Відео

Yes, I agree. It's one of my favorite songs of his. And you're right --- he applies this formula, and creates that really high contrast. Have you heard that quote from Paul Simon? I've heard it worded several ways, but basically he saw Elvis perform "Bridge..." live, and when the song was over he said, "How the hell can I compete with that?"

@ 😂, I’m not surprised he felt that way. Elvis had one of the most powerful voice in popular music. I honestly prefer Elvis’s rendition of bridge over troubled water over the original, I find it to be more emotive. While I like a lot of Elvis’s earlier rock and roll music I do have a soft spot for the big ballads he later did: my all time favourite is probably his rendition of let it be me

@@FineArtsMusic Hey, yeah, I'm with you on "Let It Be Me." I also love "Words." I personally find most of the covers Elvis did of other peoples' songs to be better than the original. A few exceptions, in my mind, are "Blueberry Hill" and "Hey Jude." But almost everything else I feel is far better. Have you ever heard "I'm Leaving"? It's an unusual song for him, and it's one of my favorites. I dislike the live version --- I only like the studio version.

@@FineArtsMusic In 1990, I was 24, and my dad and I took a road trip from Boston to Graceland. Across the street there was a recording studio where you could go into a booth, and they would play the karaoke track to whichever Elvis song you wanted to record. I recorded myself singing "The Wonder of You," and I remember my father being really embarrassed when I came out because everybody in the lobby waiting could hear me singing. But that was one of my hot songs back then.

I love that song.

Yeah, you're right --- it's a perfect example. "This Time You Gave Me A Mountain" is another great example. I've tried to think of another non-classical artist who created such extreme contrasts within a single song, and I can't think of one. He took it to a degree of extremes that nobody else has taken it.

Perfect summary - thank you for saying it how it is. I'm massively disappointed in this guy - not for his "opinions", but for the way he's approaching and handling all this, being highly disrespectful with the timing and his overall attitude. He knows damn well he's being provocative, and being so adamant about using the word "steal" while trying to mask his delusions behind "critique" is frankly childish. I'm on the edge about posting this comment because I don't want him to get any more traction, his disgusting behaviour shouldn't be rewarded in any way, but he needs to be made aware that he's not fooling anyone besides himself.

Sorry, I guess we run in different circles. So do you and your circle of friends all modify your actual views when you're together so there is no discussion, just a love fest? A communion of group think? Yeah, if you accuse someone of the CRIME of stealing a physical object, and they didn't steal the object, sure, you will get attacked. But we're talking about ART here, and the crime of stealing is simple unoriginality. I should be able to throw out there that I noticed that Lynch lifted a scene from another film, and that it's so obvious that it seems to be beneath him given how revered he is, it should engage some deeper discussion, such as how did he attempt to transform the scene, did he transform it sufficiently to really make it his own, etc.

I did a video in which I analyzed the dueling banjos scene from "Deliverance." I broke it into phases, analyzed each character's role, stated what I felt the deeper meaning was, etc. I'd love to be engaged in discussion about that, and to hear if someone else saw something different. I LOVED that film and that scene, and I thought the scene was brilliant. I'm doing the same thing here --- it's analysis. I did another video analyzing the door symbolism in "The Tree of Life." Same thing --- I hope to spark deep discussion, not stupidity.

I've done the same with music and architecture. Analyzing, for example, how Frank Lloyd Wright's fireplace designs weren't that great. I did one video focusing specifically on the fireplace at Fallingwater, and why that fireplace was so poorly designed. And I LOVE Fallingwater -- I've been there 8 times, but this is a flaw in the design. Yet, I did another video analyzing the brilliance of how he designed the approach to the main entryway. This is what I thought intelligent adults did. Not just say, "Oh, everyone says Lynch is brilliant, so my insights can't have any validity, and people will get mad at me if I criticize him." We should be able to have an adult conversation about works of art made by mere humans.

@@issues9828 You’re baiting. The guy died and that’s when you choose to accuse him of STEALING. What is adult about this? If anything I’m offended. These other great things you did probably didn’t happen after they fucking died. I’m not falling for it. Then you want to make a video bitching about me. So fuck you. I’m done with you.

@@issues9828 You are baiting. You can’t even admit it. I admitted I was mean to you. I heard you out. And I learned from it. That seems to be the difference between you and me. You have your elitist attitude with your psychology degree and your circle of friends. Plus everything you say is pretty much a book to read, you could shorten it up a little. You can also not delete my comment that makes you look bad. Just own up to it. But you know what you are fucking doing and you don’t fucking care. I’ll be back. I’ll be your new best fucking friend now.

