《怒海劫運》是一部驚悚電影，劇情充滿(mǎn)了緊張刺激的元素。故事發(fā)生在印度洋上，一艘丹麥貨船“羅森號”被一群索馬利亞海盜劫持。盡管天氣良好，海盜們卻毫不畏懼，他們只關(guān)心能否獲得高額贖金。這時(shí)，船公司的CEO決定親自參與談判，他是一位談判高手，擅長(cháng)應對各種商場(chǎng)上的挑戰。然而，他面臨的唯一要求是保持冷靜，這對他來(lái)說(shuō)是一個(gè)巨大的挑戰。在炎熱的船艙里，保持冷靜幾乎是不可能的任務(wù)。電影通過(guò)兩條線(xiàn)索展開(kāi)，一條是關(guān)于船上的廚師米克爾的故事，另一條是關(guān)于CEO彼得在丹麥公司辦公室里與海盜進(jìn)行談判的情節。這部電影將帶領(lǐng)觀(guān)眾體驗一場(chǎng)驚險刺激的海上劫持，以及人們在極端環(huán)境下的反應和掙扎。

這篇影評可能有劇透

`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.? ><((((o> 電影開(kāi)始的時(shí)候，大廚說(shuō)：你們知道為什麼我做的飯這麼好吃麼？-It's because I have a secret ingredient. Do you know what it is?- Love.`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.? ><((((o> 看完電影，如果問(wèn)：什麼是談判成功的秘方？-耐心`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.? ><((((o> 現實(shí)生活中多數人都不懂什麼是“利害”。比如，有很多會(huì )問(wèn)：船員的生命是能夠拿冷冰冰的金錢(qián)、數字來(lái)衡量的嗎？這根本就是問(wèn)錯了問(wèn)題！真正的問(wèn)題，在於難平的欲壑之上，如何“利害相權”，搭起一座難搭的橋，堪堪能渡過(guò)難關(guān)。的確，海盜手中有槍。但是，這並不改變談判雙方的對等位置！這是一場(chǎng)心理的較量，真正唯一能改變雙方位置的，是雙方的心理。談判中有兩種時(shí)間壓力，一是最後期限，一是時(shí)間成本。海盜們沒(méi)有現代的“時(shí)間”觀(guān)念，因此海盜天然佔據一定的上風(fēng)。也因此伯克利畢業(yè)的談判專(zhuān)家特別提醒：Time is a western concept.It means nothing to them.本片當中實(shí)際有兩場(chǎng)談判。一場(chǎng)是曠日持久的人質(zhì)談判。還有一場(chǎng)是那場(chǎng)“意外”。大談判總的來(lái)說(shuō)很不容易，影片中展示了很多很經(jīng)典的談判技巧：Do not show your emotions.If you do, they hold on you.If they come with threats,so ignore them. OK?Remember, we do not offer more money.It's their turn to go down now.We must continue to negotiate until we come to an agreement.從數字來(lái)看，船公司的策略相當成功，而且讓步的步子幾乎是越邁越小，耐心得到了回報。如果不是當中CEO的情緒失控和海盜開(kāi)槍?zhuān)踔劣锌赡芨佣嗫旌檬〉剡_成目標：$250,000(cap at <$5,000,000 --- I repeat. We must go down to less than fivemillion before we can talk seriously.)$900,000 ( $650,000)$1,500,000 ( $600,000)$2,800,000 ( $1,300,000) (Note: after the the gun shot)$3,300,000 ( $500,000) ->Deal反之海盜的步子越邁越大，也標識著(zhù)他們在喪失耐心$15,000,000 $12,000,000 (-$3,000,000)$8,500,000 (-$3,500,000)$3,300,000 (-$5,200,000) ->Deal而丹麥人與海盜們的小談判卻談崩了，並因此帶來(lái)了意外的結果。原因可以從過(guò)程看得很明顯，就是因為不夠耐心。但是你不能因此怪他們，因為船公司與海盜的整個(gè)談判過(guò)程都有專(zhuān)家團隊的專(zhuān)業(yè)指導，甚至即使這樣，在中間過(guò)程都還出了錯。更重要的，所有丹麥人在”you have a deal”之後全都忘乎所以地高興起來(lái)，他們以為T(mén)here’s a deal，認為海盜會(huì )嚴格細緻地按照協(xié)議來(lái)辦事。這就是今天典型的西方人的價(jià)值觀(guān)念。以船長(cháng)為最典型，因為他不僅僅單純地相信了這個(gè)交易的可靠性，還恢復了他做為“船長(cháng)——Captain”的自我意識。所以中國人講話(huà)，即使談攏了，離開(kāi)人家的會(huì )場(chǎng)之前，甚至在電梯里、廁所里也不要亂說(shuō)話(huà)。往深里說(shuō)，是海盜們不懂“契約精神”嗎？錯！是丹麥人徹底忘記了“契約精神”是怎麼來(lái)的。所謂的“契約精神”，絕不是“互相尊重”和“互惠互利”的結果，而是長(cháng)時(shí)間“互相傷害”、“互相欺騙”的叢林法則下的產(chǎn)物。要想形成“契約精神”，就得先讓不執行契約者明白其所付出的代價(jià)。實(shí)際上，這最終是一種妥協(xié)精神。而要讓人付出代價(jià)、學(xué)會(huì )妥協(xié)，就需要時(shí)間，就得學(xué)會(huì )耐心。也因此在這個(gè)社會(huì )上倡導“契約精神”的，大多不是騙子，就是傻子。每遇到這種人，我總是敬鬼神而遠之。別忘了，丹麥人的祖先們也是海盜。`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.? ><((((o> PS:之所以注意到這部影片，是因為看見(jiàn)了ft上很好的一篇文章，原文和譯文請參見(jiàn)：http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1a322ad6-6293-11e3-bba5-00144feabdc0.htmlhttp://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1a322ad6-6293-11e3-bba5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2tavuvqmD談判“黃金守則”zz（注：請使用原鏈接，文章內容只是我不小心貼上去的）作者：英國《金融時(shí)報》專(zhuān)欄作家 盧克?約翰遜從我們小時(shí)候起，談判就在生活中發(fā)揮著(zhù)極為重要的作用。為家庭作業(yè)而討價(jià)還價(jià)，為合租公寓、買(mǎi)車(chē)或商定勞動(dòng)合同條款而討論條件——我們任何時(shí)候都離不開(kāi)談判。但談判科學(xué)是一門(mén)不受重視的學(xué)科，恐怕很少人真的以嚴謹態(tài)度或先見(jiàn)之明練習談判技巧。