精品国产_亚洲人成在线高清,国产精品成人久久久久,国语自产偷拍精品视频偷拍

去年11月，一切（再次）近乎崩潰的那天，約書亞·溫納醒來時滿懷興奮。那是個充滿加州南部特色的美麗早晨。他迎著歡快溫暖的陽光，開車穿過太平洋海崖蜿蜒的道路，路邊都是名人和有錢人家的豪宅，大門緊鎖。

他將車停在一棟牧場風格房子的車道上，為一天工作做準備。溫納和商業伙伴，也是創意合作伙伴克里斯·希爾曼已深入合作兩年多，兩人全身心投入一項充滿激情的項目，即制作一部關于悲傷的紀錄片。片中采訪了各類專家，但核心是溫納和希爾曼關于情感的個人體驗。兩人都有兄弟服用海洛因過量去世，溫納的弟弟在2007年去世，希爾曼的哥哥于2009年去世。

房主是希爾曼的父親理查德，他同意接受采訪談論兒子去世。采訪很順利，理查德相當健談且言辭動人。之后，希爾曼、溫納和攝影師拍攝了一些輔助鏡頭。溫納建議希爾曼出鏡，后來拍了些他跟爸爸一起的鏡頭。希爾曼并不高興。兩人吵了幾句，溫納很快站起來。后來這點不愉快很快過去了。

或許只有溫納以為事情過去了，但后來他收到希爾曼發來憤怒的語音郵件，希爾曼顯然沒忘，他還憤怒地抱怨了一大堆：拍攝太不專業，攝影師犯了很多錯，溫納控制時間不力，不肯放棄藝術方面的掌控，還有各種例子證明“我什么事都做不好”，溫納說。

有來必有回，“我停下手中工作。整整一天都被毀了。”后來溫納打電話給希爾曼，兩人互相大吼。溫納掛斷了電話。

好幾個星期兩人都沒說話。為了這部紀錄片他們投入了數百小時，還牽扯到痛苦的回憶和情感。兩人都在想，會不會因為這件事兩人一拍兩散，項目也告吹。

這不是兩人第一次差點散伙。

Last November, on the day in which everything almost fell apart (again), Joshua Wenner woke up excited. It was a characteristically beautiful morning in southern California; the sun beat cheerily down on as he drove through the winding roads of Pacific Palisades, lined with gated, landscaped estates owned by celebrities and the merely uber wealthy.

He pulled into the driveway of a one-story ranch style house, ready for the day ahead. Wenner and his business and creative partner Chris Hillman were more than two years deep into a passion project, a documentary about grief. While the film featured interviews with a variety of experts, its beating heart was Wenner and Hillman’s personal experience with the emotion. Both had lost a brother to a heroin overdose; Wenner’s younger brother passed away in 2007, Hillman’s older brother in 2009.

The house belonged to Richard, Hillman’s father, who had agreed to be interviewed about his son’s death. The interview itself went well—Richard spoke eloquently and movingly. Afterwards, Hillman, Wenner, and a cameraman shot some B-roll. Wenner suggested that Hillman get in the frame, so they had footage of him with his dad. Hillman didn’t like the idea. The two men butted heads, with Wenner quickly standing down. By the end of the day, the minor disagreement was forgotten.

Or so Wenner thought, until he received an angry voicemail from Hillman, who clearly hadn’t forgotten anything and angrily ran through litany of complaints: the unprofessionalism of the shoot, errors made by the cameraman, Wenner’s inability to set a schedule and cede artistic control, and other ways “I had fucked everything up,” Wenner says.

In response, “I shut down. I let it ruin my whole day.” He eventually called Hillman back, and they got into a shouting match. Wenner hung up.

They didn’t speak for weeks. The documentary they’d poured hundreds of hours of work into, not to mention painful memories and emotions, hung in the balance. Both men wondered if this was how their partnership and passion project was going to end.

It wasn’t the first time they’d reached a breaking point.