The comments I made about Lynch were solely in the two videos I posted. The comments about Dylan and David Foster Wallace I made on other peoples' videos on UA-cam. But let me explain a little further so you understand where I'm coming from. I started high school in the early 1980s. At that time my friends were into groups like the Rolling Stones, Rod Stewart, The Who, David Bowie, as well as all the American and British New Wave stuff, which was phenomenal. What we knew about Bob Dylan in the '80s were that song "You Gotta Serve Somebody," which was a throwaway song sung with a crappy voice. Then his 2 lines in "We Are The World," where is voice cracked and sounded horrible. Then his work with The Traveling Wilburry's (sp?), where he played guitar and sang backup. We knew his previous big hits, such as "Like A Rolling Stone" and "Knocking On Heaven's Door" (which I owned a 45 RPM of). So ten years ago I bumped into some video of Dylan in the mid-sixties, and I became intrigued by him, and started to watch more videos and listen to some of this music. And in the comments I would read things like, "What else would you expect from a genius?" Everyone kept commenting on what a genius he was, and I wasn't seeing it. So I would ask, "What about this song makes him a genius?" And people would say, "He won the Nobel Prize --- he must be a genius," or, "the lyrics." Of course, those aren't explanations as to why they thought his music was ingenious, so I would ask what specifically about the lyrics they thought was genius. And then they would start attacking. So I'd say, "Seriously, just give me one example or a simple explanation,' and they'd get more mad. So clearly everyone was parroting this cliche that Dylan was a genius, but they couldn't explain. I mean, sure, he wrote some great songs, but his voice was terrible and his arrangements were very basic and simple --- he was no more a genius than the other artists I was listening to. Then I discovered that during that period in the '60s, when he wrote the supposedly great lyrics, he was on speed and other substances, and he was using that technique of randomly throwing words together to see if it worked. Like, as John Lennon said about, "I Dig A Pony," "that was just a nonsense song. That was just playing with words. I was just throwing words together to see if they worked. Sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't. Everybody does that. Dylan does that." Then at some point I was sampling contemporary literature by supposedly acclaimed authors, and it was so poorly written that I couldn't read it. It as utter crap. So I began to watch videos of interviews with the authors, or of people analyzing or reviewing the books. And I'd make similar comments, asking people to explain what was so great about the books. And they couldn't. They just got mad and attacked, basically saying, "COme on, dude, EVERYONE knows he's a genius." Most especially with Wallace. So that's where I'm coming from with this. It's hard to find real intellectual engagement. And I really know firsthand that this sort of debate helps people learn and deepen their own understanding.

And I distinguish between drawing from and lifting. The two elements I mention were so directly lifted in my opinion that it's beneath someone as acclaimed as Lynch. It surprises me he did this.

@@issues9828 You know why this person didn’t respond back? It’s because they don’t feel like reading all that bullshit.

@ What specifically did you think was bullshit?

Which scene in Vertigo does this scene resemble?

@issues9828 that's not what I ment, themes like identity the brunette and blonde change, the scene with the almost Carey Grant /Jimmy Stewart type of older actor in the audition, there's probably more I plan on watching his work again soon. Iv no doubt it is heavily influenced by persona which is itself a great film, but I don't think he's trying to pull one over on us by ripping bergman off lynch wears his influences on his sleeve the doppelganger thing runs through his work in say twin peaks maddy ferguson/Laura palma, peeping Tom - lost highway, I'm sure sunset boulevard turns up here or there in his work... Of course sometimes he wears it to on his sleeve at times a bit to much like the wizard of Oz.. Which pops up in most weird and random times.

@issues9828 iv seen it argued it's more of a ripoff of 3 woman but i cant say on that as I haven't seen it.

What specifically suggests it's a tribute?

You mean that you feel he lifted it in such a way that it feels wholly derivative, and not at all original?

By framing what I'm trying to say is both stories have the same overall premise. You go through this whole story, not completely understanding what is going on --- you're just in this weird dreamscape, and it's not logical, and it jumps around. You wonder if this is supposed to be an odd reality that is the basis for a horror film. And it isn't until the very end of each film that it is revealed that the story is odd or surreal because we've been witnessing what is going on in each protagonist's mind at an unconscious level --- it's the symbolic dream logic drama taking place in their unconscious, as each approaches death. So that's what I mean --- the story is framed as this the struggle that takes place in the unconscious before they die. I was a psychology major in college, and I studied Carl Jung's work, so this to me is straight Jung --- the dream logic, the symbolism, the monsters and images, the shifting realities, the self appearing as more than one character, all that.

