– 영어/한국어 이중 언어 가사

가사 및 번역

[한국어]

창의적인 협업을 위한

규칙이나 격언, 원칙을 만드는 것은

어려운 일입니다. 그 과정에서의 화학 반응은

상황마다 너무나도 다르거든요.

제 말은, 제가 지금까지

50편 정도의 영화를 만들었지만

창의적인 협업을 성공적이고 긍정적으로

이끄는 데 있어서

딱 하나로 정해진 방법론이 있는지

확신이 서지 않습니다. 사람마다 일하는 방식이

정말 제각각이거든요. 리더십이 필요하긴 합니다.

누군가 거의

틀을 만들어주고

그 안에서

모두가 일할 수 있도록 해주는

리더십 말이죠.

또한 목표를 분명히 하고

어떤 원칙이나 가치 안에서

일하고 싶은지에 대해 명확히 말해주는

사람이 필요합니다.

저는 사람들이 사실은 매우

적응력이 뛰어나고 유연해서

다양한 업무 방식에 흥미를 느낄 수 있다고 봅니다.

하지만 리더십이란 때때로

사람들을 같은 주파수로

getting people tuned into the same

조율하는 것이라고 생각합니다.

시작 단계부터 그래야

행복하다고까지는 말 못 하더라도

효과적인

협업을 만들어낼 수 있기 때문이죠.

저는 정말 영감을 주는

that

창의적인 경험들을 몇 번 해봤습니다.

예를 들어 '버드맨' 촬영 때

알레한드로 이냐리투 감독과 작업할 때였죠.

그는 작업을 시작하기도 전에

필리페 페티가 그물을 깔지 않고

Philippe Petit walking on the the the

무역센터 사이에서 줄타기를 하는 것에

이 과정을 비유했습니다. 그는 이 작업이

위험할 것이라는 점을 명확히 했죠. 영화 전체를

한 번의 테이크로 찍는다는 시도가 실패할 수도 있지만,

그럼에도 도전할 가치가 있다는 것,

우리를 물러설 곳 없는

into a position where there wasn't a

막다른 상황에 몰아넣는 것이

흥미로운 결과를 낳을 것이라고 했습니다.

그는 모두를 창의적인 위험 감수라는

together around the idea of creative

목표 아래 하나로 묶어냈습니다.

최근 올리비아 와일드도 우리가 함께한 영화 '더 인비테이션'에서 그렇게 했죠.

this film The Invitation that we did.

She

그녀는 제가 정말 좋아하는 표현을 썼습니다.

"우리는 낙하산을 타고 내려가면서

낙하산이 펼쳐질 거라는 믿음을 가지고

낙하산을 꿰매는 거야."라고요.

그 말의 의미는, 이야기의 결말이 어떻게 될지

is that she was willing to set out on

전혀 모르는 상태로 여정을 시작하지만,

그 여정 중에

story was going to be that we were going

to find

진정한 결말을 찾아낼 것이라는 믿음이었죠.

end of the story and route to making it

그녀는 우리에게 하나의 상황만 던져주고,

각자 맡은 캐릭터에 대해 자기만의 아이디어를 가져오라며

our characters into the mix and

우리가 어디로 향하는지 정확히 모르는 상태를

허용해주었습니다.

불확실성을 발견의 과정으로

바꿔놓은 것이죠. 발견이란 즐겁고 중요하며 살아있다는 느낌을 줍니다.

is fun and vital and feels alive and you

똑같은 상황이라도 만약 모두가

and if everybody feels like you know,

불안해하거나 "우리가 지금 뭐 하는 거지?"라고 느끼며

doing or aren't we supposed to know what

우리가 뭘 해야 하는지 알아야 하는 것 아닌가 고민하게 되면

it has a very different feedback loop

전혀 다른 결과가 만들어집니다.