商業伙伴之間出現分歧非常普遍，仿佛密不可分。隨便舉出一家著名的創業公司，很可能聯合創始人之間都出現過爭斗，結果是一方將另一方擠出公司。 （例子：Facebook、Snapchat、推特、SoulCycle和特斯拉等等。）

創業公司的高調內訌事件總是很引人關注，但數百萬美元，有時甚至數十億美元都因此面臨風險。硅谷的心理學家霍華德·斯科特·渥肖表示，但凡兩人合作創立公司或合作創業，如果關系沒有那么堅實的話，都要擔心有決裂的風險。渥肖的主要業務是配偶和聯合創始人關系咨詢。

即使相互了解多年，非常喜歡彼此的人們也一樣。以溫納跟希爾曼為例，兩人2007年在論壇上相識，拍片子之前一直聯系緊密。

渥肖表示，友誼和聯合創始人的關系截然不同。他將公司或藝術項目的比例比作生孩子，是一種自我發現的過程：“無論之前你是誰，到了那點之后，你會發現自己出現一些全新變化，之前不管你和合作伙伴都無法料到。”

這種不確定性其實令人不安，因為你會感覺并不真正了解對方，尤其當每個錯誤的決定都可能威脅到項目時。如果風險很高，即使微小的分歧也可能感覺像公投，導致聯合創始人之間爭斗不已。

溫納和希爾曼便陷入了僵局。這不僅關于太平洋海崖邊那次拍攝。其實在語音郵件吵架事件之前，他們就有過許多分歧，爭論不斷升級。似乎真有可能就此決裂。

兩個人都不敢相信事態如此嚴重。

Disagreements between business partners are so common they’re a trope. Think of a famous startup, and chances are good its co-founders have fought, one very likely pushing out the other for good. (See: Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, SoulCycle, Tesla, among many others.)

While high-profile startup blow ups get the most attention—unsurprising, as millions, sometimes billions of dollars are at stake—any company or business partnership where two people are building something they care about is at risk of implosion if the relationship isn’t built on a strong foundation, says Howard Scott Warshaw, a Silicon Valley-based therapist who focuses on relationship counseling between spouses as well as co-founders.

This is true even for people who have known and liked each other for years before going into business, as was the case for Wenner and Hillman who met at conference in 2007 and kept in close contact before they started filming.

A friendship and a co-founder relationship are distinct, says Warshaw. He likens starting a company or artistic project to having a baby, in that it’s an exercise in self-discovery: “No matter who you’ve been up until that that point there are new parts of you that will emerge, that you and your partner have never seen before.”

This uncertainty—the feeling that you don’t really know the other person—is disquieting, particularly when it seems every wrong decision has the power to threaten the survival of the project. When the stakes are this high even minor disagreements can feel like a referendum, a dynamic that can pit co-founders against one another.

Wenner and Hillman were at an impasse. It wasn’t just the Pacific Palisades shoot. Leading up to the voicemail incident, they’d had a number of disagreements and weathered a series of escalating arguments. A permanent rift seemed likely.

Both men couldn’t believe they’d gotten to this point.

項目早期令人興奮的那段時間，住在紐約的溫納和住在洛杉磯的希爾曼不斷溝通，發信息、打電話，發郵件興奮地交流想法。希爾曼說：“有時我們會聊幾個小時，感覺像胸中一團火越燒越旺。”這部紀錄片對兩人都是一種解脫。有了合作伙伴，接觸久久縈繞心頭的主題時也沒那么讓人恐懼。幾個月后，他們聘請了一位新員工，在洛杉磯會面之后開始拍攝。進展定期推進。接下來的幾年里，他們每次見一兩個星期拍片，慢慢將想法拍成鏡頭。

起初基本上沒有沖突。從一開始，兩人的角色就分得很清楚：希爾曼負責把控藝術細節。溫納負責掌握“大局”，他外向且溫和，可中和希爾曼有時敏感易怒的性格，他還負責招募外部合作者和專家。

更重要的是，兩人互相非常尊重，共同承擔損失和也彼此理解。很長一段時間，他們專心投入工作，通過審視自身經歷幫組觀眾更深入了解痛苦的含義，所以沒什么分歧影響進度。 “我們追求的情緒非常深刻，都像逃離內心監獄一樣。” 希爾曼說，“愿景和使命感非常強烈，所以各自行為的某些方面都不太在意。”

但關鍵是，兩人沒有坦誠討論分歧解決問題，而且簡單掩蓋。隨著項目拖延，兩人關系越發緊張，沖突也越來越不容忽視。

兩人都開始發現對方令人討厭的一面，只是之前一閃而過沒在意。溫納受不了希爾曼的脾氣：“他經常生氣，大喊大叫。一點點小事就能引爆怒火，他還經常生自己的氣，然后發泄在我身上。”