I don't know whether you read the video title or watched the video, but I am specifically talking about one scene in one film --- I am not talking about Lynch's general body of work, or who generally inspired him.

So you are saying that if you aren't a professional filmmaker, then all you can do is judge any filmmaker's work as being great --- something you apparently have done. But if you aren't a professional filmmaker, how do you then have the ability to judge a film as being good? Explain that to me. Do you feel the same way about music or art? If you aren't a professional musician then you can't criticize music --- you can only like it and assume it's good? I just don't get it. This is getting downright silly. Seriously. These people make these movies FOR US --- for the movie-going public. I shouldn't have to explain that we therefore have a right to analyze the films and come to our individual conclusions about what we liked and didn't like about them. An entire film criticism industry exists for this reason, and rating sites like Rotten Tomatoes aggregate reviews by both professional critics and moviegoers. Do you believe they shouldn't be able to make these judgments? And, by the way, prior to this video I made another video about "Mulholland Drive," and said that I loved the film, and it was my favorite Lynch film of the ones I've seen. It's okay to be a critical thinker and objectively look at a work of art and say what you do and don't like about it. But watch out for that Lynch cult, man. Wow.

I don’t like critics period unless they themselves make something. How can a critic be an expert at filmmaking if they haven’t made anything themselves? If you seen David Lynch videos you would know that all his inspiration comes from dreams and ideas. Not because he’s ripping someone off. I’ll admit my comment is pretty cunty. But that’s because I hate critics that don’t make shit. So yeah I do think you need to be involved in the job to criticize it. And I’m proud to be a part of the Lynch cult. Very proud.

@@kevinkeaton5697 If you're saying that you can't criticize a work unless you're also a creator in that same artform --- because you lack the judgment to know whether or not the work is bad, THEN THE SAME MUST NECESSARILY APPLY TO JUDGING WHETHER THE WORK IS GOOD. I didn't claim to be an expert in filmmaking --- I observed that ONE SCENE in the film was lifted from another film. I didn't say Mulholland Drive was a horrible film for this reason, or that I disliked the film. I didn't say Lynch was a horrible director. Did I? So much for critical thinking. And I actually write fiction, and understand something about constructing a story. And the basic principles of storytelling apply in fiction, stage, and film.

@@issues9828Yeah you’re right I’m being a dumbass hypocrite here. You didn’t claim to be an expert either. I rewatched the video. My apologies. It’s a peaceful observation that challenges my cult brain for Lynch. Critical thinking isn’t something I’m good at. Lesson learned.

@ I appreciate it. In the last 20 seconds of the video I even state that I'm making this comment because I like debate and argument, and this is how we all learn. So I was hoping and expecting people to discuss the actual components of the scene, and debate why and how it was or wasn't a direct lift from Bergman. I wanted to learn from people. But nobody in these comments will engage at that level. They mostly say I'm stupid because it's so obvious he lifted from Bergman, BUT THAT'S OKAY WITH THEM, EVERYONE STEALS. So there is no understanding of the difference between absorbing abstract elements of another work, versus using it in a purely derivative way that many may find dissatisfying. All artists take ideas from someone else and internalize them and really make it their own, and then re-express it as part of a larger whole in a very original way. That's what produces rich, great art. But when you lift something so specific and it's obvious to everyone, many people consider that to reflect lack of creativity and originality. This whole Lynch cult I'm seeing really reminds me of how people view Bob Dylan and David Foster Wallace. It's a cult, and if you find anything to criticize in their work, and don't just accept that they are geniuses that can't be challenged or criticized, then you're attacked.

This is great --- so I'm beginning to see that, just like the Bob Dylan and David Foster Wallace cult, there is also a David Lynch cult. So let me make sure I correctly understand what you're saying --- you're saying that if someone produced a high volume of work in their chosen artform, then they are beyond criticism, and we must assume that the work was all completely original. Is that right?

I'm not following --- in what way is it a TRIBUTE to "Persona"? It sure borrows from, and, in the case of this scene, blatantly STEALS from the film. But how is it a TRIBUTE to "Persona"?

But didn't Tina Turner ask, "What's love sgot to do, sgot to do with it?"

