剧照
剧情介绍
激辩风云电影免费高清在线观看全集。
本片取材自真人真事，曾获得美国青少年观众票选大奖提名。 上世界30年代的德州，黑人被剥夺选举权，并在就业、司法、军役、婚姻等各方面受到隔离和歧视。Mel Tolson（丹泽尔·华盛顿 Denzel Washington 饰）希望自己的同胞们做些事情。他在学校成立了黑人高 校的第一支辩论队。在仔细选拔下，四位学生脱颖而：Hamilton（杰梅因·威廉姆斯 Jermaine Williams 饰）、Henry（内特·派克 Nate Parker 饰）、Samantha（朱尼·斯莫利特 Jurnee Smollett 饰）和James（丹泽尔·惠特克 Denzel Whitaker 饰）。在辩论队成长的道路上，Mel不断的挑战着社会当时的传统观念。他反叛的精神和他激烈的教学方式也不断的被人们炮轰，但他始终坚持着自己信念，最终和辩论队员们一起进入了哈佛大学的辩论殿堂……热播电视剧最新电影火线追凶之狂魔再现长安诡事之末世神兵死亡游戏（国语版）兜风2022舞武器舞乱伎阿德晒命我是山姆鲍勃·罗斯：那些美与丑的风景偶像活动 第四年东北风云神探三人秀感情劫匪老爸老妈的浪漫史 第一季特工小萌妻蓝色北冰洋可卡因教母格丽塞尔达第一季戴手铐的旅客消失的大象猪迪克之蓝海奇缘恋爱假期2006逃歪星撞地球第五季作家(2017)新仙鹤神针粤语间宫兄弟 間宮兄弟大黄蜂（原声版）轮到你了 新特别篇
本片取材自真人真事，曾获得美国青少年观众票选大奖提名。 上世界30年代的德州，黑人被剥夺选举权，并在就业、司法、军役、婚姻等各方面受到隔离和歧视。Mel Tolson（丹泽尔·华盛顿 Denzel Washington 饰）希望自己的同胞们做些事情。他在学校成立了黑人高 校的第一支辩论队。在仔细选拔下，四位学生脱颖而：Hamilton（杰梅因·威廉姆斯 Jermaine Williams 饰）、Henry（内特·派克 Nate Parker 饰）、Samantha（朱尼·斯莫利特 Jurnee Smollett 饰）和James（丹泽尔·惠特克 Denzel Whitaker 饰）。在辩论队成长的道路上，Mel不断的挑战着社会当时的传统观念。他反叛的精神和他激烈的教学方式也不断的被人们炮轰，但他始终坚持着自己信念，最终和辩论队员们一起进入了哈佛大学的辩论殿堂……热播电视剧最新电影火线追凶之狂魔再现长安诡事之末世神兵死亡游戏（国语版）兜风2022舞武器舞乱伎阿德晒命我是山姆鲍勃·罗斯：那些美与丑的风景偶像活动 第四年东北风云神探三人秀感情劫匪老爸老妈的浪漫史 第一季特工小萌妻蓝色北冰洋可卡因教母格丽塞尔达第一季戴手铐的旅客消失的大象猪迪克之蓝海奇缘恋爱假期2006逃歪星撞地球第五季作家(2017)新仙鹤神针粤语间宫兄弟 間宮兄弟大黄蜂（原声版）轮到你了 新特别篇
长篇影评
1 ) 激辩风云
没看影片之前单纯的觉得这跟其他的竞技类励志片一样，讲述伟大辩手成长的故事，这确实是一部传记片没错，但更多的聚焦于美国黑人在上个世纪初期受到的歧视和不公待遇，即便面对如此困境，他们依旧坚持不懈的用和平方式追求着自由和平等，片子整体还是挺积极向上的，虽然诸如小树林里吊死并焚烧黑人小孩的镜头触目惊心；节奏控制的挺好，剧情也很吸引人，格外喜欢这部影片的打光.
2 ) Script of Havard Debate
Resolved: civil disobedience is a moral weapon in the fight for justice. But how can disobedience ever be moral? Well, I guess that depends on one’s definition of the words. Word. In 1919, in India, 10,000 people gathered in Amritsar to protest the tyranny of British rule. General Reginald Dyer trapped them in a courtyard and ordered his troops to fire into the crowd for ten minutes. 379 died, mean, women, children shot down in cold blood. Dyer said he had taught them a moral lesson. Gandhi and his followers responded not with violence, but with an organized campaign of non-cooperation. Government buildings were occupied. Streets were blocked with people who refused to rise, even when beaten by police. Gandhi was arrested, but the British were soon forced to release him. He called it a moral victory. The definition of moral: Dyer’s lesson or Gandhi’s victory? You choose.
