If you were a normal person, all your instinct is to love yourself and other people. If you were a guard, all your responsibility is to obey obedience to keep the door close whatever happened in it and make sure the outside in order.
如果你是一個常人，你将會愛己愛人。如果你是一個守衛，你将服從權威\履行職責，不管門後發生了什麼都得守住門，以維持外面世界的秩序。
But, what if you were a guard who need to lock a door which is on fire with hundreds of people——children, women and the old. What will you do?
但是，如果你是一個守衛，你要守的房子與房裡的數百人正在燃燒——孩童、女人和老人都在房子裡。你會怎麼做？
Luck the door——execution of duty, or open the door——make some risks but follow your heart?
是守住門，履行守衛的職責？還是冒一些風險打開門，遵從愛人的天性？
1961s, Dr Stanley Milgram, a famous psychologist from Yale University, ran an extremely horrible but famous experiment which is about people launch a war between morality and authority when they were asked to hurt other people.
耶魯大學的心理學家斯坦利·米爾格拉姆（Stanley Milgram）教授在1961年進行了一個相當令人驚恐的著名實驗，是關于人們當被要求傷害他人的時候，内心關于個人道德和服從權威的想法，進行了激烈的鬥争。
The experiment was aimed at profound understanding about the unforgiven behavior of Nazis after the WWⅡ, Milgram once said.
米爾格拉姆希望通過進行這個實驗，可以在二戰這個災難後深刻理解納粹戰犯可能保有的永不可饒恕的行為。
There were two testees, “Teachers” and “Students”, join the research together in order to achieve the purpose of it. Teacher, the main subject of the experiment, was being required to shock a student with different electric current if the student answers wrong. (Actually, the student sat at the opposite room and he didn’t get shocked.)
為了達到研究目的，他共同測試一對被試，一個擔當“老師”，另一個擔當“學生”。如果學生答錯問題，老師即主要實驗對象，被要求對學生進行電擊（學生大概是坐在對面的房間，但實際上他不會受電擊）。
Meanwhile the researcher played some shouts from the room which sounds like the student are suffering. Under such extremely pressure, some subjects wanted to stop to shock and end the research, but the researcher kept urging them to go on.
取而代之，研究人員會播放一些叫喊聲，聽起來就像那個學生正處在痛苦之中，一些處在巨大壓力下的老師想要停止電擊并結束實驗，但實驗人員會促使他繼續下去。
You probably already know the story: The subject were far more obedient than Milgram were expected to be, in both frequency and intensity. At the first experiment, 65 percent of subjects hit the 450 volts button, labelled ‘XXX’ instead of ‘lethal’, three times before Milgram cut them off.
也許你早就知道實驗結果了：無論是頻率還是強度，被試所展現出的服從要遠遠超出米爾格拉姆的預期。在第一次的實驗中，米爾格拉姆出面阻止之前，60%的被試三次按下了被标記為”XXX”（即“緻命”）的450伏電擊按鈕。
...All subjects reached 300 volts, which is meant they believed they had administered 20 distinct shocks. Even desperate cry was coming from the opposite room clearly, they still chose to hear the voice of the authority-punishing the student.
所有的被試都達到了300伏，這意味着他們相信自己已經實施了20種不同的電擊。即便對面房間清晰地傳來痛苦的哭喊聲，被試仍舊服從了權威的命令——懲罰學生。
The meaning of the research is that proclaiming how obedience of authority worked and Warning not to do that unquestioningly, defined by the public currently. But moral contradiction is what the experiment try to implied, Scientific American viewed recently.
此研究普遍被定義為揭示了服從權威的運作過程以及對盲目服從權威的警告，然而，《科學美國人》（Scientific American）最近提到這個研究，主張将研究結果視為暗示一種道德矛盾。
Milgram concluded that the human willingness to obey orders is ‘a fatal flaw nature has designed in us, and which in the long run gives our species only a modest chance of survival’.
米爾格拉姆總結道，人類服從權威的意願是“一個我們與生俱來的緻命缺陷，從長遠來看，這個缺陷隻給了人類一個小小的生存機會”。
But, as we know, Milgram’s research have been challenged since his paper（Obedience to Authority, 1974）published. One argued the test data is totally counterfeit because 60 percent subjects refused to press the ‘XXX’ button according to the experimental records from Yale University.
不過，正如我們所知，自米爾格拉姆發表論文(《權威服從》，1974)以來，他的實驗一直遭到質疑。有人争論道，該實驗數據造假，根據耶魯大學的實驗記錄，當時60%的被試拒絕按下标記為“XXX”的電擊按鈕。
One figured that subjects can’t witness what he had really done visually, which is particularly different from the reality. The other considered that there were a lot of disobedience hidden in the obedience numbers, and a number of confounding variables. Such as luring of reward. (Subjects will be rewarded after the research and they knew it.)