그러니 같은 상황이라도 리더가 어떤 틀을 제시하느냐에 따라

it

to people can make it a positive an

긍정적인 감정이 될 수도 있고,

부정적인 감정이 될 수도 있습니다.

좋은 리더는

참여 규칙을 잘 전달하고,

우리가 어떤 방식으로 일할지 잘 전달합니다.

그래야 사람들이 스스로

"아, 지금은 불확실해도 괜찮은 거구나,

supposed to feel uncertain. Feeling

불확실함을 느끼는 게 정상이야"라고 생각할 수 있으니까요.

>> "왜 한번 해보지 않나요? 제가 밤에 와서

it in I'll come in in the night.

무료로 설치해 드릴게요.

free.

만약 마음에 안 들면 다시 가져가죠."

we'll take it away.

Um we'll we'll we'll take it away and

그러면 다들 "알겠어요"라고 대답하곤 했죠.

got to lose? And people would sort of

say, "Okay." And as soon as he

블룸버그가 카펫을 걷어내고 케이블을 깔면서

Bloomberg in with carpet, you know,

pulling up carpets and getting cables

초기 단말기를 설치하던 그 모습이 참 인상적이에요.

하지만 그는 한번 사용해 보면

they

then they would then they never gave it

절대 포기하지 못할 거라고 했죠. 실제로 오늘날 사람들은

여전히 블룸버그 단말기 데이터에 중독되어 있습니다.

Bloomberg terminal data feeds. But I I

자신의 아이디어를

'시도해볼 만한 것'으로 프레이밍할 수 있다면,

have as something that can be tried, you

말하자면 "손해 볼 게 뭐가 있나?" 같은 방식이죠.

have you got to lose, you know, or what

have we got to lose?

항상 성공하진 않겠지만, 꽤 괜찮은 제안입니다.

it's not a bad pitch. Like the idea of

"제가 잠깐 시도해보고

this for a minute and and in a sense

증명해보일 수 있게 해주세요."라는 접근 말입니다.

융통성이 없는 감독들과 일할 때면,

tight,

um

who have in some sense

자기 머릿속에 이미 영상이 다 찍혀 있는 감독들이 있는데

something's going to go,

you know, the great thing about film is

영화의 좋은 점은 우리 지금 하는 것처럼 여러 번 촬영할 수 있다는 거잖아요.

takes, right? And it's like, "Why don't

"그냥 제가 몇 번 해보게 해주세요"라고 말하곤 했죠.

누군가 제 연기 방식에 제동을 걸면

was really giving me friction around an

idea

I had about a way to play something, I'd

저는 그냥 이렇게 말해요. "자, 몇 번만 해볼게요.

let me have a few. Just just give me a

제 아이디어를 실현해 볼 기회를 좀 주세요.

제 방식대로 끝내고 나서,

당신이 원하는 방식이 다르다면

white, then come in and say,

그때 와서 '좋아, 내 거 하나 해보자'고 하세요."라고요.

white?" And you know, and I've already

이미 제 아이디어를 보여줬으니, 좋네요, 그럼 다음으로 넘어갑시다.

let's try another one, you know, let's

try something else. Um

저는 제 능력을 총동원해서

force

아이디어를 실현하는 게 즐거운 연습이라고 생각합니다.

any idea because it's it's a fun

exercise. But sometimes, um

때로는 배우로서도 충분한 시간을 달라고 요청하기도 하죠.

asked for sort of just enough rope

생각을 충분히 펼쳐볼 시간 말이죠.

그렇게 제안하면 대부분

usually And again, usually if you put it

상대방은 그게 자신에게도 '선택지'를 주는 것임을 깨닫게 됩니다.

and they realize that all you're giving

them is options, then maybe you can get

그렇게 하면 부정적으로 마이크로매니징하던 사람도

someone who's negatively micro-managing

can be encouraged to

그것을 자신을 위한 긍정적인 옵션으로 보게 만들 수 있습니다.

themselves.