Just this nobody

Great artists abstract individual elements from other artist's work, internalize those elements, and then use them in their more abstract form as part of a larger, cohesive work that is unified by their own personal vision. They don't LITERALLY lift them in their existing form and reproduce them in their own work. There is a difference between being INFLUENCED by another artist, and literally lifting a scene in such an obvious, literal, way that other people can see it immediately. He could have made a movie about two women merging without literally lifting a scene from the first film. This is so literally taken that it's embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for him.

@issues9828 why don't you waste your time showing how the scenes are frame by frame the same and we can spend our time mocking you some more, you're talking absolute nonsense, there is zero frame by frame rip offs, unless you think 2 women in a shot must be a rip off, go to bed your brain needs a rest

@@davidb9531 So are you saying you didn't notice that it was literally taken from "Persona" until I pointed it out? Or, did you notice it immediately when you saw it. My point is that no viewer of the film should have noticed immediately that the scene was literally lifted from "Persona." The fact that I did --- to me --- is a major failure of original vision and expression on the filmmaker's part. It shouldn't even be similar enough to recognize this. Lynch should have abstracted the idea of merging of identities as symbolic unconscious language/dream logic, and he should have taken that abstract idea and re-expressed it in his own original way --- if he had his own original vision he would have had no desire or instinct to just recreate a scene from Bergman's film. I have only seen 3 of Lynch's films, and seeing this film again after all these years I'm unimpressed, quite honestly. I'm now curious and want to watch more of his films and see how derivative those too may be.

@@issues9828 no I never noticed that 2 films about 2 women's merging identities might in someway have ideas that coincide within a visual art form (that's sarcasm just incase you don't understand that), you are literally the only person on earth Intelligent enough to see that. When, may I ask did you start your career in filmmaking in that put you so high on your artistic pedestal to give critique and tips to a man that is in fact dead, and some people think speaking I'll of the dead disrespectful. Having said that I realise your ego and intellect is that of a small planet, put yourself to bed please, before your next sneeze removes your last brain cell

I'm not a big Lynch fan --- I saw the movie in the theater when it came out, and then on DVD when it first came out on DVD. So I rewatched it after 22 years and noticed the connection. So you noticed the ripoff too? BTW, is that a Captain Kirk outfit you're wearing?

we're making history here!

@@JeremyHelm You mean by chatting with Captain Kirk?

😂

You can't fit any furniture there comfortably, and in an arrangement that is aesthetically pleasing. The space is too small, and it's in a walking lane, and it would nearly block off the implied lane between the fireplace and the dinner table, on your way to the kitchen. I've seen photos of the lame pieces of furniture the Kauffmann's tried to place in front of the fireplace and it looked HORRIBLE. And apparently someone said that Mr. Kauffmann himself complained about this very problem. So enjoying the party by standing there with your hands in your pockets is it. I have another video on Wright's fireplace at Schwartz house, and you have athe same problem. People who rent it out put metal framed folding lawn chars in front of it, or they have to sit on the wooden floor --- there is no space there, yet they want to be in front of the fire.

@issues9828 , I'm just saying a group of furniture makers can design what you want to fit in front of the fireplace regardless of the uneven floor and from what I read in different books of mine the Kaufman's wanted that floor to be uneven Frank Lloyd Wright wanted to shave it off

@@paulrand4038 Yes, Mr. Kaufmann had the idea of allowing that boulder to protrude into the living room. But I will tell you, when you see it in person it is not taking up a lot of space. Even if you had shaved that stone off, you still could not have comfortably arranged real furniture around it. And this is a common problem with FLW's fireplaces. They were very poorly designed if you wanted to make them a focal point of activity and leisure in a room, he must have viewed them more as background. He obviously designed the furniture the way he envisioned it, and it was perimeter seating. So you were only going to see the fireplace when you walked past it, or, if you stood in front of it they way college kids would at a keg party.

The very doppelganger/double identity motifs, and psychogenic fugue state, that you describe, IS THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE DREAM LOGIC THAT THE UNCONSCIOUS MIND GENERATES. This is pure Jungian psychology. You're supporting my point.

Sure, I'm just asking whether people know whether he stated he lifted the framing element from "Jacob's Ladder." I stated at the beginning that I thought the film was fantastic.

I've never heard of that film --- I'll check it out.

