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.
如果你是一个常人，你将会爱己爱人。如果你是一个守卫，你将服从权威\履行职责，不管门后发生了什么都得守住门，以维持外面世界的秩序。
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，如果你是一个守卫，你要守的房子与房里的数百人正在燃烧——孩童、女人和老人都在房子里。你会怎么做？
Luck the door——execution of duty, or open the door——make some risks but follow your heart?
是守住门，履行守卫的职责？还是冒一些风险打开门，遵从爱人的天性？
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.
耶鲁大学的心理学家斯坦利·米尔格拉姆（Stanley Milgram）教授在1961年进行了一个相当令人惊恐的著名实验，是关于人们当被要求伤害他人的时候，内心关于个人道德和服从权威的想法，进行了激烈的斗争。
The experiment was aimed at profound understanding about the unforgiven behavior of Nazis after the WWⅡ, Milgram once said.
米尔格拉姆希望通过进行这个实验，可以在二战这个灾难后深刻理解纳粹战犯可能保有的永不可饶恕的行为。
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.)
为了达到研究目的，他共同测试一对被试，一个担当“老师”，另一个担当“学生”。如果学生答错问题，老师即主要实验对象，被要求对学生进行电击（学生大概是坐在对面的房间，但实际上他不会受电击）。
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，研究人员会播放一些叫喊声，听起来就像那个学生正处在痛苦之中，一些处在巨大压力下的老师想要停止电击并结束实验，但实验人员会促使他继续下去。
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.
也许你早就知道实验结果了：无论是频率还是强度，被试所展现出的服从要远远超出米尔格拉姆的预期。在第一次的实验中，米尔格拉姆出面阻止之前，60%的被试三次按下了被标记为”XXX”（即“致命”）的450伏电击按钮。
...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.
所有的被试都达到了300伏，这意味着他们相信自己已经实施了20种不同的电击。即便对面房间清晰地传来痛苦的哭喊声，被试仍旧服从了权威的命令——惩罚学生。
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.
此研究普遍被定义为揭示了服从权威的运作过程以及对盲目服从权威的警告，然而，《科学美国人》（Scientific American）最近提到这个研究，主张将研究结果视为暗示一种道德矛盾。
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’.
米尔格拉姆总结道，人类服从权威的意愿是“一个我们与生俱来的致命缺陷，从长远来看，这个缺陷只给了人类一个小小的生存机会”。
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.
不过，正如我们所知，自米尔格拉姆发表论文(《权威服从》，1974)以来，他的实验一直遭到质疑。有人争论道，该实验数据造假，根据耶鲁大学的实验记录，当时60%的被试拒绝按下标记为“XXX”的电击按钮。
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.)
有人称，被试无法亲眼见证自己罪行的后果，这与现实犯罪不尽相同。还有人说，该实验中隐藏了许多非权威变量和混淆变量，例如金钱的诱惑（被试知道，实验结束后自己可以获得丰厚的报酬）。
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.
无论如何，这个实验也许不能证明我们的人性，但是，米尔格拉姆实验故事本身就激发了我们的思考，人究竟是怎么的？我们如何理解身边的人？
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.
年轻男孩迈克尔·伯格与名为汉娜的美丽中年女子相爱，他不断尝试去理解这位他深爱的神秘女子的整个故事。
...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?
为什么汉娜从不与他谈论自己的身世，即便他们每天都做爱？为什么汉娜一言不发地离开了他？汉娜离开后，他为什么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年后再相遇，为什么汉娜变成了一个谋杀数百人的门卫？在二战期间罪孽深重的汉娜，为什么能理直气壮谈起自己的所作所为？为什么汉娜承认了所有的罪行，即便她没有做？
Why Hannah suicided on her free day?
为什么汉娜在刑满之日选择了自杀？
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，是汉娜一切行为的注脚。爱是她活下去的理由，自尊心则使她放弃生命。每一天，她都在听迈克尔给她录的故事，并且感到平静与安宁。她甚至为了迈克尔学会了阅读与写信。
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.
但迈克尔依旧不能理解、原谅汉娜的所作所为：伤害了年少时光的他，不带情感杀死了很多人，所以迈克尔拒绝牵起她的手。
...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.
这一切使汉娜的心都碎了。她很少回忆自己此前的残酷行为，即便她被称为“纳粹”，她仍旧觉得自己只是做了一个守卫应该做的事情。直到自杀前，她都觉得自己是对的。
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.
汉娜的所作所为也许与所谓的“纳粹”相似，他们也许根本没有意识到自己正在什么，他们只是遵从规则、服从权威。更为重要的是，他们极有可能与汉娜一样，认为自己做的是绝对正确的。
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.
那么，我们又能责怪他们什么呢？即便这是一个危险的发言，但谁又能否认呢？我清晰地记得，在电影中，当法官质问汉娜为什么要犯罪时，她反问法官一句话，她说“那么，您会如何做呢？”法官、观众陷入了沉默。
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.
电影《朗读者》（2008，12）用一种平稳而理智的语调讲述故事，告诉我们爱、人性与世界——所有一切都是复杂而多样的。我希望你们不会错过这个故事，通过电影更好地理解世界。我希望你们爱不同的人，拥抱不一样的世界，如此，我们便长大了。