與此同時，溫納性格溫吞讓希爾曼很難受，他還容易將中立評論視為攻擊。開始拍攝之前，“我只是感覺他熱情洋溢，做事投入。”希爾曼說。溫納事事防御的態度和害怕直接沖突“讓我開始懷疑他。”

太平洋海崖拍攝前幾個月，問題第一次出現，當時溫納向希爾曼轉發了一封電子郵件，一位研究悲傷的著名學者剛開始有意參與，但拒絕接受采訪。希爾曼問起溫納怎么找學者的情況，溫納認為希爾曼在批評。他以憤怒地辯解。當時正在旅行的希爾曼在郵件里簡短回應了一句，“去你的。”事情就此一發不可收拾。

后來兩人沒有深談，讓事情自己過去。在渥肖看來，這種處理方式大錯特錯。“無法相互溝通并培養良好關系的創始人肯定會失敗。”他說。如果過去有過非常不愉快的經歷，又沒有形成解決沖突的機制，一些看似微小的誤解就容易導致翻舊賬揭瘡疤。

“關鍵不是新出現的事情，而是新仇舊恨一起算。”渥肖說。“人們往往不愿意為之前誤解導致的積怨負責任。”

In the project’s heady early days, Wenner (who lives in NYC) and Hillman (LA) were in constant communication, excitedly running ideas by one another via texts, calls, and emails. “Sometimes we would talk for hours, just kind of, you know, feeding the fire,” Hilman says. The documentary was a relief to both of them; having a partner lessened the fear of approaching a subject they had both been circling, alone, for a long time. Within a few months, they hired a crew and met in LA to begin filming. Progress was periodic. Over the next couple years, they would meet up for one to two weeks to film, slowly converting their ideas into footage.

At first, these meetings were largely conflict-free. From the outset, their roles were clearly defined: Hillman was responsible for nailing the artistic details. Wenner was the “big picture” guy; outgoing and friendly to Hillman’s sometimes prickly personality, he was also responsible for recruiting outside collaborators and experts.

What’s more, the two men had a strong mutual respect, borne of a shared loss and the understanding that came with it. For very long time, the importance of the work they were attempting—to help viewers work through their own grief by examining their own—kept disagreements from derailing forward progress. “Because of the emotionality of what we were pursuing was so deep, we had a jail get out of free card.” Hillman says. “Our vision and mission was so intense that I think we got away with certain aspects of our respective behaviors.”

But problems, instead of being talked out and resolved, were simply papered over. As the project dragged, tensions grew more frequent and harder to ignore.

Both began to recognize unsavory traits in one another that they had only seen in flashes. Hillman’s temper grated on Wenner: “He would get mad and yell and scream. Little things would set him off, and he would get mad at himself and take it out on me.”

Meanwhile, Wenner’s penchant for stewing rather than addressing problems frustrated Hillman, as did his tendency to view neutral comments as attacks. Before they began filming, “I had only experienced him as this warm engaging person who puts himself out there.” says Hillman. Wenner’s defensiveness and fear of direct conflict “made me start to doubt him a little bit.”

These issues first came to a head a few months before the Pacific Palisades shoot when Wenner forwarded Hillman an email, in which a prominent researcher on grief who initially seemed interested in participating declined to be interviewed. Hillman responded by asking questions about how Wenner had approached the researcher, which Wenner read as criticisms. He responded with angry defensiveness. Hillman, who was traveling at the time, dramatically escalated the situation, responding with a curt, emailed: “Fuck you bro.”

They eventually smoothed things over without talking through any of the underlying issues. For Warshaw, that’s a red flag. “Founders who can’t communicate well and form a good bound — that can guarantee failure.” he says. When a shared history is fraught enough and there is no system in place to address conflict, seemingly minor misunderstandings are capable of reopening old, nasty wounds.

“It’s often not really about what’s happening in the moment, but the weight of accumulated resentment.” Warshaw says. “What people tend not to do is take responsibility for the resentments they created by miscommunicating in the first place.”

