Integrity means not cutting corners, which is similar to deflating a tire without warning.
James Spader "Tim Garrity" is shorter compared with John Cusack "Peter Burton."
Imogen Stubbs, portraying "Diana," the Senator's daughter, states: "I SEE HOW PETER GETS A HOLD ON PEOPLE."
1:23:37
HE'S SO GOOD AT TELLING YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR. "
Imogen Stubbs (born 20 February 1961) is an English actress and writer.
Her first leading part was in Privileged (1982), followed by A Summer Story (1988).
Her first play, We Happy Few, was produced in 2004. In 2008 she joined Reader's Digest as a contributing editor and writer of fiction.
Career
[edit]In 1988, Stubbs was a notable Ursula Brangwen in a BBC serialization of The Rainbow, and in 1993 and 1994 had the title role in Anna Lee. She played Lucy Steele in Sense and Sensibility (1995).
In July 2004, Stubbs's play We Happy Few, directed by Trevor Nunn and starring Juliet Stevenson and Marcia Warren, opened at the Gielgud Theatre, London, after a try-out in Malvern.[7] In September 2008 Reader's Digest announced that she had joined the magazine as a contributing editor and writer of adventure stories.[8]
Personal life
[edit]

ChatGPT said:
Stubbs's perspective highlights the idea that a successful marriage is built upon a foundation of enduring friendship, requiring continuous effort and mutual understanding. This sentiment aligns with the views of relationship experts like Dr. John Gottman, who assert that deep friendship is a cornerstone of lasting marriages.RiverLife Church
For more insights on the role of friendship in marriage, you might find this article from Focus on the Family informative: Focus on the Family.Focus on the Family
You said:
ChatGPT said:
???? 原文名言:
“Marriage provides the solace of worked-on friendship and the joy of being known profoundly.”
—— Imogen Stubbs(伊莫金·斯塔布斯),英国演员与作家
???? 中文翻译:“婚姻提供了努力經營的友誼所帶來的慰藉,以及被深刻了解的喜悅。”
“婚姻带来一种深耕友情后的慰藉,以及被深刻理解的喜悦。”
???? 中文解释:
这句话出自英国女演员兼作家 伊莫金·斯塔布斯。她以这句话表达了对婚姻的独到见解:-
婚姻不是一蹴而就的幸福,而是一段 “被认真经营的友情” 所带来的温暖与安慰。
-
真正令人欣喜的,是在婚姻中被 “深刻地了解”,无需伪装,被全然接纳。
-
这与婚姻研究专家(如约翰·高特曼博士)所强调的“深层友谊是幸福婚姻的基础”不谋而合。
如你需要这句话作为婚礼致辞、书信题词或文化文章开头,也可以帮你进行风格化润色。是否希望我将其改写为古意、诗意或情书语气?
You said:
ChatGPT said:
???? 约翰·高特曼博士简介
John M. Gottman(约翰·高特曼),是当今世界最具影响力的婚姻与人际关系研究专家之一,美国心理学家,尤其以其对 婚姻稳定性与离婚预测的研究 而著称。他是 华盛顿大学心理学荣誉教授,也是与妻子 朱莉·高特曼博士(Dr. Julie Gottman) 一起创办的 高特曼研究所(The Gottman Institute) 的联合创始人。
???? 主要成就与理论:
1. ???? “爱情实验室”(Love Lab)
他以“爱情实验室”闻名——在这个实验室里,高特曼通过生理监测、面部表情、语音语调分析等方式,长期观察伴侣互动行为,并发展出一整套科学、可测量的婚姻质量评估方法。2. ???? 可预测离婚的“魔力四骑士”理论(The Four Horsemen)
他提出,有四种行为极易预测离婚的发生,被称为婚姻关系中的 “魔力四骑士”:-
批评(Criticism)
-
鄙视(Contempt)
-
防御(Defensiveness)
-
冷战/逃避(Stonewalling)
3. ???? 情感银行账户(Emotional Bank Account)
他认为良好的关系中,彼此之间应不断“存入”积极情绪(理解、关心、鼓励),以抵消冲突带来的负面影响。4. ???? “5比1”黄金互动比例
通过研究幸福夫妻的沟通方式,高特曼发现:在冲突中,如果每一个负面互动,能被五个正面互动所中和,婚姻关系就能长期维持稳定。???? 著作代表:
-
《爱的五种语言》(与盖瑞·查普曼不同)
-
《The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work》(《幸福婚姻的七个法则》)
-
《What Makes Love Last?》(《让爱长久的秘密》)
-
《Raising An Emotionally Intelligent Child》(《培养情商高的孩子》)
???? 总结:
约翰·高特曼博士的研究将“爱”这件抽象又复杂的事,转化成了可观察、可量化、可训练的行为系统。他被《心理学会会刊》誉为:“世界上最擅长读懂婚姻的人”。
如你希望,我可以用他的理论来分析某段关系的健康状态,或改写为适合演讲/书信/教学引用的版本。需要吗?

