片名： 狂奔天涯/母女情深 Not Without My Daughter(1991)

編劇： Betty Mahmoody，David W Rintels， William Hoffer

主演： 莎莉菲爾德，阿爾弗雷德莫里納，Sheila Rosenthal

製片國家：美國

語言：英語，波斯語

上映日期：1991 年 1 月 11 日

【劇情簡介】

一個伊朗移民的醫生 Moody，與美國人妻子貝蒂及女兒 Mahtob 住在美國。因為想家心切，他說服妻子帶著女兒回伊朗老家度假。貝蒂原來不願意，因為她從報章雜誌聽來的信息，伊朗不是一個令人愉快的居住地方，如果你是一個美國女子，更是如此。終究她還是順從丈夫的心願，全家來到伊朗，與 Moody 的家人同住，開始了計畫的短暫假期。

很快的，Moody 說出事實，因為種族歧視，他在美國的工作被裁。他壓根兒就不想回美國。但是貝蒂根本無法接受丈夫家族嚴格的穆斯林規矩，丈夫也性情大變，以家暴代替溝通。貝蒂是一個堅強獨立的美國婦女，終於獲得伊朗境內的異議人士幫助，展開逃離伊朗的行動......。

【電影觀後感】

1991 年，24年前是澳洲經濟不景氣的年代，我當時沒有關注電影。這麼多年來也沒有聽過這一部電影，對於穆斯林的電影我也不是很有興趣。昨天電視上第一次看到播放，電影一開始就是一家抵達伊朗，Moody 立刻受到一大家族的熱烈歡迎。 

妻子貝蒂身為美國人，外表與衣著與眾不同，加上與丈夫家族的陌生與隔閡，本來心裏就覺得不安。驅車回家前，一臉嚴峻的小姑交給 Moody 黑色的長衣與頭巾要求貝蒂立刻穿上。

剛開始貝蒂沒有瞭解衣著規矩的嚴厲，頭巾沒有完全蓋住頭髮，有家人陪伴走在路上仍然遭受陌生伊朗男子的非難。Moody 提醒貝蒂，伊朗的女子衣著規則是必須小心遵守不可逾越。

這樣的風俗不是我們親自經歷過的，當然引起我的興趣繼續觀賞電影。 

聽說這部電影取材來自電影編劇人貝蒂的真實經歷 ，看完電影，身為非穆斯林的外國人真的覺得毛骨聳然。

我很好奇，也猜想澳洲此時播放這部電影的用意，要激起民眾與伊斯蘭國作戰的熱情。如果不是別有用意，這樣明顯的“歧視性” 電影 不太可能被允許播放。當然，我心裏也害怕，有女兒的父母能不擔心？

我特別上網搜尋各種評論，發現劇情明顯的受到伊朗人與穆斯林人的質疑，他們認為這是貝蒂個人的經歷，她遇到的是特殊個案，他們堅信伊朗與穆斯林的真面目絕對不是這樣的。有人指出來當時美國的中東戰爭氣息正旺，有意挑起美國人對穆斯林的敵對情緒。

後來我看到這個影評網站 http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/not-without-my-daughter-1991，評論非常中肯，我個人非常認同，茲大略翻譯在這裡，原文複製於文末參考：

【Roger Ebert 影評中文翻譯】

這部電影拍得非常好，激動觀眾的心情，不只是母女親情，還有道德與種族的議題，讓人心情忐忑不舒服。故事情節一方面牽引觀眾為女主角貝蒂因為嚴厲的家族與宗教教規剝奪母女的血脈連結與人身自由而不平，另一方面又對與美國人正在作戰的一群人的負面特質的嚴重指控。

我無法想像電影公司有沒有想過電影出品的這個時間點：電影故事所批判的嚴重負面形象所屬的人群，也可能反映到中東一批與美國人一起作戰的穆斯林。

電影中的女主角莎莉菲爾德所演的貝蒂，是一個平凡的美國人，不同的是她嫁給一個在醫院裏工作的伊朗人醫生。他們有一個幼小的女兒，過著看起來像是中產階級的生活，但是真實的生活不是表面所看到的那麼單純。

