Videos that get under your skin...
Posted by: Tarquin Maynard-Portly on 10 February 2009
Posted on: 10 February 2009 by fred simon
You know, the moment I saw your topic header but before I saw your choice, Johnny Cash's Hurt video immediately came to mind. I absolutely agree ... haunting and deeply moving, often to the point of tears. One of the best portrayals of a man summing up a well worn life I've ever experienced.
In fact, even though admittedly I don't see all that many videos, it's probably the only one I've ever seen that I can say truly does get under my skin.
All best,
Fred
Posted on: 10 February 2009 by Diccus62
Absolutely. Two married people with a lot of love, nearing the end of their lives was hugely poignant. Its my favourite video because it is real live and because i'm a big softie.
Just watched it again. The editing is wonderful, the pace of the record is really like a train journey and the historic clips of Cash, the museum, his brooding persona. Then when June appears behind Cash on the stairs, whoooaaa. Where is my hankie?
Magnificent.
regards
Diccus
Just watched it again. The editing is wonderful, the pace of the record is really like a train journey and the historic clips of Cash, the museum, his brooding persona. Then when June appears behind Cash on the stairs, whoooaaa. Where is my hankie?
Magnificent.
regards
Diccus
Posted on: 11 February 2009 by Tony Lockhart
I haven't even watched it and I'm choking up! Steady on guys, we'll get a reputation. 
Tony
Tony
Posted on: 11 February 2009 by BigH47
When I first saw the Hurt video I thought it exploitative, but have since realised it's a celebration, a very moving celebration at that.
Posted on: 11 February 2009 by fred simon
I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that to start with, Hurt is a great song. Trent Reznor's brilliant lyric resonates so deeply with Cash's life that it becomes autobiographical ... he has lived these words.
I hurt myself today
to see if I still feel
I focus on the pain
the only thing that's real
the needle tears a hole
the old familiar sting
try to kill it all away
but I remember everything
what have I become?
my sweetest friend
everyone I know
goes away in the end
and you could have it all
my empire of dirt
I will let you down
I will make you hurt
I wear this crown of thorns
upon my liar's chair
full of broken thoughts
I cannot repair
beneath the stains of time
the feelings disappear
you are someone else
I am still right here
what have I become?
my sweetest friend
everyone I know
goes away in the end
and you could have it all
my empire of dirt
I will let you down
I will make you hurt
if I could start again
a million miles away
I would keep myself
I would find a way
Posted on: 11 February 2009 by Jonathan Gorse
No question - Carl sagan - Pale Blue Dot, the finest 4 minutes of exposition I have ever heard and it still puts tears in my eyes every time I watch it. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M - if that doesn't put your life in perspective nothing will.
Jonathan
Jonathan
Posted on: 11 February 2009 by Jonathan Gorse
A rare video that always moves me is BA's internal tribute to Concorde issued only to staff. 5 minutes of majesty from the queen of the skies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro3QVMCG-aY
Jonathan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro3QVMCG-aY
Jonathan
Posted on: 11 February 2009 by BigH47
They should have let Richard run them .
Posted on: 11 February 2009 by Jonathan Gorse
Munch/BigH47,
There is a public perception that Branson could/should have been given Concorde but I was told the real reasons for Concorde's withdrawal from service when I worked at BA by a senior bod in engineering. Here's what he said:
Every aircraft manufacturer charges design authority and support costs borne by the operators of the aircraft. In the case of Concorde these support costs were paid entirely by BA and Air France (rather than being divided between many customer airlines as is the case with Boeing/Airbus aircraft etc) These charges reflect the costs associated with provision of spares and ongoing engineering design e.g. if an airline wants to modify something during the service life of an aircraft then obviously Aerospatiale/BAe as design authority have to test, certificate and sign off on changes. These support costs were disproportionately high on Concorde with only 2 airlines and 13 aircraft in service.
After the paris crash BA spent millions working with AF and the manufacturer redesigning key elements such as fuel tank liners to ensure such an incident could never happen again. BA also looked into several highly expensive options to enhance the Concorde experience - one of which was to have an entirely glass boarding corridor at Heathrow where Concorde always left from the same gate. They eventually shelved this idea when they were informed to do it would cost £90 million if memory serves. They also refreshed the interiors and looked into other changes such as on board lighting effects that would streak down the cabin when the sound barrier was breached. Despite this the costs of putting Concorde back into service ran to tens of millions, I know I was there and it was done with the full expectation that she had years of future flying in her.