저는 혼자서 어떤 사업을 시작한 적이 거의 없습니다. 영화판에선 불가능하거든요.

by myself. I mean, you can't in film.

글을 쓰기도 하지만

but every business I've ever started

제가 시작한 모든 사업은 파트너와 함께했습니다.

그냥 고용한 좋은 인력이 아니라 '파트너'와 말이죠.

partners. Like

저에게 '1+1+1=10'이 되는 공식은

항상 승리하는 방식이었습니다.

저는 파트너의 가치를 본질적으로 소중히 여기고,

intrinsically and I think I've been

사람을 잘 선택해왔다고 생각합니다. 파트너 선택은 정말 신중해야 해요.

know, you have to pick your partners

really carefully and I've been really

저는 정말 운이 좋았습니다. 경험이 너무 좋아서

worked with a number of people on

여러 번 함께 사업을 이어간 파트너들도 많죠.

experience was so good and we wanted to

do it again.

영화 제작도 마찬가지입니다.

filmmaking, you build you build

"와, 이 사람 없이는 다시 현장에 가기 싫어" 하는 사람들을 만드는 거죠.

don't ever want to go to battle again

소품 담당이든, 프로덕션 디자인 담당이든

production design or without you know, I

팀을 구축하는 것입니다.

a team that you can

하지만 프로젝트마다 요구하는 특정한

the bespoke needs of a project and you

기술이나 역량이 다를 때가 있으니

you're looking for someone with a real

그에 맞는 사람을 찾는 거죠.

set of skills. It's funny, I mean, it's

2026년이지만, 결국은 대화가 중요합니다. 우리는 여전히 사람이니까요.

누군가와 코드가 맞는지 가장 빨리 확인하는 방법은

to determine whether

you vibe with someone is it's to ask

질문을 던지는 것입니다.

Um

시간이 지나며 배운 게 하나 있다면,

I've kind of learned over time is

obviously I can be

제 생각을 솔직히 말할 수도 있지만,

thing, but if you're really trying to

정말 좋은 사람을 영입하고 싶고,

이 사람이 나에게 맞는 사람인지 파악하려면

me? Sometimes you got really got to

입을 다물 줄 알아야 한다는 겁니다.

어떤 의미인지 아시죠?

공간을 비워두고 그 사람이 그 공간을 어떻게 채우는지 지켜보는 거죠.

and see how other people fill the space

그게 그 사람이 무엇을 가졌는지

going to learn

알 수 있는 유일한 방법이니까요.

질문을 너무 많이 하면 누구나 예, 예 하고 답할 뿐이죠.

explain what you're looking for. I think

비워진 공간을 많이 남겨두면,

if you if you [music]

leave a lot of empty space, you'll see

상대방이 그 안을 무엇으로 채우는지 보고

훨씬 더 많은 것을 배울 수 있을 겁니다.

[영어]

It's hard to create

rules or maxims or principles around

creative collaboration. The chemistry of

it is so specific to each scenario, you

know? I mean, I've made

I've made like 50 films, and I'm not

sure that there's a single methodology

for creating a

an ef- an effective or positive

collaboration. Different people work in

very different ways. You know, you need

you need leadership in the sense that

you need someone who almost

creates the

the frame in which you're inside which

you're all working and

articulates

the goals and articulates in some sense

if there are principles or values

that you want to work within.

I think people are actually very

adaptable, very malleable, and can get

excited about lots of ways of working,

but I do think leadership is sometimes

about

getting people tuned into the same

frequency

at the front end so that you can get

the you know, um I don't want to say

happiest, but you can get a effective

collaboration.

I've had certain creative experiences

that

were really inspiring. I I mean, working

with someone like

Alejandro Iñárritu on Birdman, where he

analogized to the process before we even

started to uh

Philippe Petit walking on the the the

wire between the World Trade Centers

without a net. He He established that it

was going to be risky, that the idea of

a film in one take might not succeed,

but that it was worth going for, that

that putting ourselves out

into a position where there wasn't a

workaround was going to produce

something interesting. And he And I

think he got he got everybody pulled

together around the idea of creative

risk taking.