她的丈夫 Moody 在醫院裏受到種族歧視的打壓，心情頹喪，思鄉情切。終於提出回家看看的念頭。

貝蒂是猶豫的，她讀過伊朗國內動蕩不安的報導。她也沒有把握婆家的人能否接納她。Moody 對可蘭經發誓她沒有什麼需要恐懼的。事實上，在他們抵達伊朗後，貝蒂立刻陷入令她恐懼的化外世界。

穆斯林的女人的出生就是帶罪的，所以全身都要嚴密包裹，連一點頭髮都不可以外現。婆家的人不太嘗試與她溝通，只是重複宗教的教條。他們只當她是 Moody 的孩子的媽媽，是伊斯蘭教女兒的異教徒媽媽。

最初，Moody 是給予貝蒂感情上的支持的。但是，隨著預計回美國的日期接近，Moody 性情轉變，對她非常暴躁，最後才攤開事實，他們不回美國的。他原來美國醫院裏的工作已經被炒魷魚，所以他要留在伊朗。貝蒂是妻子，必須服從丈夫，跟著留下來。

從這裡開始，電影把觀眾帶人一個伊斯蘭教原教的世界，丈夫施行家暴對待妻子是合乎宗教的。女人沒有西方世界裏所擁有的人權。劇情完全沒有讓穆斯林族群的立場與觀點有表達的機會，沒有一個穆斯林的角色是陽光的。願意幫助貝蒂的人都屬於穆斯林的叛徒，劇中的穆斯林人彼此的對話也不用字幕顯示英文翻譯。

整個故事都是從貝蒂的角度敘述她遭受一批殘酷無情的宗教狂熱人群欺壓的經歷與感受。

伊斯蘭教不同於西方對人權尊嚴的信仰。它看起來沒有個人自由的觀念，尤其是婦女。The chilling death sentence pronounced against Salman Rushdie is an example of its regard for free speech, and Rushdie's recent attempts at compromise, as the price of buying his life, are understandable even while they are unutterably depressing. （這一段談到的人不是我知道的，所以略過。）

不管怎麼說，我們應該堅持有平衡角度的劇情。即使在平衡的條件下，另一方的說法是對我們不利的，我們也應該接受。這部電影的拍攝，沒有給予劇中穆斯林角色公平表達的機會。

這樣充滿怨憎、心存惡意氣息的劇情如果被允許在美國拍攝用來對付任何其他種族團體，這就可以被斥責為種族歧視與偏見。

即使有某些穆斯林人成為我們的敵人，也不能成為種族歧視的藉口。在一個與我們的理想相衝突的世界裏，我們必須自我堅持。

我不反對人們看這部電影，基於兩個理由：

1. 劇情的張力與演出的水準是不可否認的，不同情劇中的母女是不可能的。莎莉菲爾德的角色詮釋，表現出一個有勇有謀，一心一意要救出自己與女兒的母親角色非常稱職。

2. 第二個理由很難解釋。我認為電影有讓觀眾深思的效果。它可能被視為單方面的攻擊，同時也是讓我們檢驗自己的偏見，檢討我們自己的公平意識。

我們看電影必須對電影劇情傳達的信息照單全收嗎？還是應該自我警惕不落入偏見，不被牽著鼻子跟著劇情與角色有附和性的怨恨情緒？

我也很好奇，這部電影在伊朗拍攝的時候，伊朗是我們的敵國，伊拉克是我們的同盟。現在情勢變了，伊拉克總統海珊是我們的敵人。

想想看，如果電影拍攝的景點是伊拉克，票房的結果會如何？把敵人惡魔化似乎是合乎人類的勝者為王的歷史。但是，每一個戰士都是人家的孩子，也都希望將來有自己的孩子，這樣的充滿恨意的電影不是解決問題的辦法。

【影評的原文】

I don't imagine the makers of this film could have imagined this timing in their wildest dreams: that their negative portrait of fundamentalist Muslims would be released at a time when we seem about to go to war with some of them. (It will probably not occur to many of the viewers of this film that we are opposing only one Muslim nation - that the others in the Middle East are on our side. Although it is billed as being based on a true story, this is a film that inspires such distinctions.) The film stars Sally Field as Betty, an ordinary American mom in all respects but one - she has married an Iranian who is a doctor at the local hospital. They have a young daughter and a settled middle-class life, but beneath the surface all is not well.

