关于台词

In 1935, Ed Murrow began his career with CBS. When World War II broke out, it was his voice that brought the Battle of Britain home to us, through his "This Is London" radio series. He started with us all, many of us here tonight, when television was in its infancy, with the news documentary show, "See It Now." He threw stones at giants. Segregation, exploitation of migrant workers, apartheid, J. Edgar Hoover, not the least of which, his historical fight with Senator McCarthy. He is the host of our enormously popular show, "Person to Person," and tonight he is here with is son, Casey, wife, Janet, and all of you who he's worked with, inspired, lectured, and taught. Ladies and gentlemen, the Radio-Television News Directors Association and Foundation welcomes Mr. 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 own 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 alone am responsible for the saying of it.

Our history will be what we make of it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred 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 realities 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 it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture, too late.

Oh, if none of us had ever read a dangerous book or had a friend who was different, never joined an organization that advocated change, we'd all be just the kind of people Joe McCarthy wants. We're gonna go with the story, cos the terror is right here in this room.

He was one of those civilized individuals who did not insist upon agreement with his political principals as a precondition for conversation or friendship.

No one familiar with the history of his 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. His primary achievement has been confusing the public mind as between the internal and the external threats of communism. We must not confuse dissent from 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 into our history and our doctrine, we will remember we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Sen. McCarthy's methods to keep silent or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom where ever it still exists in the world. But we cannot defend freedom abroad by 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 who's fault is that? Not really his; he didn't create this situation of fear, he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right: the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Good night, and good luck.

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge and retribution will not limp in catching up with us. Just once in awhile, 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 thorough-going 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 a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country - and therefore the future of the corporations?

To those who say people wouldn't look, they wouldn't be interested, they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply -- there is, in 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 towards those ends. Otherwise, it is merely wires and lights in a box. Good night, and good luck.

关于爵士

本片声音简单，大部分是人物对话。有时会出现的声画不同步会让人联想起戈达尔。就音乐而言，爵士乐在影片中得到了很好的运用，在每一次莫洛的节目播完后，爵士乐就会响起。情节的缓急，全得益于音乐的转换。影片中出现了五首爵士乐，均由Dianne Reeves重新演绎。I’ve Got My Eyes on you在默罗演讲完之后伴随着当场听众的沉默以及经典的爵士节拍极好地烘托了当时的时代氛围，反应了人物情绪。黑白画面中男人抽着烟，爵士的配乐则恰好地映衬出那个时代的阴暗与烟雾缭绕。影片中，当人们都活在被秘密监控的恐惧中时，默罗是第一个声称“to restrict civil liberties in the name of security”不合法的人，节目之后I’ve Got My Eyes on You的歌词则很好地揭示出默罗与麦卡锡的冲突，暗示了本片的时间线以及叙事核心。这一首与其余四首的最大区别在于这一首的播放导演消除了所有的人声和环境声。

关于影片

“戈雅之灵”展示的世界充满猜疑与质询。而二战后没多久的美国人心惶惶、焦虑重重。“麦卡锡事件”前后几年间，在影片中的展现以及真实数据的显示，就是在对共产主义的恐惧下，以民主的名义控诉其极权并一面剥夺着人权搞起了政治迫害。而这次事件波及深远，除了在美国国内，拉丁美洲的朋友恐怕也深有感触。深受左翼思潮影响的拉美国家在古巴以及智利共产主义取得胜利之后，几乎整个拉美地区几乎在同一时刻在美国的操控下进入了独裁时期。直到现在，从委内瑞拉的动乱中依然可以窥见美国对共产主义在自家后院的做出的斩草除根式的努力。

