《塞爾瑪》是主旋律電影？

《塞爾瑪》真的是一部「主旋律電影」嗎？
在中國大陸的語境裡，「主旋律電影」暗示該電影或多或少地有官方參與投資、製作和發行，又或者暗示該電影順從甚至直接宣揚官方的意識形態。據我所知，美國政府並沒有在前者有明顯的行為，所以我將對後者的進行簡單討論。
誠然，馬丁·路德·金早已成為美國官方歷史中的一個正面形象，甚至還有一個以他命名的公眾假期；毫無疑問，他是家喻戶曉得「非暴力抗爭」德謨克拉西鬥士。問題是，很多人聽到更多是「非暴力」的一面，而有意無意地忽略「抗爭」；於是，當人們把金理解成一位宣揚和平的好人時似乎忘記了一點：「非暴力」是抗爭的手段。為何輕視「抗爭」的一面？當大家通過電影知道他抗爭的對像是誰的時候，便應該清楚為何有人希望淡化「抗爭」了。
稍有常識的人都知道，金並不是唯一一位非裔民權社運家；對歷史有過思考的人也應該都知道，當官方不得不把這些非裔社運家寫進歷史的時候會作怎樣的選擇。
舉另一個更有名的例子。金在1963年的華盛頓遊行中講到他做了的一個夢，但正史甚少提及的是，他在同一篇演說中還提到黑人這次遊行到華盛頓是來兌現一張支票的，一張關於「生存權、自由權和追求幸福權」的支票，但美國政府一直都「沒有足夠的經費」來兌現。於是，當我們把這篇演說放在心靈雞湯欄目時，是否應該思考如下問題：如果我們把該文章的題目改成「沒有足夠的經費」，那它是否還有同等的意義？我們為何會被引導去「夢」這一塊而不是「經費」這一塊？官方歷史會希望你去記住哪一部份？
我們應當如何看待非裔的鬥爭歷史？我經常會看到一種很有問題的表述：非裔能爭取到權利是因為他們受到憲法保護。這樣的表述在我看來是本末倒置。我們應該問：美國有憲法和修正案，為何非裔還需要作流血犧牲來爭權？假設憲法和修正案真有根本解決問題的效力，那種族問題早應該在十九世紀七十年代就得到解決了；那時國會一連串地通過十三、十四和十五修正案，分別廢除奴隸制、保障公民受到法律的同等保護以及不能因膚色而剝奪一名男性的投票權。正如歷史所示，問題並沒有得到解決。首先修正案存在很多漏洞讓人鑽空子，比如在投票方面，不同州可以在投票處設立各種表面上不打種族主義旗號的限制（如《塞爾瑪》開始所示）；其次，也是更顯而易見的一個問題：法律通過了就能消除人心中的種族歧視嗎（試想一下曾經被你瞧不起的商品突然和你有一樣的權利）？
另一方面，自奴隸制廢除後，種族問題顯得越發複雜。奴隸們被解放了，但他們沒有經濟基礎（在佃農和城市化中繼續被剝削）或政治基礎（限制投票和參選的手段多的是，於是非裔難被選上，就算被選上，他/她有多大程度不受白人政治影響？）。於是在平權運動的發展過程中，人們越發認識到種族與經濟和政治息息相關；歧視並不止表現在奴隸主打奴隸上，還表現在政策、就業和住房分配等的各個方面；這些複雜的關係使得種族歧視者能夠打著其他的旗號（如似乎客觀的統計數據）、通過似乎不分膚色的機構手段來實現（如「管理高犯罪率或低收入的社群」），並能輕易否認「種族主義者」的身份；另一方面，政府在讓社區增權益能、受教育和就業等方面則是敷衍了事，官僚體制更讓其效果大打折扣甚至起反作用，同時還緊抓著個別成功的例子宣稱美國已進入「後種族時代」。在這樣複雜的局面下要再談論種族問題，進步社團只能冒著被貼「種族主義者」的標籤來大喊「黑人生命很重要」了，又或者像費格森示威者那樣通過簡單直接的方法來凸顯種族和經濟之間的關係，又或者在主流政治內艱難地反對著投票者身份證法案（又一限制投票的手段，Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States ）。當種族涉及到美國的政治和經濟基礎問題時，「黑」與「白」便不僅僅是膚色區別了。
上述的大多數內容在美國主流文化輸出中可能甚少被提及，於是我們只看到被「淨化」過的馬丁·路德·金在步出塞爾瑪時的偉岸身影，並覺得那一刻正是所謂「美國德謨克拉西優越性」的重要體現，而難以察覺該邏輯的荒謬，更別提其背後的複雜歷史和社會背景了。
可惜的是，《塞爾瑪》也正是美國主流文化輸出的一個商品。它有著大片廠的投資和發行，製作精良，內容上走著好萊塢文藝片簡單的煽情和二元對立，雖嘗試表現金的人格弱點以及聯邦政府的曖昧態度，但中規中矩的戲劇套路讓其喪失了批判力度和聯繫古今的機會，成為又一部「通過訴說歷史讓歷史成為過去」的電影。當然，在好萊塢越來越保守的今天，讓一部主流敘事片去直接質疑和批判其國家的政治和經濟基礎並煽動普通民眾走上街頭未免要求過高，畢竟它要保證不引起爭端，從而順利製作、發行和提名小金人。從這方面看，如果美國的終極意識形態是資本主義的話，那《塞爾瑪》還真算是一部「主旋律電影」。
（寫於「塞爾瑪血腥星期天」五十週年）