Olivia Wilde did that really recently on

this film The Invitation that we did.

She

She used a phrase I love. She said,

"We're going to stitch the parachute on

the way down

with the faith that it's going to open."

And I think what she meant in that case

is that she was willing to set out on

the journey

without knowing what the the end of the

story was going to be that we were going

to find

that we were going to actually find the

end of the story and route to making it

that she kind of gave us a scenario. She

asked us to bring our own ideas about

our characters into the mix and

permitted us to not know precisely where

we were going.

Instead of uncertainty, it turned it

into discovery. You know, and discovery

is fun and vital and feels alive and you

could take the same set of circumstances

and if everybody feels like you know,

insecure or I don't know what we're

doing or aren't we supposed to know what

we're doing,

it has a very different feedback loop

that gets created. So, you can have the

same scenario and the way that you frame

it

to people can make it a positive an

emotional positive versus an emotional

negative.

A good leader I think communi-

communicates the rules of engagement,

communicates the modality that you're

going to work in because then people can

say themselves, "Oh, that's what we're

supposed to feel uncertain. Feeling

uncertain is good."

>> I mean, why don't you try it? I'll put

it in I'll come in in the night.

We'll put them in. We'll put them in for

free.

And if you don't like it, you know,

we'll take it away.

Um we'll we'll we'll take it away and

you know, what have you what have you

got to lose? And people would sort of

say, "Okay." And as soon as he

And I I mean, I love the image of Mike

Bloomberg in with carpet, you know,

pulling up carpets and getting cables

run and putting his early terminals in.

But he said once they got on it, then

they

then they would then they never gave it

up, you know, and that and today people

still people are addicted to their

Bloomberg terminal data feeds. But I I

think that

if you can frame up like an idea you

have as something that can be tried, you

know, at like like almost like the what

have you got to lose, you know, or what

have we got to lose?

It's it's not always going to work, but

it's not a bad pitch. Like the idea of

saying, "Hey, will you let me run with

this for a minute and and in a sense

prove it to you."

When I've worked with directors who are

tight,

um

who have in some sense

a video tape in their head of the way

something's going to go,

you know, the great thing about film is

just like we're doing here, you can do

takes, right? And it's like, "Why don't

you just let me

I I used to use the line like if someone

was really giving me friction around an

idea

I had about a way to play something, I'd

just say, "Look, you know,

let me have a few. Just just give me a

few to just run an idea.

And when I'm done with the idea, then,

you know, if I did black and you want

white, then come in and say,

"Great, we've got black. Can I have

white?" And you know, and I've already

get I've I've tried my idea. Great,

let's try another one, you know, let's

try something else. Um

I like to I mean, I like to put the full

force

of whatever my capabilities are behind

any idea because it's it's a fun

exercise. But sometimes, um

sometimes I've even as an actor I've

asked for sort of just enough rope

just enough rope to tease an idea out

before you you you you shut it down. And

usually And again, usually if you put it

to someone that way

and they realize that all you're giving

them is options, then maybe you can get

someone's

someone who's negatively micro-managing

can be encouraged to

to see it as positive optionality for

themselves.

I've almost never started any enterprise

by myself. I mean, you can't in film.

I've written things

but every business I've ever started

I've done it with partners. Not people I

hired who were good, but with with

partners. Like

to me like 1 + 1 + 1 = 10 is like

has always been a winning formula. I

val- you know, I value partners

intrinsically and I think I've been

pretty good at picking them. I think you

know, you have to pick your partners

really carefully and I've been really

really lucky. I've worked with and I've

worked with a number of people on

multiple enterprises because my

experience was so good and we wanted to

do it again.