From 1914 to 1918, for every single minute the world was at war, four men laid down their lives. Just think of it. 240 brave young men were hurled into eternity every hour of every day, of every night, for four long years. 35,000 hours, 8,281,000 causalities, 240, 240, 240. Here was a slaughter. Immeasurably greater than what happened at Amritsar. Can there be anything moral about it? Nothing, except that it stopped Germany from enslaving all of Europe. Civil disobedience isn’t moral because it’s non-violent. Fighting for your country with violence can be deeply moral, demanding the greatest sacrifice of all: life itself. Non-violence is the mask civil disobedience wears to conceal it’s true face, anarchy.
Gandhi believes one must always act with love and respect for one’s opponents, even if they are Harvard debaters. Gandhi also believes that lawbreakers must accept the legal consequences for their actions. Does that sound like anarchy? Civil disobedience is not something for us to fear. It is, after all, an American concept. You see, Gandhi draws his inspiration not from a Hindu scripture, but from Henry David Thoreau, who I believe graduated from Harvard and lived by a pond not too far from here.
My opponent is right about one thing. Thoreau was a Harvard grad, and like many of us, a bit self-righteous. He once said “any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one.” Thoreau the idealist could never know that Adolf Hitler would agree with his words. The beauty and the burden of democracy is this: no idea prevails without the support of the majority. The people decide the moral issues of the day, not a majority of one.
Majorities do not decide what is right or wrong. Your conscience does. So why should a citizen surrender his or her conscience to a legislator? No, we must never ever kneel down before a the tyranny of a majority.
We can’t decide which laws to obey and which to ignore. If we could, I’d never stop for a red light. My father is one of those men that stands between us and chaos: a police officer. I remember the day his partner, his best friend was gunned down in the line of duty. Most vividly of all, I remember the expression on my dad’s face, nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral, no matter what name we give it.
In Texas, they lynch Negroes. My teammates and I saw a man strung up by his neck and set on fire. We drove through a lynch mob, pressed our faces against the floorboard. I looked at my teammates, I saw the fear in their eyes, and worse the shame. What was this Negro’s crime that he should be hung, without trial in a dark forest filled with fog? Was he a thief? Was he a killer? Or just a Negro? Was he a sharecropper, a preacher? Were his children waiting up for him? And who are we to just lie there and do nothing? No matter what he did, the mob was the criminal. But the law did nothing, just left us wondering why. My opponent says nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral. But there is no rule of law in the Jim Crow South, not when Negroes are denied housing, turned away from schools, hospitals, and not when we are lynched. St. Augustine said, “an unjust law is no law at all,” which means I have a right, even a duty to resist with violence or civil disobedience. You should pray I choose the latter.
From 1914 to 1918, for every single minute the world was at war, four men laid down their lives. Just think of it. 240 brave young men were hurled into eternity every hour of every day, of every night, for four long years. 35,000 hours, 8,281,000 causalities, 240, 240, 240. Here was a slaughter. Immeasurably greater than what happened at Amritsar. Can there be anything moral about it? Nothing, except that it stopped Germany from enslaving all of Europe. Civil disobedience isn’t moral because it’s non-violent. Fighting for your country with violence can be deeply moral, demanding the greatest sacrifice of all: life itself. Non-violence is the mask civil disobedience wears to conceal it’s true face, anarchy.
Gandhi believes one must always act with love and respect for one’s opponents, even if they are Harvard debaters. Gandhi also believes that lawbreakers must accept the legal consequences for their actions. Does that sound like anarchy? Civil disobedience is not something for us to fear. It is, after all, an American concept. You see, Gandhi draws his inspiration not from a Hindu scripture, but from Henry David Thoreau, who I believe graduated from Harvard and lived by a pond not too far from here.
My opponent is right about one thing. Thoreau was a Harvard grad, and like many of us, a bit self-righteous. He once said “any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one.” Thoreau the idealist could never know that Adolf Hitler would agree with his words. The beauty and the burden of democracy is this: no idea prevails without the support of the majority. The people decide the moral issues of the day, not a majority of one.