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，絕大多數人都會(huì )高估自己的談判能力。商業(yè)領(lǐng)袖應當尤其樂(lè )於提高自己的談判本領(lǐng)。最近上映的一部電影，提醒我們在交易談判中應當遵守兩條黃金原則：一是要耐心，二是不能感情用事。這部電影名叫《怒海劫運》(A Hijacking)，講述了現代非洲海盜劫持了一艘丹麥貨船及其船員以勒索贖金的故事，非常驚心動(dòng)魄。我不會(huì )講述電影的情節，但它很值得一看，能教會(huì )我們在談判的過(guò)程中如何沉著(zhù)應對，以達成更有利的結果——即便在利害攸關(guān)時(shí)也是如此。已故的澳大利亞商人羅伯特?霍姆斯?阿?考特(Robert Holmes à Court)是一個(gè)很有手腕的人。他曾說(shuō)：“有一個(gè)著(zhù)名論斷是，你能判斷出誰(shuí)將在談判中勝出，就是停頓時(shí)間最長(cháng)的那一方?！笨继刂饾u掌控了娛樂(lè )大亨盧?格拉德(Lew Grade)的娛樂(lè )帝國Associated Communications Corporation（簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)ACC），但所付價(jià)錢(qián)僅為AAC內在價(jià)值的幾分之一，其中的操作手法經(jīng)典地便體現了他的談判哲學(xué)。牛市、杠桿以及寬松資金面使得一類(lèi)談判者在許多交易中占據了主導地位：就是那些不斷報出比其他人更高價(jià)格的人。在競購企業(yè)時(shí)，我們公司的報價(jià)總是比別人低?？赡苁俏覀兲斏髁?。但從長(cháng)遠看，總是出價(jià)最高很少真能奏效。隨著(zhù)經(jīng)濟周期的輪動(dòng)，企業(yè)的利潤水平和估值倍數有升有降。當然，如果你用的是別人的錢(qián)，那麼一擲千金就變得容易多了。相比之下，我們公司掌管的大部分資金是自有資金，所以分配使用很?chē)栏?。最接近某項資產(chǎn)的人通常最瞭解它值多少錢(qián)：他們出價(jià)時(shí)，你就要當心了。我有幾次把公司賣(mài)給了內部人，之後經(jīng)常感到後悔。Twitter的創(chuàng )立，就是管理層以有利可圖的條件收購一家企業(yè)的經(jīng)典案例。埃文?威廉姆斯(Evan Williams)擁有一家名叫Odeo的初創(chuàng )企業(yè)，Twitter則是Odeo的附屬項目。2006年，威廉姆斯告訴投資方，Odeo成不了氣候。他說(shuō)：“我將繼續投資Twitter，可Twitter是否有資格得到像Odeo那樣的風(fēng)險投資則很難說(shuō)……”因此，他提議由自己從投資方手中買(mǎi)下Odeo和Twitter的全部股權——據說(shuō)只花了500萬(wàn)美元。五年後，他購入的這些資產(chǎn)已價(jià)值50億美元。如果我投資一家公司，總價(jià)只是考量因素之一。收購價(jià)看起來(lái)便宜，實(shí)際價(jià)值可能遠高於錶面價(jià)值，反之亦然。管理層、資產(chǎn)負債表、商業(yè)潛力和與供應商的長(cháng)期關(guān)系，都是影響收購意願和理由的要素。通常說(shuō)來(lái)，圍繞企業(yè)投資的談判會(huì )涉及方方面面，因為任何合同都涵蓋一系列復雜的要素：包括擔保條款、盡職調查，可能還有項目附帶權益。大多數私人公司都很少出售，而且到下一次易主時(shí)公司可能已發(fā)生翻天覆地的變化。與此同時(shí)，專(zhuān)家估值多數情況下都只是基於充足信息的推測。過(guò)去幾年裡，敲定一項交易所用時(shí)間比信貸危機之前長(cháng)了一倍。在我看來(lái)，這是一個(gè)積極的變化：因為我在倉促投資時(shí)常會(huì )犯錯。當你對一項交易感興趣，但並不會(huì )不惜代價(jià)去達成交易時(shí)，通?？偰苓_成更有利的交易條款。你應當有一種控制力，使自己在交易條款令無(wú)法忍受時(shí)乾脆放棄。無(wú)論對買(mǎi)家還是買(mǎi)家而言，擁有多種選擇無(wú)疑會(huì )比沒(méi)有備選項時(shí)將產(chǎn)生更有利的交易結果。對於任何交易而言，雙方在談判都感到滿(mǎn)意才可能會(huì )帶來(lái)完美結局。譯者/邢嵬`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.? ><((((o> Patience is key to life’s endless negotiation By Luke Johnson`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.? ><((((o> Executives who rush the process are likely to have a long time to dwell on their mistake `?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.? ><((((o> High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a322ad6-6293-11e3-bba5-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2tc1osif0Negotiation plays a central role in life from an early age. Haggles over homework, discussions about sharing an apartment, buying a car or agreeing terms for a job – we must all negotiate all the time.Yet the science of negotiation is an obscure discipline, and I fear few of us really practise it with much rigour or forethought.High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a322ad6-6293-11e3-bba5-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2tc1uDtZ7No doubt most of us believe that we are better negotiators than we really are. All business leaders should be especially willing to improve their techniques. A recent film serves as a powerful reminder about two of the golden rules in negotiating a deal: be patient and do not get emotionally involved. The film in question, A Hijacking , is a gripping tale about modern-day African