有人稱，被試無法親眼見證自己罪行的後果，這與現實犯罪不盡相同。還有人說，該實驗中隐藏了許多非權威變量和混淆變量，例如金錢的誘惑（被試知道，實驗結束後自己可以獲得豐厚的報酬）。
Anyway, the research may not prove us who we are but, in its particulars, Milgram’s story arises us to think who we really are and how to understand other people around us.
無論如何，這個實驗也許不能證明我們的人性，但是，米爾格拉姆實驗故事本身就激發了我們的思考，人究竟是怎麼的？我們如何理解身邊的人？
Michael Berg, a young boy, who fell in love with a beautiful old woman named Hannah try to understand the whole story of his beloved mysterious woman.
年輕男孩邁克爾·伯格與名為漢娜的美麗中年女子相愛，他不斷嘗試去理解這位他深愛的神秘女子的整個故事。
...Why Hannah never talk about herself with him even they had sex everyday? Why Hannah leaved him without a word? Why he can’t went back to his own life after Hannah’s leave?
為什麼漢娜從不與他談論自己的身世，即便他們每天都做愛？為什麼漢娜一言不發地離開了他？漢娜離開後，他為什麼不能回到自己正常的生活中去？
Why Hannah became a guard who murdered hundreds of people when he met her again 8 years later? Why Hannah spoke what she had done during the WWⅡrighteously and vigorously? Why Hannah admitted all the crime including what she had not done?
8年後再相遇，為什麼漢娜變成了一個謀殺數百人的門衛？在二戰期間罪孽深重的漢娜，為什麼能理直氣壯談起自己的所作所為？為什麼漢娜承認了所有的罪行，即便她沒有做？
Why Hannah suicided on her free day?
為什麼漢娜在刑滿之日選擇了自殺？
Self-esteem is the reason why Hannah did those things. Love support her alive and Self-esteem made her die. Everyday she listens the story which was recorded by Michael and feels safe and sound. She learns how to read and write for Michael also.
自尊心，是漢娜一切行為的注腳。愛是她活下去的理由，自尊心則使她放棄生命。每一天，她都在聽邁克爾給她錄的故事，并且感到平靜與安甯。她甚至為了邁克爾學會了閱讀與寫信。
Refusing to hold her hand because Michael still can’t understand and forgive what she had done-hurt him on his young age and kill people without mercy.
但邁克爾依舊不能理解、原諒漢娜的所作所為：傷害了年少時光的他，不帶情感殺死了很多人，所以邁克爾拒絕牽起她的手。
...It made Hannah’s heart bleeding. Hannah seldom think about those cruel behavior she had done. Even She was called Nazi. she figured that she just do what she should do as a guard. She thought she was right until she suicided.
這一切使漢娜的心都碎了。她很少回憶自己此前的殘酷行為，即便她被稱為“納粹”，她仍舊覺得自己隻是做了一個守衛應該做的事情。直到自殺前，她都覺得自己是對的。
What Hannah’s did may be familiar with the most of so-called Nazis’. They probably have no idea what they are really doing. They just follow the rules and obey obedience. The most important thing is they are very likely to think they are definitely right just like Hannah.
漢娜的所作所為也許與所謂的“納粹”相似，他們也許根本沒有意識到自己正在什麼，他們隻是遵從規則、服從權威。更為重要的是，他們極有可能與漢娜一樣，認為自己做的是絕對正确的。
So what can we blame them? Even it is a dangerous idea but no one can deny it. Can you? I remember clearly that Hannah asked the judge ‘well, what would you have done?’ when she was queried why she would do that crime. The judge and the public dropped into silence.
那麼，我們又能責怪他們什麼呢？即便這是一個危險的發言，但誰又能否認呢？我清晰地記得，在電影中，當法官質問漢娜為什麼要犯罪時，她反問法官一句話，她說“那麼，您會如何做呢？”法官、觀衆陷入了沉默。
The Reader (2008,12) told us that story with a peaceful and cold tone, told us about love, humanity and the world-all are complicated and various. I wish you won’t miss the story and understand the world better. I wish you love different people and embrace the world, which is a symbol of growing up.
電影《朗讀者》（2008，12）用一種平穩而理智的語調講述故事，告訴我們愛、人性與世界——所有一切都是複雜而多樣的。我希望你們不會錯過這個故事，通過電影更好地理解世界。我希望你們愛不同的人，擁抱不一樣的世界，如此，我們便長大了。
