Photobucket
████████相關資料████████
导演: Rod Lurie
编剧: Rod Lurie
主演: Kate Beckinsale / Matt Dillon / Angela Bassett / Alan Alda / Vera Farmiga

制片国家/地区: 美国
上映日期: 2008-12-19 >更多
语言: 英语

imdb链接: tt1073241
████████相關資料████████
  一名女记者,揭发了某位中情局探员,却因为拒不供出自己的 新闻来源而被关入监狱,她的丈夫开始还站在妻子这边,对其予以支持,然而随着事情的发展,他 也开始心怀不满,因为妻子坚持所谓的原则,甚至于家庭及自己于不顾...
Photobucket
████████相關資料████████
毕加索说:没有扼杀个人的国家,就没有真知灼见 的人。

Rachel Armstrong
: 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 a monster.

女主角在說這段話地時候似乎忘了,世界本來就不是公平的。竟管在法庭上強調地是公平正義,但是知法玩法的情形下,女主角她受到的傷害也是最大的。 有時很難想像她如此做為是否值得?為了保護提供消息的來源,造成自己家庭破碎和兒子的不信任,看起來很虧。

但最後得知消息來源居然是”被女主角揭穿特工身份的大使夫人女兒”時,以片尾地立場來看女主角站在母親的立場、站在記者的立場下似乎都不認為自己 應該將這事實說出來。しかし但是!這樣的結果和發展當真無法預料得到嗎?女主角沒有因為被普利茲獎和 新聞大案的美夢給沖昏了頭嗎?這一路看下來,感覺女主角似乎是以懺悔的心態、贖罪的想法進片尾的監獄

人的一生到底該為理想奮鬥?還是應該為了生活而忍受不公?原本這電影應該討論地內容是”當我們不再有能力約束當權手中的權力時”這個國家是否政府為所欲 為、無所畏懼;只是這片子最後面給人的感覺有點變了味道,畢竟我看不太到”當我們總是知道真相時,又總被現實給強姦”的後續,這部電影繞開了話題,又扯了 小孩和母親讓人更難以抉擇和判斷囧rz,當然最後不得不說地是這電影非常好看~

████████我是超級無敵分隔線████████
Alan Burnside: [In front of the Supreme Court] 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 5-4 decision, close. In his descent in Branzburg, Justice Stewart said, 'As the years pass, 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. Mrs. Armstrong could have buckled to the demands of the Government-she could've abandoned her promise of confidentiality. She could've 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 shutter 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 her 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.

 在1972年的“布莱兹伯格诉海斯案”中
  In 1972 in Branzburg v. Hayes,
  
  正是本法庭 违背了
  确保记者在大陪审团前拒绝透露其情报人姓名的权利
  this court ruled against the right of reporters to withhold the names of their sources before a grand jury,
  
  而是赋予政府权力
  监禁了所有这些不肯透露信息来源的记者
  and it gave the power to the government to imprison those reporters who did.
  
  裁决结果是以5:4的接近票数得出的
  It was a five-four decision. Close.
  
  “布莱兹伯格案”中的斯图尔特法官曾说过:
  In his dissent in Branzburg, Justice Stewart said,
  
  “随着时光流逝 政府手中的权力渗透到各个角落”
  "As the years pass,the power of government becomes more and more pervasive."
  
  “这些当权者 无论何党何派”
  "Those in power," he said, "whatever their politics,"
  
  “都只想着让自己永垂不朽”
  "want only to perpetuate it"
  
  “而人民才是最终的受害者”
  "and the people are the victims."
  
  多年以后 这样的权力被愈加滥用
  Well, the years have passed, and that power is pervasive.
  
  阿姆斯特朗女士
  Ms. Armstrong could have
  
  本可在与政府的斗争中妥协
  buckled to the demands of the government.
  
  本可放弃她保守秘密的原则
  She could have abandoned her promise of confidentiality.
  
  本可简简单单地回去同家人团聚
  She could have simply gone home to her family.
  
  但如果这么做了
  But to do so
  
  那就意味着 再不会有人 向她提供任何情报
  would mean that no source would ever speak to her again,
  
  再不会有人 向她的报社提供任何情报
  and no source would ever speak to her newspaper again,
  
  然后明天
  and then tomorrow
  
  当我们逮捕了其他的报社记者
  when we lock up journalists from other newspapers,
  
  我们让这些报社失去所有的信息来源
  we'll make those publications irrelevant as well,
  
  等同于我们在无视第一修正案的存在
  and thus we'll make the First Amendment irrelevant.
  
  那我们又如何才能知晓 一名总统是否有掩盖罪责?
  And then how will we know if a president has covered up crimes?
  
  一名军官是否有虐待囚徒?
  Or if an army officer has condoned torture?
  
  作为一个国家
  We, as a nation,
  
  当我们不再有能力约束当权者手中权力的时候
  will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over.
  
  当政府不再惧怕任何责任的时候
  And what then is the nature of government
  
  它将成为何种性质的国家?
  when it has no fear of accountability?
  
  这值得我们认真思考
  We should shudder at the thought.
  
  监禁记者?那针对的是别的国家
  Imprisoning journalists? That's for other countries.
  
  是那些惧怕她人民的国家
  That's for countries who fear their citizens,
  
  而不是想要珍惜和保护她人民的国家
  not countries that cherish and protect them.
  
  就在不久前
  Some time ago,
  
  我开始感受到来自瑞秋·阿姆斯特朗案中的人性压力
  I began to feel the personal human pressure on Rachel Armstrong,
  
  我曾告诉她 我只代表她个人
  and I told her that I was there to represent her
  
  而不是她的原则
  and not a principle.
  
  直到我再次见到她
  And it was not until I met her
  
  我才意识到:对真正伟大的人而言
  that I realized that with great people,
  
  个人与原则之间 根本没有区别
  there's no difference between principle and the person.
以上文字 from http://movie.douban.com/review/2028615/
████████相關資料████████
豆瓣介紹


ddtclon 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()