24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

njfuxpc

银虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 425.7
帖子: 37
在线: 17小时
虫号: 768214

[资源] 经典英语电影台词（续）

《闻香识女人》
Frank: I'll show you out of order. You don't know what out of order is, Mr. Trask, I'd show you, but I'm too old, I'm too tired, I'm too fuckin' blind, if I were the man I was five years ago, I'd take a flame thrower to this place! Out of order? Who the hell do you think you're talkin' to? I've been around, you know? There was a time I could see, and I have seen, boys like these, younger than these, their arms torn out, their legs ripped off, but there is nothin' like the sight of an amputated spirit. There is no prosthetic for that, you think you're merely sendin' this splendid foot solider back home to Oregen with his tail between his legs, but I say you're executin' his soul! And why? Because he is not a Baird man. Baird men, you hurt this boy, you're gonna be Baird bums, the lot of you. And Harry, Jimmy, and Trent, wherever you are out there, fuck you too!

Trask: Stand down, Mr. Slade!
Frank: I'm not finished. As I came in here, I heard those words: cradle of leadership. Well, when the bough breaks, the cradle will fall, and it has fallen here, it has fallen. Makers of men, creators of leaders, be careful what kind of leaders you're producin' here. I don't know if Charlie's silence here today is right or wrong, I'm not a judge or jury, but I can tell you this: he won't sell anybody out to buy his future! And that my friends is called integrity, that's called courage. Now, that's the stuff leaders should be made of. Now I have come to crossroads in my life, I always knew what the right path was. Without exception, I knew, but I never took it, you know why, it was too damn hard. Now here's Charlie, he's come to the crossroads, he has chosen a path. It's the right path, it's a path made of principle that leads to character. Let him continue on his journey. You hold this boy's future in your hands, committee, it's a valuable future, believe me. Don't destroy it, protect it. Embrace it. It's gonna make you proud one day, I promise you.
斯莱德中校：让你见识见识什么是破坏规矩，你不知道什么叫破坏规矩，垂斯克先生，真该让你见识，可我太老了，太累了，我他MD还是个瞎子。要是五年前，我会拿火焰喷射剂把这给烧了！破坏规矩？你以为在跟谁说话？我可是久经沙场，那时候我还能看得见，我看见的是象他们这么大，甚至还要小孩子们胳膊被炸断了，腿被截肢了，可但那些都不及丑陋的灵魂可怕，因为灵魂没有义肢。你以为你只是把这个好青年像落水狗一样的送回俄勒冈的老家？？你们泯灭的是他的灵魂！！为什么？！就因为他不够做一个拜尔德人？拜尔德人，你们若是伤害了这个孩子，你们就是拜尔德的混蛋，你们全是。哈瑞、吉米、特伦特，不管你们坐在哪，见你们的鬼！
校长：请你肃静，斯莱德中校。
斯莱德中校：我还没说完呢，我刚一进到这里，就听到那些话："未来领袖的摇篮"。如果架子断了，摇篮也就掉了，它已经随落了。造就青年、培养未来的领袖的人们，看吧！要小心了，你们在培养什么样的领袖，我不知道！今天查理保持沉默是对还是错，我虽然不是法官，但我可以告诉你，他不会为了自己的前途而出卖任何人。朋友们！这就是人们常说的正直，这就是勇气，这才是未来领袖所具有的品质。现在我到了一个人生的十字路口，我一向知道哪条路是正确的，毋庸置疑，我知道，可我从没走它，为什么？因为它太艰难了。轮到查理了，他也在一个人生的十字路口，他选择了一条路，一条有原则、成全他人格的路。让他沿着这条路继续前行吧，这孩子的前途掌握在你们的手里，委员们，他会前途无量的，相信我，别毁了他！保护他！支持他！我保证会有一天你们会为此而感到骄傲！我保证。