Trevor Nunn
|
|
---|---|
Born |
Trevor Robert Nunn
14 January 1940 |
Alma mater | Downing College, Cambridge |
Occupation(s) | Theatre director, lyricist |
Years active | 1960s–present |
Spouses |
Sharon Lee-Hill
?
?
(m. 1986; div. 1991) |
Children | 5, including Laurie and Ellie |
Imogen Stubbs
|
|
---|---|
Born | 20 February 1961 (age 64)
Rothbury, Northumberland, England
|
Education | St Paul's Girls' School Westminster School Exeter College, Oxford Royal Academy of Dramatic Art |
Occupation | Actress |
Years active | 1982–present |
Spouse | |
Children | 2 |
https://youtu.be/7KCkUIXZyQ0?si=0fh2M7VtCQUcZfij
They're the best of friends. Soon, they'll be the worst of enemies. John Cusack (America's Sweethearts, Say Anything) and James Spader (sex, lies and videotape, Pretty In Pink) star in this dramatic, absorbing story of two friends who move from law school to Washington's corridors of power. Cusack plays Peter, a lower-class go-getter who climbs to the position of congressman by betraying everyone who ever trusted him, including his idealistic blue-blooded pal Tim (Spader). Tim, of course, would never cross a friend. Unless it was to avenge his own betrayal...
Release date
Running time
Audio
Subtitle
Actors
Director
Producers
Writer
Genres
**
1:23:18
WHAT'S THAT? ONE OF THE NEW TRICKS I'M LEARNING. HELPS ME SEE HOW THINGS REALLY ARE
1:23:25
INSTEAD OF HOW I WISH THEY WERE. AND WHAT DO YOU SEE?
1:23:31
I SEE HOW PETER GETS A HOLD ON PEOPLE.
1:23:37
HE'S SO GOOD AT TELLING YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR. HOW MUCH WE WANT TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING HE SAYS
1:23:45
BECAUSE OF THAT. IT'S VERY POWERFUL. THAT'S NOT JUST PETER. THAT'S POLITICIANS.
1:23:51
THE SUCCESSFUL ONES, ANYWAY. CAN'T CONDEMN THEM. IT'S THE NATURE OF THE BEAST. DON'T CONDEMN HIM FOR WHAT HE DID TO MY FATHER?
1:23:57
HE DIDN'T BREAK ANY LAW ANY MORE THAN YOUR FATHER DID BY LETTING HIM GET AWAY WITH IT. IT'S A SYSTEM THAT'S WORKED FOR OVER 200 YEARS, REMEMBER?
1:24:07
I THINK HE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH SETTING YOU UP WITH THAT REPORTER. HE DIDN'T. THE FINDINGS WERE CONCLUSIVE.
1:29:48
THIS STUFF'S A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE NOW THAN IT WAS IN 1983.
1:29:57
WE MAY NOT ALWAYS GET WHAT WE WANT, WE MAY NOT ALWAYS GET WHAT WE NEED,
1:30:02
JUST SO'S WE DON'T GET WHAT WE DESERVE. CONGRATULATIONS, CONGRESSMAN.
1:30:08
THANKS, BROTHER. [TELEPHONE RINGS]
1:30:13
[RING] YEAH?
1:30:19
NO, NO. HEY, I APPRECIATE IT. REALLY.