Good reference. Yes. Love that movie. Saw it in the theatre in a rerelease in the 90’s. 👍👍👍

@@issues9828 worth watching

Is that right? That's an interesting angle. If you have an example from a film Lynch made prior to 1990 I'd love to hear about it.

@@issues9828 Nar I was just sitting here doubting my comment. Maybe I'm retro-fitted some of this. To me, Eraserhead always happened in a "from before birth to after death" space though.

@@CityOfTinyLines I understand. Are you in a sense saying that Lynch really understands the workings of the unconscious mind? That part of the mind that produces dream? His use of dream logic almost reminds me of, say, Fellini's "Fellini Satyricon." Or, if you've seen any of Tarkovsky's films. He deals in that space in the deep recesses of the mind where past, present, and future are all melded into a dreamlike narrative that has its own rules of logic. Which is why I feel that he must have completely gotten "Jacob's Ladder" and have taken that framing device from Lyne.

@@issues9828 You're very likely right. His trilogy.. Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire all do the same thing. And yes I'm sure he was very influenced by Fellini and many other film makers. I think I've thought the exact same thing as you about him getting Jacobs Ladder and my original comment was a bit a brain fart lol.

(I'm possibly just very sad and confused about his recent passing)

On one level, your point is well-taken. Obviously every artist is influenced by other people, and takes ideas and concepts from other artists, and incorporates them into their own work, but brings so much more that is new and original to the whole work that they make the concept their own. Elvis is a great example of this --- Elvis' original style of music was fundamentally based upon black rhythm and blues, and was then modified or synthesized with elements of gospel and country, but then Elvis also put his own twist on the music (I have done several videos analyzing this.) But here is the difference --- ELVIS PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGED WHAT HE TOOK FROM BLACK ARTISTS. In his '68 Comeback TV Special he says this, and in his 1970 Houston Astrodome press conference he repeats it again. However, this framing device is so wholly original, so unique, I can't think of any other film that uses it. It's not as though it became a standard, common approach that everybody uses. It is EXTREMELY creative, and so clever, and it really wholly defines "Jacob's Ladder" and sets it apart. It is the essence of the originality of the film. I didn't get into this part, but in addition to framing the film with this concept, Jacob's Ladder uses this context of the protagonist being "unconscious" as a rationale for giving the film surrealist elements, using a sort of dream logic. Lynch uses this element too. So given just how unique, creative, clever, and innovative this approach is, I feel that Lynch owed Lyne some acknowledgement. And he indeed might have acknowledged Lyne --- I don't know whether he did, which is why I was throwing it out there. If this weren't such a major and unique element, I would not bring this point up. But it's such a gargantuan part of each film that I felt okay using the word "steal" in this instance.

@@issues9828 Points taken. Funnily enough I have M.D. (2021 upgrade) marked up for a rewatch, so will have a think. Jacob's Ladder one of my favourite films of all time. I'm not sure THAT unique though. Bobby Ewing ended up in a shower revealing 'it was all but a dream'! Lynch has this theme running through most of his output. Can't get more surreal than him and why he was called a "dreamer" and even criticised at times for his approach. He also struck me as a pretty honest guy too, so I'm gonna err on the side that he didn't steal anything. But nobody can know for sure. Peace.

Same here. I would say it's my overall favorite.

REAL

It will

Yes, August. I LOVED Malick's "The Tree of Life." I've seen it easily 40 times, and I actually saw it 4 times when it was in the theater. I've done several videos analyzing the symbolism in the film. I've seen the trailer for "A Hidden Life," but it just didn't grab me. But, you're right, I should probably watch it since I was so impressed with Diehl in this film. Thanks for the recommendation.

@@issues9828 August Diehl is wonderful! I loved 'The Tree of Life' and have been wanting to return to it for the longest time... awaiting for the right time to find me. I hope 'A Hidden Life' comes to you at the right time and grabs you - it's easily my favourite film from Malick. Had the pleasure of experiencing 'Badlands' and 'Days of Heaven' twice, all of his films have immense re-watch value, but 'A Hidden Life' is special for me since the message it tells with such sincere heart gives me hope for re-shaping the world. I'd like to say more about the film but I don't want to take any of the experience away from you... I just hope the film touches you.

I actually attempted to secure the interview with him back in February, 2024. You've inspired me --- maybe I'll try again.

@@issues9828 We're still in 2024 so that doesn't seem so long ago ;) Best of luck!

I agree about his voice in this song --- as I say at the beginning of the video, this is my all-time favorite Michael Jackson song.