pirates holding a Danish cargo ship and its crew to ransom. I won’t spoil the plot of the film, but it is well worth watching as a study in how to calmly draw out the bargaining to get a better deal – even when the stakes are very high indeed. The late Robert Holmes à Court, a master Australian wheeler dealer, once said: “It is a well-known proposition that you know who’s going to win a negotiation: it’s he who pauses longest.” The way in which he gradually managed to take control of impresario Lew Grade’s entertainment empire ACC for a fraction of its underlying value was a classic example of his philosophy in action.Bull markets, leverage and easy money have allowed a particular sort of negotiator to dominate in many situations: the guy who repeatedly offers more than anyone else. At my firm we are outbid all the time at auctions for companies. Perhaps we are too cautious. But consistently being the highest bidder rarely works in the long run.Economic cycles turn, and profits and multiples can fall as well as rise. Of course, it is a lot easier to pay lavish sums if you are using that wonderful material, other people’s money. By contrast, at our firm a lot of the cash on the table is ours, so it is strictly rationed. Those who are closest to an asset tend to know its worth best: be careful when they make you an offer. I have sold out of companies on a few occasions to insiders and often regretted it. The creation of Twitter is a fascinating example of management buying a business back on lucrative terms. Evan Williams had a start-up called Odeo – with a side project called Twitter. In 2006 Mr Williams told his investors that Odeo was going nowhere, saying “I will continue to invest in Twitter, but it’s hard to say it justifies the venture investment Odeo certainly holds...” So he made a proposal to buy them out – reputedly for $5m. Five years later, the assets he bought were priced at $5bn.If I invest in a company, the headline price is only one factor. An acquisition that appears cheap might actually be much more expensive than it seems, and vice versa. The management, balance sheet, commercial potential and continuing engagement of the vendor are among the many issues that influence one’s desire to buy, and the rationale of the purchase. Usually negotiations over a corporate investment are multifaceted, for any contract needs a complex set of elements: warranties, due diligence, perhaps a carried interest in the project. Most private companies sell only occasionally, and will probably have altered a lot by the time they next change hands. Meanwhile, expert valuations are mostly merely well-informed guesswork. Tying up a deal in the past few years has taken twice as long as it did before the credit crunch. For me that is a positive development: when I rush an investment I usually make mistakes.Inevitably you strike a better deal when you are keen but not desperate to close the transaction. If the terms are intolerable, then you should be able to walk away. Having a choice of options – whether as buyer or seller – will surely generate a better outcome than having no alternative to fall back on. And a negotiation that leaves both sides feeling good is perhaps the ideal conclusion of any exchange.`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.? ><((((o>