BA's Concorde operation was consistently profitable, after Sept 11th 2001 sadly Air France's was not and eventually AF started discussions with Aerospatiale/Airbus about terminating their Concorde operation. Air France were very concerned that if they stopped they didn't want BA to carry on and they tried to influence Aerospatiale/Airbus to cease supporting the aircraft in order to force BA to stop Concorde operations too. My understanding is that out of these discussions Aerospatiale/Airbus eventually informed BA that should they wish to continue operations the whole design authority and support costs would be borne by BA which would essentially more than double that cost to BA. They also indicated that they would prefer BA to cease operating Concorde too because supporting it was a lot of hassle just for BA's benefit.
The increase in support costs was in any event very significant - of the order of tens of millions of pounds per annum (I cannot remember the exact figure)
BA then did a huge amount of calculations to see if there was any way they could make the Concorde operation remotely viable. BA had every incentive to keep Concorde going - they had recently spent millions getting it back into the air, they were well aware of the PR value and glamour it evoked, not to mention its importance as a national institution. Sadly, however BA could not justify operating it at a loss and so regrettably the decision was taken to cease operations. This caused huge dismay within the company as well as outside because the expectation had always been she would continue flying until 2012 or beyond due to low airframe hours.
Quite frankly Branson did what he always did - took a cheap and populist shot. He didn't have the engineers, expertise or money to keep Concorde in the air and BA knew his accountants couldn't justify operating a scheduled supersonic service either. As a result BA knew Concorde if given to Branson would be turned into a short term PR stunt and then retired in Virgin colours and obviously after 30 years of operating her they didn't want it cheapened like that.
What I do feel is sad is that they didn't keep one flying like the Battle of Britain Lancaster etc, used for air displays etc and subsidised by the taxpayer but I don't think BA felt that operating an aeroplane without passengers was really something they should be involved in and they still couldn't make it pay.
Anyway, that's what I learned when I was working at BA at the time the whole Concorde thing was ongoing but it adds up to me.
I still find myself in awe of Concorde when I fly to Manchester though, certainly makes my little cart look rather 'umble!
Jonathan
There is a public perception that Branson could/should have been given Concorde but I was told the real reasons for Concorde's withdrawal from service when I worked at BA by a senior bod in engineering. Here's what he said:
Every aircraft manufacturer charges design authority and support costs borne by the operators of the aircraft. In the case of Concorde these support costs were paid entirely by BA and Air France (rather than being divided between many customer airlines as is the case with Boeing/Airbus aircraft etc) These charges reflect the costs associated with provision of spares and ongoing engineering design e.g. if an airline wants to modify something during the service life of an aircraft then obviously Aerospatiale/BAe as design authority have to test, certificate and sign off on changes. These support costs were disproportionately high on Concorde with only 2 airlines and 13 aircraft in service.
After the paris crash BA spent millions working with AF and the manufacturer redesigning key elements such as fuel tank liners to ensure such an incident could never happen again. BA also looked into several highly expensive options to enhance the Concorde experience - one of which was to have an entirely glass boarding corridor at Heathrow where Concorde always left from the same gate. They eventually shelved this idea when they were informed to do it would cost £90 million if memory serves. They also refreshed the interiors and looked into other changes such as on board lighting effects that would streak down the cabin when the sound barrier was breached. Despite this the costs of putting Concorde back into service ran to tens of millions, I know I was there and it was done with the full expectation that she had years of future flying in her.
BA's Concorde operation was consistently profitable, after Sept 11th 2001 sadly Air France's was not and eventually AF started discussions with Aerospatiale/Airbus about terminating their Concorde operation. Air France were very concerned that if they stopped they didn't want BA to carry on and they tried to influence Aerospatiale/Airbus to cease supporting the aircraft in order to force BA to stop Concorde operations too. My understanding is that out of these discussions Aerospatiale/Airbus eventually informed BA that should they wish to continue operations the whole design authority and support costs would be borne by BA which would essentially more than double that cost to BA. They also indicated that they would prefer BA to cease operating Concorde too because supporting it was a lot of hassle just for BA's benefit.