And that's true. Certainly in

filmmaking, you build you build

people who you're like, "Oh man, I I

don't ever want to go to battle again

without her on props or without him on

production design or without you know, I

mean, you you build your team. You build

a team that you can

uh but but then other times you look at

the bespoke needs of a project and you

know

you're looking for someone with a real

specific

set of skills. It's funny, I mean, it's

2026 but I still think conversation

we're still people and the fastest way

to determine whether

you vibe with someone is it's to ask

questions.

Um

you know, I mean, it's funny. One thing

I've kind of learned over time is

obviously I can be

I'm I I I can say what I think about a

thing, but if you're really trying to

recruit people and you're trying to

figure out is this the right person for

me? Sometimes you got really got to

learn to when to shut up. You know what

I mean? And and and in a way make sure

that you know, you leave the space open

and see how other people fill the space

cuz it's really the only way you're

going to learn

what they've got, you know? I mean

anybody can sort of yes you if you over

explain what you're looking for. I think

if you

if you if you [music]

leave a lot of empty space, you'll see

what someone else fills it with and

you'll learn a lot more.

주요 어휘

어휘	의미
maxim /ˈmæksɪm/ C2	noun - 격언
methodology /ˌmeθəˈdɒlədʒi/ C1	noun - 방법론
articulate /ɑːˈtɪkjuleɪt/ C1	verb - 명확히 표현하다
malleable /ˈmæliəbl/ C2	adjective - 가변적인
analogized /ˈænələˌdａɪzd/ C1	verb - 유추하다
uncertainty /ʌnˈsɜːrtnti/ B2	noun - 불확실성
vital /ˈvaɪtl/ B2	adjective - 필수적인
modality /moʊˈdæləti/ C2	noun - 양식
bespoke /bɪˈspoʊk/ C1	adjective - 맞춤형의
intrinsically /ɪnˈtrɪnzɪkli/ C1	adverb - 본질적으로
enterprise /ˈentərpraɪz/ B2	noun - 기업, 사업
optionality /ˌɒpʃəˈnæləti/ C2	noun - 선택 가능성

주요 문법 구조

• I'm not sure that there's a single methodology for creating an effective or positive collaboration.

  ➔ 복잡한 명사구를 동반한 존재 구문 'there is'

  ➔ 전문적인 맥락에서 개념의 존재(또는 부재)를 단언하기 위해 사용됩니다.

• You need someone who almost creates the frame in which you're inside which you're all working.

  ➔ 전치사를 동반한 관계절

  ➔ 'in which'은 환경과 행동을 연결하는 격식 있는 표현입니다.

• He established that it was going to be risky.

  ➔ 과거에서의 미래 (was going to)

  ➔ 과거의 관점에서 세워진 계획이나 예측을 설명합니다.

• She was willing to set out on the journey without knowing what the end of the story was going to be.

  ➔ 형용사 + 부정사 (willing to) + 전치사 뒤의 동명사

  ➔ 'Willing to'는 의지를 나타내며, 'without knowing'은 전치사 뒤에 동명사를 사용합니다.

• Instead of uncertainty, it turned it into discovery.

  ➔ 구동사 'turn into' + 명사

  ➔ 한 상태에서 다른 상태로 변하는 과정을 설명하기 위해 사용됩니다.

• If you don't like it, we'll take it away.

  ➔ 제1조건문 (If + 현재형, will + 동사원형)

  ➔ 현실적이고 발생 가능성이 높은 미래 상황에 사용됩니다.

• I've almost never started any enterprise by myself.

  ➔ 빈도 부사를 동반한 현재 완료형

  ➔ 현재까지의 삶의 경험을 연결합니다.

• The fastest way to determine whether you vibe with someone is to ask questions.

  ➔ 최상급 형용사 + 주격 보어로서의 부정사

  ➔ 가장 효과적인 전략에 초점을 맞추기 위해 최상급을 사용합니다.