Her husband, Moody (Alfred Molina), suffers from racist taunts at the hospital, and grows homesick when he telephones to his family back in Iran. Finally he suggests a visit to his homeland.

Betty is not so sure. She reads about unrest in Iran. She is not sure of her welcome. Moody promises her - on the Koran - that she has nothing to fear. But soon after they land in Iran, she is plunged into a frightening and alien world.

As a woman, she is an occasion of sin. It is forbidden for her to reveal so much as a lock of hair in public. The other members of her husband's family make little effort to communicate with her - other than to give orders or repeat religious truths. They are interested in her only as the mother of her husband's child; her role, it appears, is to be the infidel mother of an Islamic daughter.

At first Moody is supportive. But as the time draws near for their return to America, he undergoes a personality change, becoming angry and short with her, and finally admitting that they are not going back at all. He has lost his job at the hospital, and plans to stay in Iran. And as for Betty and their daughter? Why, they will stay, too. She is his wife and must obey him.

The movie then plunges us into a world of Islamic fundamentalism, which it depicts in shrill terms as one of men who beat their wives, of a religion that honors women by depriving them of what in the West would be considered basic human rights, of women who are willing or unwilling captives of their men. No attempt is made - deliberately, I assume - to explain the Muslim point of view, except in rigid sets of commands and rote statements. No Muslim character is painted in a favorable light; the local people who help the heroine are dissidents or outlaws. We are not even permitted to learn what they say, because the film declines to use subtitles to translate the considerable spoken dialogue of the Iranian characters.

All is seen from the point of view of Betty, who is shown surrounded by harsh, cruel religious fanatics.

Islam is not a religion that reflects Western beliefs about human dignity. It seems to have little place for the concept of individual freedom - especially as it applies to women. The chilling death sentence pronounced against Salman Rushdie is an example of its regard for free speech, and Rushdie's recent attempts at compromise, as the price of buying his life, are understandable even while they are unutterably depressing. Yet at the same time we should stubbornly believe in a concept of fair play - even fair play for those who might not play fair with us. And "Not Without My Daughter" does not play fair with its Muslim characters. If a movie of such a vitriolic and spiteful nature were to be made in America about any other ethnic group, it would be denounced as racist and prejudiced.

It is no excuse that some Muslims are our enemies. In a world that does not reflect our ideals, we must hold to them for ourselves.

Yet I recommend that the film be seen, for two reasons. One reason is because of the undeniable dramatic strength of its structure and performances; it is impossible not to identify with this mother and her daughter, and Field is very effective as a brave, resourceful woman who is determined to free herself and her daughter from involuntary captivity.

The second reason is harder to explain. I think the movie should be seen because it is an invitation to thought. It can be viewed as simply a one-sided and bitter attack. But it also provides an opportunity for testing our own prejudices, our own sense of fairness. Must all movies be taken on their own terms, or do we retain the strength of mind to view them critically - to remain alert to prejudice and single-minded vitriol? It is curious, in a way, that this movie is set in Iran. At the time its events take place - and at the time the film was made - Iran was our enemy and Iraq was our ally. Now times have changed, and Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq, is our enemy. Think of the box office possibilities if the movie had been set in Iraq! That would be right in keeping with the long, sad human history of portraying enemies as godless, inhuman devils. But every soldier is somebody's child, and some, no doubt, hope to have children of their own, and movies fueled by hate are not part of the solution.

來源： http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/not-without-my-daughter-1991