“麦卡锡事件”中，当人们在疑云重重中度日，只有默罗坚持为那些蒙受不白之冤的人们说话；当人们嗅到恐怖气息的第一反应都是逃避时，只有默罗这样的人选择站起来，拒绝成为被人摆弄的布偶。他一直遵守并追求着他心中新闻的意义和价值便是准确客观。关于这次事件还有另外一部电影《忘了我是谁》，影片中男主并不是英勇赴死的斗士，他只是个安分守己的普通人。我想，这其实也是大多数人面对事情的态度。我们一面寄希望于有人站出来守护家园，为了我们努力争取实现的梦想挺身而出，但同时我们也知道这些信仰需要用生命和鲜血来实现，我们没有勇气成为英雄我们只能歌颂英雄。

“在德国，起初他们追杀共产主义者，我没有说话——因为我不是共产主义者；接着他们追杀犹太人，我没有说话——因为我不是犹太人；此后他们追杀天主教徒，我没有说话，因为我是新教教徒；最后他们奔我而来。却再也没有人站出来为我说话了。”西班牙宗教裁判所1492年开始屠杀犹太人，当年西班牙国内的伊斯兰教徒也没有说话。十年之后的1502年，宗教裁判所的屠刀又伸向了穆斯林，他们起义反抗，却孤立无援，只得被暴力镇压。

现在有一些很流行的言论，颇为煽情，“我不希望你去成为英雄，那太残忍，我只希望你简单快乐。”说这样话的人他们是英雄吗？他们是英勇挑战人类宿命的斗士还是作为宿命论者抱以对全人类的关怀而对命运作出的卑微的请求？

关于自由

第一波

19世纪中后，工业化资本主义社会的贫富差距等社会问题越来越严重，古典自由主义一度被认为失去了中道，袒护有产阶级的特权与不受限制的资本主义，并诱发滋生出对它的反动，即威权保守主义、无政府主义、社会主义、工团主义、民粹主义等，及后从而病变出法西斯主义与布尔什维克式共产主义。这种以自由主义为名的放任资本主义（一度被称为“曼彻斯特自由主义”），在1873年间接导致欧美以至全球的一次经济大萧条和失业潮，也再倒逼出从19世纪下半部开始对古典自由主义的现实主义修正，当年也曾称这次修正的自由主义为新的自由主义，故也可视之为第二波自由主义。

第二波

这波自由主义包括英国的“社会自由主义”，美国的“进步主义”、德国的“秩序自由主义”、费边社式“改良主义”和欧洲的“自由社会主义”、“社会民主主义”。这种“左翼”的、民主的自由主义，即第二波的自由主义，到20世纪已成为自由主义理念上的中道主流。它要克服的是19世纪放任资本主义的自由至上主义、20世纪极右翼专制的法西斯主义和极左翼专制的共产主义。中道自由主义思想是重视个人自由与权利平等的，主张正义公平，也要求赋权全民；自由主义中道结合了古典自由主义与民主主义，并较能够兼容着共和主义、社群主义、多元主义、多文化主义、福利主义、世界主义、自由社会主义甚至人文主义的民主社会主义，体现有家族类似性的、支持自由民主宪政和备有社会保障的国民共同体的政治思想主张。

第三波

80年代后，第二波的中道自由主义却在媒体话语中常被“新自由主义”的凶猛反动所遮蔽──这个市场原教旨式的新自由主义是一种偏激的、非中道的自由主义。它被认为是新的自由主义，而这次的“新”自由主义只是对19世纪中放任资本主义的自由至上主义的强行转型回归，并且一如上次又诱发出2008年经济大风暴和左右翼两边反自由的民粹主义。市场原教旨“新”自由主义抬头后，自由派往往被矮化等同这种自由市场右派，或者被完全相反地认为是经济政治上主张大政府干预市场、社会文化上采取宽容放纵态度的左派。在今天国际关系多极化、文化宗教跨境化的后极权、后殖民、后冷战、后美国、后白人的全球化时代，受到左右翼民粹、排他民族主义、宗教原教旨主义和各种新型专制的诱惑，以及面对三大全球力量（资本、科技与生态）的重大挑战，究竟是自由主义理念已经过时，社会民主体制难以为继，还是说大部分的反自由的政治主张仍旧并且始终都是值得怀疑的。