定会意识到自己的私权力正在受到侵犯。而一旦公权力开始扩张自身到侵犯个人自由时，恐怕就再难找到任何力量去有效的约束它，或是只有很傻很天真的等着它良心发现，交还个人原本就应拥有的权力。
当然，就像前面所说的，影片承载了太多的东西。比如，就个人来说，如果女记者能够预料到她发表文章，会给自己、“线人”及其家庭带来怎样的后果，那么她是否还应该发表呢？如果选择不发表对自己和“线人”是正义的话，那么不发表又会让民众不知被政府欺骗，那么虽然有选择不作为的权力，但当不作为也会扩大到集体的沉默，那么这种导致集体不作为的行为又是否正义呢？也许每个人都会有自己的答案吧。
—— You know, vilify me if you want, Rachel, but I had a job to do, and I had every right to do what I did.
—— I think you're confusing your rights with your power, Mr. Dubois.
后，最终没能挽救婚姻的Rachel刚刚离开看守所，我们以为一切都已经结束的时候，检察官却在路上拦住了她，将以妨碍联邦调查再次指控她。镜头一转，又回到了校车里，谜一般的original source的身份终于浮出水面：
—— What she found out?
—— When she was in Venezula.
—— Why was your mom in Venezuela? Was she on vacation?
—— No, she was working..
—— Working?
—— For the government.
—— But don't tell anybody it's me who told you. Okay?
—— You bet.
女记者一直保护的线人，正是didn't know what they were doing when I got the information的小Erica。显而易见的是，以小Erica的年龄，即便Rachel从一开始就说明是她无意间透露了妈妈的身份，法律最终也不会怎样小Erica。为什么守住这个承诺，Rachel究竟是怎么考虑的，在小Erica的妈妈被枪杀之前更不得而知。我也不打算分析如果她透露了，会产生哪些影响，包括对小Erica家庭以及她的未来影响。这部影片承载了太多元素，单单前面两段精彩的台词就已经振聋发聩了。
据说影片取材于真实事件并加以改编，但我才疏学浅未能找到其来源。但透过一个弱女子无助的眼神和她对原则的坚守，足以清晰表达对伟大人格的赞美。司法独立和智者的坚持，正是民主这一比较烂的形式免于侵害自由原则的保障。当贪婪的公权力企图扩张时，短视的民众不一定会意识到自己的私权力正在受到侵犯。而一旦公权力开始扩张自身到侵犯个人自由时，恐怕就再难找到任何力量去有效的约束它，或是只有很傻很天真的等着它良心发现，交还个人原本就应拥有的权力。
当然，就像前面所说的，影片承载了太多的东西。比如，就个人来说，如果女记者能够预料到她发表文章，会给自己、“线人”及其家庭带来怎样的后果，那么她是否还应该发表呢？如果选择不发表对自己和“线人”是正义的话，那么不发表又会让民众不知被政府欺骗，那么虽然有选择不作为的权力，但当不作为也会扩大到集体的沉默，那么这种导致集体不作为的行为又是否正义呢？也许每个人都会有自己的答案吧。
請先 登入 以發表留言。