Majorities do not decide what is right or wrong. Your conscience does. So why should a citizen surrender his or her conscience to a legislator? No, we must never ever kneel down before a the tyranny of a majority.
We can’t decide which laws to obey and which to ignore. If we could, I’d never stop for a red light. My father is one of those men that stands between us and chaos: a police officer. I remember the day his partner, his best friend was gunned down in the line of duty. Most vividly of all, I remember the expression on my dad’s face, nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral, no matter what name we give it.
In Texas, they lynch Negroes. My teammates and I saw a man strung up by his neck and set on fire. We drove through a lynch mob, pressed our faces against the floorboard. I looked at my teammates, I saw the fear in their eyes, and worse the shame. What was this Negro’s crime that he should be hung, without trial in a dark forest filled with fog? Was he a thief? Was he a killer? Or just a Negro? Was he a sharecropper, a preacher? Were his children waiting up for him? And who are we to just lie there and do nothing? No matter what he did, the mob was the criminal. But the law did nothing, just left us wondering why. My opponent says nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral. But there is no rule of law in the Jim Crow South, not when Negroes are denied housing, turned away from schools, hospitals, and not when we are lynched. St. Augustine said, “an unjust law is no law at all,” which means I have a right, even a duty to resist with violence or civil disobedience. You should pray I choose the latter.
3 ) 我们自己写出生活的美丽
现在我片尾凝重优美的旋律里写这个影评。
准确的说，没有评，只有感觉。在现在我抑制不住的眼泪里，我无法用我的逻辑来组织出“评论”。
就像这结尾的音乐一样。
生活是严肃的，甚至是沉重的，像鼓声，沉沉的敲下去，让你颤抖。是什么让这些，有了大提琴的婉转，有了钢琴的撩拨？或许就是那句台词——“坚持说出真理的声音”。
我们会怀疑，会彷徨，但一定要坚持。
这个影片常用的标签有一个叫“励志”。
我对励志没有什么感觉。
有愤慨，有担心，有热血沸腾，有血泪共存的暂时胜利、、、、、有很多，可是，没有励志。我想，是，安慰。
当别人生活中的苦难以一种如此震撼的形式呈现的我面前，被烧死，那伤痕累累的身体，掉下来的时候像是干枯的木头，咔嚓的就断了，我有点傻的感觉。这种在书里写的东西，看的时候只要不想象就深究那种情形，只会轻描淡写的说“真残忍”就过去的东西。当这些东西血淋淋的呈现在你眼前的时候，无话可说的傻掉。
而这样难以置信的事情，竟然是某些人真实的生活。那么常见，那么普通，那么自然。
我终于可以遥远的试图感受了。
于是我不由的愤怒。
每个人生活里都有这样那样的不公平，伤心，甚至是恐怖的经历。这些痛苦，不用对比。
鸡蛋对会鸡蛋过敏的人，一样是致命的。即使鸡蛋，看起来实在不起眼。
正因为我们有“同情”，我们看到别人的胜利，就像自己战胜了自己的胜利一样。
安慰。同是天涯沦落人。
准确的说，没有评，只有感觉。在现在我抑制不住的眼泪里，我无法用我的逻辑来组织出“评论”。
就像这结尾的音乐一样。
生活是严肃的，甚至是沉重的，像鼓声，沉沉的敲下去，让你颤抖。是什么让这些，有了大提琴的婉转，有了钢琴的撩拨？或许就是那句台词——“坚持说出真理的声音”。
我们会怀疑，会彷徨，但一定要坚持。
这个影片常用的标签有一个叫“励志”。
我对励志没有什么感觉。
有愤慨，有担心，有热血沸腾，有血泪共存的暂时胜利、、、、、有很多，可是，没有励志。我想，是，安慰。
当别人生活中的苦难以一种如此震撼的形式呈现的我面前，被烧死，那伤痕累累的身体，掉下来的时候像是干枯的木头，咔嚓的就断了，我有点傻的感觉。这种在书里写的东西，看的时候只要不想象就深究那种情形，只会轻描淡写的说“真残忍”就过去的东西。当这些东西血淋淋的呈现在你眼前的时候，无话可说的傻掉。
而这样难以置信的事情，竟然是某些人真实的生活。那么常见，那么普通，那么自然。
我终于可以遥远的试图感受了。
于是我不由的愤怒。
每个人生活里都有这样那样的不公平，伤心，甚至是恐怖的经历。这些痛苦，不用对比。
鸡蛋对会鸡蛋过敏的人，一样是致命的。即使鸡蛋，看起来实在不起眼。
正因为我们有“同情”，我们看到别人的胜利，就像自己战胜了自己的胜利一样。
安慰。同是天涯沦落人。
4 ) The Great Debaters
-Qui est le juge ?