註：本文無意就馬丁·路德·金本人或其1963年華盛頓遊行的演說（還有所有其他演說）作任何結論或猜測，更沒有試圖貶低其演說中的任何資訊。

附1：
The selection of facts from the past involves an interpretation, a sense of priorities, a sense of values as to what matters. History can be a very strong weapon for people who wish to construct a certain movement in a certain direction. - Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

附2：

And we are not wrong; we are not wrong in what we are doing. (Well) If we are wrong, the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong. (Yes sir) [applause] If we are wrong, the Constitution of the United States is wrong. (Yes) [applause] If we are wrong, God Almighty is wrong. (That's right) [applause] If we are wrong, Jesus of Nazareth was merely a utopian dreamer that never came down to Earth. (Yes) [applause] If we are wrong, justice is a lie (Yes), love has no meaning. [applause] And we are determined here in Montgomery to work and fight until justice runs down like water (Yes), [applause] and righteousness like a mighty stream. (12/05/1955)

You have a dual citizenry. You live both in time and eternity; both in heaven and earth. Therefore, your ultimate allegiance is not to the government, not to the state, not to nation, not to any man-made institution. The Christian owes his ultimate allegiance to God, and if any earthly institution conflicts with God's will it is your Christian duty to take a stand against it. You must never allow the transitory evanescent demands of man-made institutions to take precedence over the eternal demands of the Almighty God. (11/04/1956)

First, there is need for strong, aggressive leadership from the federal government. So far, only the judicial branch of the government has evinced this quality of leadership. If the executive and legislative branches of the government were as concerned about the protection of our citizenship rights as the federal courts have been, then the transition from a segregated to an integrated society would be infinitely smoother. But we so often look to 華盛頓 in vain for this concern. In the midst of the tragic breakdown of law and order, the executive branch of the government is all too silent and apathetic. In the midst of the desperate need for civil rights legislation, the legislative branch of the government is all too stagnant and hypocritical. (05/17/1957)

Democracy is the greatest form of government to my mind that man has ever conceived, but the weakness is that we have never touched it. Isn』t it true that we have often taken necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes? Isn』t it true that we have often in our democracy trampled over individuals and races with the iron feet of oppression? Isn』t it true that through our Western powers we have perpetuated colonialism and imperialism? And all of these things must be taken under consideration as we look at Russia. We must face the fact that the rhythmic beat of the deep rumblings of discontent from Asia and Africa is at bottom a revolt against the imperialism and colonialism perpetuated by Western civilization all these many years. The success of communism in the world today is due to the failure of democracy to live up to the noble ideals and principles inherent in its system. (11/17/1957)