1:30:24
ALL RIGHT. GIVE ME 15 MINUTES.
1:30:34
WHERE THE HELL'S PALMERI? YEAH, I THOUGHT HE'D BE HERE WATCHING HIS RACE HORSE COME IN.
1:30:39
HE'S GOING AWAY TOMORROW. MAYBE HE'S DECIDING WHICH HUNDRED SUITS TO TAKE. AND SHOES TO MATCH.
1:34:43
GARRITY! FBI! GET OUT!
1:35:07
I'M SORRY WH-WHAT I DID TO YOU. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY CHOICE.
1:35:12
OF COURSE YOU DID. NO, MAN. I GOT INSTINCT AND A FEW MOVES. CHOICE IS FOR GUYS LIKE YOU.
1:35:17
DIANA MARRIED YOU... AND YOU CHOSE TO MAKE HER REGRET IT WITH EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAD.
1:35:26
STILES TOOK YOU UNDER HIS WING, AND YOU CHOSE TO BLACKMAIL HIM.
1:35:32
I WAS YOUR FRIEND... AND YOU CHOSE TO BETRAY ME.
1:35:43
YOU DID THIS TO YOURSELF.
1:35:52
WHY?
1:36:13
I NEEDED MORE THAN YOU WERE ABLE TO GIVE. YOU OR DIANA OR ANY ONE PERSON.
1:36:24
THEY SAY GREAT MEN ARE EMBRACED BY THOUSANDS OF STRANGERS. I WANT TO BE GREAT.
1:36:33
SO YOU SACRIFICE THE FEW TO REACH THE MANY.
1:36:45
THEY BELIEVE IN ME DOWN THERE... AND YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT AWAY.
1:36:54
THEY WON'T LET YOU.
1:37:34
THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
1:37:39
YOU KNOW... FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, I'VE BEEN SAYING, "TOMORROW'S LOOKING GOOD."
1:37:49
I'LL TELL YOU A SECRET. TONIGHT'S FEELING GREAT.
1:37:54
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK MY CAMPAIGN FAMILY.
1:37:59
BECAUSE OF YOUR FANTASTIC DEDICATION AND ENERGY, WE'RE HERE TONIGHT.
1:46:01
WE'LL MAKE IT AN ONGOING BET. YOU KNOW THE OLD SAYING IN WASHINGTON, TIM.
1:46:08
ONLY TWO THINGS CAN TRULY WRECK A MAN'S POLITICAL CAREER-- GETTING CAUGHT WITH A LIVE BOY OR A DEAD GIRL.
1:46:21
GOOD LUCK, PETE. SEE YOU AROUND CAMPUS, MAN.
ChatGPT said:
“Only two things can truly wreck a man’s political career—getting caught with a live boy or a dead girl.”is a darkly cynical political aphorism. It’s not originally from the speaker in your clip (likely from a film, TV show, or political satire), but rather a long-circulated saying in American political circles, often attributed (without confirmation) to Louisiana politician Edwin Edwards, who was known for his colorful, brazen style.
???? Meaning and Implications:
-
“Live boy” → Implies a homosexual scandal, especially involving underage or non-consensual context, which was (and sometimes still is) politically explosive in conservative politics.
-
“Dead girl” → Suggests involvement in a fatal scandal with a woman, such as an affair gone terribly wrong or suspicious death, like the infamous Chappaquiddick incident involving Senator Ted Kennedy.
-
The implication → In the cynical view of politics, almost any corruption, hypocrisy, or moral failing can be spun or survived, except for a scandal involving sexual misconduct (especially taboo) or death. These are seen as career-ending.
-
Tone → The phrase is deliberately crude, jaded, and satirical. It’s used not to endorse such thinking, but to mock how politicians often escape accountability unless caught in extreme situations.
?? Important Note:
-
This saying reflects political cynicism, not ethical standards.
-
It's meant to be provocative — a commentary on how scandal, not principle, often drives political fallout.
-
It’s also been criticized for its flippant treatment of real victims, especially in the way it reduces serious crimes to political consequences.
Would you like this analyzed as a cultural artifact, or contextualized in a broader commentary on political accountability and public perception?