不過在語音郵件事件發生后，溫納和希爾曼難得地做到了認真溝通。一周后，希爾曼先提出了免戰書。因為實際問題和兩人處理的方式差距太大，迫使二人采取行動。這部紀錄片對他們來說太重要了，不能繼續吵下去。

所以兩人細細梳理過去的沖突，主要是自我批評，也由此發現令人不安的真相。溫納發現自己處理沖突的方式傾向于被動：“我沒告訴他真實的感受。所有事我都憋著，感覺就算他知道也沒用。在他最需要知道真相時，卻聽不到我的真心話。”

另一方面，希爾曼則正視了自己的憤怒問題。每當感覺沮喪或受挑戰時，他傾向于出口斥責，而溫納只能忍受他的暴躁脾氣。溫納將怒氣憋在心里幾周，有時幾個月之后，會忍不住跟希爾曼對抗，或者試圖設定界限，緊張的關系就會爆發變成全面戰斗。希爾曼推遲時間，溫納生氣抱怨，導致希爾曼脾氣更大，溫納只得退一步忍耐。這是個惡性循環，兩個人停止溝通，進一步拖延拍攝。

他們理了理過去的沖突，分析各種因素的相互作用，確定溝通中的障礙，還有以后要注意和改變的方面。這項練習很有價值。現在溫納試著把擔心的事直接講出來發泄不快，哪怕只是很小的事，免得發展為嚴重糾紛影響進度。他也不再將希爾曼的直言快語當成批評。希爾曼方面，感到要失控時就注意管住脾氣，多做深呼吸。他還努力鼓勵溫納表達意見，避免不管不顧自己說了算。“我們之間80%的爭吵都是因為其中一個人感到不受重視，”希爾曼說。“爭吵的實際內容反而沒那么重要。”

兩人之間仍然會有沖突，特別是現在隨著紀錄片拍攝工作逐漸結束，準備參加各種電影節。兩個人的性格都談不上完全改變，溫納仍然傾向于壓抑情緒，希爾曼還是急性子。但兩人都表示更理解對方的溝通方式，這意味著誤解升級之前可以及時處理。

“我們學會了多討論。”溫納說。兩人都表示如果換個項目可能很難做到這點。花上整個周六下午誠實地反省自身并不愉快，而且自省原本就是永遠持續的行為。但如果兩人想共同努力建立持久的伙伴關系，打造出優秀的作品，自省可能是必不可少的。（財富中文網）

譯者：Pessy

審校：夏林

Miraculously after the voicemail incident, Wenner and Hillman were able to do exactly that. After a week, Hillman extended an olive branch. The gap between the actual issue at hand and their response to it scared them both enough to take action. The film was too important for them to continue on like this.

And so each combed through past conflicts with a critical eye to his own behavior, uncovering unsettling truths. Wenner noticed a passive aggressive slant to the way he handled conflict: “I wasn’t telling him how I really felt. I was holding everything back, and my story was, oh he can’t handle it, he can’t hear the truth when really he needed that more than anything.”

Hillman, in turn, saw an anger problem. He had a tendency to lash out when frustrated or challenged, and Wenner was often on the receiving end of his temper. Tension erupted into full-fledged fights when Wenner, after weeks, sometimes months, of swallowing his feelings, stood up to Hillman or tried to set boundaries. Hillman pushed back, which triggered an outpouring of resentment from Wenner, which set Hillman off further, causing Wenner to retreat. It was a vicious cycle that lead to long stretches of time when the two men stopped speaking, halting production.

They went through past conflicts, analyzing their interactions to identify breakdowns in communication and what they needed to be aware of and change going forward. It was a valuable exercise. Wenner now tries to work past his discomfort to voice his concerns, even minor ones, before they can morph into potentially schedule-stopping disagreements. He also stops himself from immediately reading Hillman’s blunt style as a critique. For his part, Hillman keeps tab on his temper and takes a breath when he can feel himself spiraling out of control. He also takes pains to encourage Wenner to voice his opinions and refrains from steamrolling them with his own. “Eighty percent of our fights is because one of us doesn’t feel heard,” Hillman says. “What we are fighting about becomes irrelevant.”

There is still conflict, especially now, as work on the documentary winds down and they prepare to enter it in festivals. Neither men are completely transformed: Wenner still tends to repress his emotions, Hillman remains a hot head. But both say they have a better understanding of how the other communicates, which means misunderstandings can be caught before they can turn into something more insidious.

“We’ve learned to talk through it.” Wenner says. For a different project, both say they might not have reached this point. Honest self-reflection isn’t a fun way to spend a Saturday afternoon, nor is a process that ever really ends. But for two people who want to work together to build a partnership and product that lasts, it just might be essential.