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." (04/16/1963)

It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain." (04/04/1967)

When the Constitution was written, a strange formula to determine taxes and representation declared that the Negro was sixty percent of a person. Today another curious formula seems to declare he is fifty percent of a person. Of the good things in life, the Negro has approximately one half those of whites. Of the bad things of life, he has twice those of whites. Thus, half of all Negroes live in substandard housing. And Negroes have half the income of whites. When we turn to the negative experiences of life, the Negro has a double share: There are twice as many unemployed; the rate of infant mortality among Negroes is double that of whites; and there are twice as many Negroes dying in Vietnam as whites in proportion to their size in the population. (08/16/1967)

In 1863 the Negro was told that he was free as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation being signed by Abraham Lincoln. But he was not given any land to make that freedom meaningful. It was something like keeping a person in prison for a number of years and suddenly discovering that that person is not guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. And you just go up to him and say, "Now you are free," but you don』t give him any bus fare to get to town. You don』t give him any money to get some clothes to put on his back or to get on his feet again in life. Every court of jurisprudence would rise up against this, and yet this is the very thing that our nation did to the black man. It simply said, "You』re free," and it left him there penniless, illiterate, not knowing what to do. And the irony of it all is that at the same time the nation failed to do anything for the black man, though an act of Congress was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the Midwest. Which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor. (03/31/1968)

當然，還有我最喜歡的一句：Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. （04/16/1963)

關於華盛頓遊行的另一個觀點：

It’s just like when you』ve got some coffee that’s too black, which means it’s too strong. What you do? You integrate it with cream; you make it weak. If you pour too much cream in, you won』t even know you ever had coffee. It used to be hot, it becomes cool. It used to be strong, it becomes weak. It used to wake you up, now it』ll put you to sleep. This is what they （民權領袖們） did with the march on 華盛頓. They joined it. They didn』t integrate it; they infiltrated it. They joined it, became a part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. They ceased to be angry. They ceased to be hot. They ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all. You had one right here in Detroit — I saw it on television — with clowns leading it, white clowns and black clowns. I know you don』t like what I』m saying, but I』m going to tell you anyway. 』Cause I can prove what I』m saying. If you think I』m telling you wrong, you bring me 馬丁 Luther King and A. Philip Randolph and 詹姆士 Farmer and those other three, and see if they』ll deny it over a microphone.

No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover. When 詹姆士 Baldwin came in from Paris, they wouldn』t let him talk, 』cause they couldn』t make him go by the script. Burt Lancaster read the speech that Baldwin was supposed to make; they wouldn』t let Baldwin get up there, 』cause they know Baldwin’s liable to say anything. They controlled it so tight — they told those Negroes what time to hit town, how to come, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn』t make; and then told them to get out town by sundown. And everyone of those Toms （湯姆叔叔）was out of town by sundown. Now I know you don』t like my saying this. But I can back it up. It was a circus, a performance that beat anything Hollywood could ever do, the performance of the year. Reuther and those other three devils should get a Academy Award for the best actors 』cause they acted like they really loved Negroes and fooled a whole lot of Negroes. And the six Negro leaders should get an award too, for the best supporting cast. （Malcolm X on March on 華盛頓 for Jobs and Freedom, 11/10/1963. Malcolm X的思想在人生最後一年發生重大變化，故決不能就上述摘錄而歸納其對民權運動的看法，就像不能用金的一篇演說來總結金一樣）

再次強調：本文無意就馬丁·路德·金本人或其1963年華盛頓遊行的演說（還有所有其他演說）作任何結論或猜測，更沒有試圖貶低其演說中的任何資訊。