-Le juge, c'est Dieu !
-Pourquoi est-il Dieu ?
-Parce qu'il décide qui perd et qui gagne, pas mon adversaire !
-Qui est votre adversaire ?
-Il n'existe pas !
-Pourquoi n'existe t-il pas ?
-Parce qu'il n'est qu'une voix discordante qui conteste la vérité
两次重复这段话，所含有的分量绝不相同。
首次，教练向队员讲述这段话，队员们其实是不太懂的。其后，这些学生亲眼见到种族屠杀，种族歧视的事件后，深深了解到黑人极为劣势的地位和对改变现状的无力感。
他们选择了自己能做的努力，用语言做武器。
辩论员一路披荆斩棘，打进决赛，来到Havard。主角在决战前选择相信自己的队友，放弃荣耀的机会，让队友上场。这是很了不起的。在决定让队友代替自己上场的决战前夜，两人重复了这段话，泪流满面。这眼泪包含着对现实的无力，也包含着志气和决心。
故事有个大团圆，黑人胜了比赛，全场都支持他们获胜。我比较悲观，我来写这个故事，一定是悲剧。
-Le juge, c'est Dieu !
-Pourquoi est-il Dieu ?
-Parce qu'il décide qui perd et qui gagne, pas mon adversaire !
-Qui est votre adversaire ?
-Il n'existe pas !
-Pourquoi n'existe t-il pas ?
-Parce qu'il n'est qu'une voix discordante qui conteste la vérité
两次重复这段话，所含有的分量绝不相同。
首次，教练向队员讲述这段话，队员们其实是不太懂的。其后，这些学生亲眼见到种族屠杀，种族歧视的事件后，深深了解到黑人极为劣势的地位和对改变现状的无力感。
他们选择了自己能做的努力，用语言做武器。
辩论员一路披荆斩棘，打进决赛，来到Havard。主角在决战前选择相信自己的队友，放弃荣耀的机会，让队友上场。这是很了不起的。在决定让队友代替自己上场的决战前夜，两人重复了这段话，泪流满面。这眼泪包含着对现实的无力，也包含着志气和决心。
故事有个大团圆，黑人胜了比赛，全场都支持他们获胜。我比较悲观，我来写这个故事，一定是悲剧。
5 ) Powerful words
2008.04.
抄两段台词：
另一段是Samantha的辩词，very powerful.
The state is currently spending five times more for the education for a white child than it is fitting to educate a colored child.
That means better textbooks for that child than for that child.
I say that's a shame, but my opponent says today is not the day for whites and coloreds to go to the same college. To share the same campus. To walk into the same classroom.
Well, would you kindly tell me when that day is gonna come? Is it going to come tomorrow? Is it going to come next week? In a hundred years? Never? No, the time for justice, the time for freedom, and the time for equality is always, is always right now!
另一段在影片中重复说了好几遍，最后他们在哈佛准备比赛灰心丧气要放弃的时候，又想起这段话：
Q: Who is the judge?
A: The judge is God.
Q: Why is he God?
A: Because he decides who wins or loses. Not my opponent.
Q: Who is your opponent?
A: He does not exist.
Q: Why does he not exist?
A: Because he is a mere dissenting voice of the truth I speak!
今天正好有人跟我分享：在我敌人面前你为我摆设宴席！（诗篇23）
抄两段台词：
另一段是Samantha的辩词，very powerful.
The state is currently spending five times more for the education for a white child than it is fitting to educate a colored child.
That means better textbooks for that child than for that child.
I say that's a shame, but my opponent says today is not the day for whites and coloreds to go to the same college. To share the same campus. To walk into the same classroom.
Well, would you kindly tell me when that day is gonna come? Is it going to come tomorrow? Is it going to come next week? In a hundred years? Never? No, the time for justice, the time for freedom, and the time for equality is always, is always right now!
另一段在影片中重复说了好几遍，最后他们在哈佛准备比赛灰心丧气要放弃的时候，又想起这段话：
Q: Who is the judge?
A: The judge is God.
Q: Why is he God?
A: Because he decides who wins or loses. Not my opponent.
Q: Who is your opponent?
A: He does not exist.
Q: Why does he not exist?