Donna：Michael thinks the tango's hysterical.
Frank: Well, I think Michael's hysterical
唐娜：迈克尔认为探戈很疯狂。　　
弗兰克：我认为迈克尔很疯狂。
Eversleeping
Once I travelled seven seas to find my love
And once I sang seven hundred songs
Well, maybe I still have to walk seven thousand miles
Until I find the one that I belong
I will rest my head side by side To the one that stays in the night
I will lose my breath in my last words of sorrow
And whatever comes will come soon
Dying I will pray to the moon
That there once will be a better tomorrow
Once I crossed seven rivers to find my love
And once, for seven years, I forgot my name
Well, if I have to I will die seven deaths just to lie
In the arms of my eversleeping aim
I will rest my head side by side to the one that stays in the night
I will lose my breath in my last words of sorrow
And whatever comes will come soon
Dying I will pray to the moon
That there once will be a better tomorrow
I dreamt last night that he came to me
He said：“My love, why do you cry?”
For now it won't be along any more
Until in my cold grave we will lie
The Empathy Issue
The American legal system is based on a useful falsehood. It’s based on the falsehood that this is a nation of laws, not men; that in rendering decisions, disembodied, objective judges are able to put aside emotion and unruly passion and issue opinions on the basis of pure reason.
Most people know this is untrue. In reality, decisions are made by imperfect minds in ambiguous circumstances. It is incoherent to say that a judge should base an opinion on reason and not emotion because emotions are an inherent part of decision-making. Emotions are the processes we use to assign value to different possibilities. Emotions move us toward things and ideas that produce pleasure and away from things and ideas that produce pain.
People without emotions cannot make sensible decisions because they don’t know how much anything is worth. People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers. They are sociopaths who sometimes end up on death row.
Supreme Court justices, like all of us, are emotional intuitionists. They begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work, which have been idiosyncratically ingrained by genes, culture, education, parents and events. These models shape the way judges perceive the world.
As Dan Kahan of Yale Law School has pointed out, many disputes come about because two judges look at the same situation and they have different perceptions about what the most consequential facts are. One judge, with one set of internal models, may look at a case and perceive that the humiliation suffered by a 13-year-old girl during a strip search in a school or airport is the most consequential fact of the case. Another judge, with another set of internal models, may perceive that the security of the school or airport is the most consequential fact. People elevate and savor facts that conform to their pre-existing sensitivities.
The decision-making process gets even murkier once the judge has absorbed the disparate facts of a case. When noodling over some issue — whether it’s a legal case, an essay, a math problem or a marketing strategy — people go foraging about for a unifying solution. This is not a hyper-rational, orderly process of the sort a computer might undertake. It’s a meandering, largely unconscious process of trial and error.
The mind tries on different solutions to see if they fit. Ideas and insights bubble up from some hidden layer of intuitions and heuristics. Sometimes you feel yourself getting closer to a conclusion, and sometimes you feel yourself getting farther away. The emotions serve as guidance signals, like from a GPS, as you feel your way toward a solution.
Then — often while you’re in the shower or after a night’s sleep — the answer comes to you. You experience a fantastic rush of pleasure that feels like a million tiny magnets suddenly clicking into alignment.
Now your conclusion is articulate in your consciousness. You can edit it or reject it. You can go out and find precedents and principles to buttress it. But the way you get there was not a cool, rational process. It was complex, unconscious and emotional.
The crucial question in evaluating a potential Supreme Court justice, therefore, is not whether she relies on empathy or emotion, but how she does so. First, can she process multiple streams of emotion? Reason is weak and emotions are strong, but emotions can be balanced off each other. Sonia Sotomayor will be a good justice if she can empathize with the many types of people and actions involved in a case, but a bad justice if she can only empathize with one type, one ethnic group or one social class.
Second, does she have a love for the institutions of the law themselves? For some lawyers, the law is not only a bunch of statutes but a code of chivalry. The good judges seem to derive a profound emotional satisfaction from the faithful execution of time-tested precedents and traditions.
Third, is she aware of the murky, flawed and semiprimitive nature of her own decision-making, and has she accounted for her own uncertainty? If we were logical creatures in a logical world, judges could create sweeping abstractions and then rigorously apply them. But because we’re emotional creatures in an idiosyncratic world, it’s prudent to have judges who are cautious, incrementalist and minimalist. It’s prudent to have judges who decide cases narrowly, who emphasize the specific context of each case, who value gradual change, small steps and modest self-restraint.
Right-leaning thinkers from Edmund Burke to Friedrich Hayek understood that emotion is prone to overshadow reason. They understood that emotion can be a wise guide in some circumstances and a dangerous deceiver in others. It’s not whether judges rely on emotion and empathy, it’s how they educate their sentiments within the discipline of manners and morals, tradition and practice.

回复此楼