The increase in support costs was in any event very significant - of the order of tens of millions of pounds per annum (I cannot remember the exact figure)
BA then did a huge amount of calculations to see if there was any way they could make the Concorde operation remotely viable. BA had every incentive to keep Concorde going - they had recently spent millions getting it back into the air, they were well aware of the PR value and glamour it evoked, not to mention its importance as a national institution. Sadly, however BA could not justify operating it at a loss and so regrettably the decision was taken to cease operations. This caused huge dismay within the company as well as outside because the expectation had always been she would continue flying until 2012 or beyond due to low airframe hours.
Quite frankly Branson did what he always did - took a cheap and populist shot. He didn't have the engineers, expertise or money to keep Concorde in the air and BA knew his accountants couldn't justify operating a scheduled supersonic service either. As a result BA knew Concorde if given to Branson would be turned into a short term PR stunt and then retired in Virgin colours and obviously after 30 years of operating her they didn't want it cheapened like that.
What I do feel is sad is that they didn't keep one flying like the Battle of Britain Lancaster etc, used for air displays etc and subsidised by the taxpayer but I don't think BA felt that operating an aeroplane without passengers was really something they should be involved in and they still couldn't make it pay.
Anyway, that's what I learned when I was working at BA at the time the whole Concorde thing was ongoing but it adds up to me.
I still find myself in awe of Concorde when I fly to Manchester though, certainly makes my little cart look rather 'umble!
Jonathan
Posted on: 11 February 2009 by BigH47
If the bloody French had kept their runways clear they wouldn't have needed all those mods. 
Posted on: 11 February 2009 by Jonathan Gorse
Munch,
I'd like to think you're right but with no cure for the sonic boom problem yet it's hard to see many manufacturers signing off the multi billion pound development cost of a second generation supersonic - much as I'd love to see it happen.
One of the things that strikes me is that in the sixties there was less pressure on budgets than there is now so we went to the moon, built Concorde, the blackbird etc etc. One of the thigs we seem to have lost is that spirit of innovation and desire to just build things to advance the frontiers and to lift the spirits of mankind and to hell with the cost.
Frankly you have to wonder how much of this budgetary restriction is illusory though because the governments of the world seem to be able to raise billions at the drop of a hat to prop up financial services, money which some of us feel would be better spent putting a man on Mars or building Concorde Mk2. I'm thrilled to see Branson pursuing Virgin Galactic though - and am watching that with great interest.
Jonathan
I'd like to think you're right but with no cure for the sonic boom problem yet it's hard to see many manufacturers signing off the multi billion pound development cost of a second generation supersonic - much as I'd love to see it happen.
One of the things that strikes me is that in the sixties there was less pressure on budgets than there is now so we went to the moon, built Concorde, the blackbird etc etc. One of the thigs we seem to have lost is that spirit of innovation and desire to just build things to advance the frontiers and to lift the spirits of mankind and to hell with the cost.
Frankly you have to wonder how much of this budgetary restriction is illusory though because the governments of the world seem to be able to raise billions at the drop of a hat to prop up financial services, money which some of us feel would be better spent putting a man on Mars or building Concorde Mk2. I'm thrilled to see Branson pursuing Virgin Galactic though - and am watching that with great interest.
Jonathan
Posted on: 11 February 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:and am watching that with great interest.
....promotion?...
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 11 February 2009 by Tarquin Maynard-Portly
Anyway.... videos?
Posted on: 11 February 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:Anyway.... videos?
Ah!....as Mr Clenham would say. I'm waiting for Little Dorritt.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 11 February 2009 by Adam Meredith
quote:Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
Anyway.... videos?
Exactly.
I remember a friend visiting and, while I cooked, asking to listen to the Johnny Cash CD. I returned to the room to find him in tears. I think the video is moving but the song is undiluted emotion.
and the video -
Posted on: 14 February 2009 by Fred Mulder
quote:My starter;
Johnny Cash; Hurt
Probably the most haunting, moving video I've ever seen.
M
i was just listening to Johnny Cash browsing true the padded cell, what a video. Thank you for sharing.
Great thread, my contribution: Jacques Brel - Ne me quitte pas