A: Because he is a mere dissenting voice of the truth I speak!
今天正好有人跟我分享：在我敌人面前你为我摆设宴席！（诗篇23）
6 ) 语言的力量
这部影片根据真实的人和事改编，这也是它拥有如此强大的力量的原因。 真实的故事呈现远比虚构的有力。尤其是这种关于种族歧视的电影，虽然看过和谈论过不少黑人受到的不公正待遇，但看到影片却更是触目惊心。我为这些辩手们用激辩为黑人争取权力的坚持不懈而感动, 为这位老师在校内外用行动作出的抵抗而感动,为那遇到危机时齐心协力的力量而感动.。抹淡历史的不公正待遇,，让这个世界多一些公平，多一点爱，这也许是我们可以体会到的震撼中的一点点。 语言的力量。 My weapon are my words. 德克萨斯州维利学院里的几位辩手如是说。并且他们用行动说服了我。在哈佛的辩论台上，当小法默用最诚恳最发人深省的辩词去打动在场每一个人的时候 也打动了我。 很难用文字去具化的感觉，就好像突然被注入了去挑战世俗和无奈的力量。这就是励志片所能带给我们的效果吧，《激辩风云》在这方面做的很成功。
背景虽是上半个世纪美国的种族歧视，但其意义却超越时空，电影展现了辩论作为一门艺术的精彩，更体现了其中的价值信念，话语是启蒙的有力武器，只要有不义，真理就要发声，speak the truth! 看惯了国人无关痛痒以嬉笑技巧代替机智思辨的辩论，以为辩论就是一场尔虞我诈的游戏，现在才发现辩论是一门艺术，其中展现的修辞素养与思想学识，机智和激情都是人类文明的缩影。 一场场的辩论，鼓舞人心的不仅仅是接踵而至的胜利，而更多是胜利背后的东西——在种种挫折面前依然不屈不挠的信念和勇气。而辩论便是向社会的有力宣告，因为口舌是无力者最有力的武器，理性的发声就是反抗不公义的和追求理想的有力行动。因此不难理解，这个国家会出现马丁路德金这样的人，他用生命的激情去演讲，带领平权运动让梦想走向现实。 这是一部非常好的电影，至少我是这样觉得的。看完影片，我又重新去看一遍詹姆斯·法莫二世在影片最后的发言，闭上眼睛，体会一下那些话语中所包含的愤怒，无奈，希望，与梦想。也许一部好电影可以带来这些思考也就真的够了！
语言的力量
丹泽尔自导自演，不知道是不是第一次。如果是，那还不错，如果不是，则差强人意的地方还很多。跟“火箭科技”相比，还是太过理想了。
这个世界上最困难的辩论，是跟自己的辩论，正方是自己的信念，反方是恐惧和忧虑。所有的权力都是自己争取来的，如果自己不争取，不相信自己的正确，不依靠坚实的逻辑，不固守自己的阵线，平等和公平不会从天而降……话说DW叔瘦的时候真tmd帅啊！
该片是一部很有野心的作品，无论是片头弗雷斯特·惠特克激情澎湃的演说，还是片尾凝重而庄严的画面和配乐，都显示出导演要将其拍成一部优秀作品。
故事的铺垫太长了，而且最后的辨题为了电影的主题，显得有些牵强。
丹泽尔老兄叨逼叨起来简直要人命
两位影帝很有魅力，可惜丹泽尔作为导演对于人物的刻画还欠奉
在辩论队成长的道路上，Mel不断的挑战着社会当时的传统观念。他反叛的精神和他激烈的教学方式也不断的被人们炮轰，但他始终坚持着自己信念，最终和辩论队员们一起进入了哈佛大学的辩论殿堂
语言的力量
不要指望政府或机构能解决任何重大问题，所有的社会变化都来自于个体的激情。
世上有很多传奇 马丁。路德。金是一个 丹泽尔。华盛顿是另一个
三星半
语言坚定而有力量
刚看完，推荐一下。最后一场辩论是讲公民的不服从的，就冲这点就没可能在大陆公映。所以我推荐
还行
英语课看，典型励志
touching.. 有时最好的总会在最后的 因为力量蓄积太久 赏辨这样历史的声音
励志的辩手成长传记，希望总是青睐于永不懈怠的人。
感觉很不错的电影，看他们辩论的时候也会跟着激动，感觉还挺励志的
只有两个地方可以一整天的看书，除了学校，就是监狱。