What's the Deal With Soccer?

 I'm not a big fan of soccer. I don't dislike it, mind you; I just never have been passionate about it. Like most Americans, my tastes run more to baseball and football. A big part of it is personal involvement: I never played organized soccer, but I did play baseball and I went to lots of football games as a member of my high school and college marching bands, so there is some emotional attachment involved. For me, soccer just doesn't have that.

 What mystifies me, though, is how every time the World Cup comes around, this debate starts up about why soccer isn't/should be more popular, and how the game somehow becomes this metaphor for American/world society. There are typically two views that emerge during the debate:


1) EVERYONE ELSE LOVES SOCCER SO WHY CAN'T WE
It is the most popular sport in the world in just about every major industrialized country (and even the non-major countries too) except for the United States, so shouldn't we get with the program and embrace it, and what do you mean it isn't exciting? The entire game could depend on just one kick! Our nation is culturally deprived because we don't have the enthusiasm everyone else does, especially since anyone with a soccer ball and some open space can play it. Also, we should call it football like the rest of the world.

The people with this viewpoint typically are considered politically liberal.

2) WE LOVE AMERICAN SPORTS AND SOCCER ISN'T ONE
Soccer is boring, no-score ties are commonplace, the field is just too big, and who cares what everyone else thinks? We love sports that have been part of our popular culture for decades, and those sports were developed HERE, so if you love soccer move to one of those other places. Our tastes are not defined by what everyone else wants. You can't make us have a passion for a sport that we just don't enjoy, and no one enjoys a sport because "it's good for you." Yuck! If we wanted to follow British sports, we wouldn't have declared our independence from the king. And we'll always call it soccer, because real football is played Friday night in high school, Saturday in college, and Sunday in the pros.

The people with this viewpoint typically are considered politically conservative.

And thus follow radio commentaries and print articles about what's wrong with soccer and how there are all these reasons why *real* Americans prefer other sports.

Before I go further, I do want to be clear about one thing:
I AM NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU TO LIKE SOCCER.

But if you're in camp number two, especially if you're politically conservative, I'd like you to consider what you're saying about soccer. The reason is that, somehow, this topic becomes another proxy war in the battle for the culture. A typical skirmish goes something like this:

Person A: Wow! Have you been keeping up with the World Cup? What a game the other day!!!
Person B: Nah, I can't stand soccer. No scoring, it's boring--hey, that rhymes!--and who cares about this "world" stuff anyway? Give me my baseball and apple pie and let me cross off the days until fall camp starts!
Person A: But don't you want us to win? This is one of the best teams we've ever fielded!
Person B: So what? Real Americans could care less about soccer. What a dumb game.

All of the sudden, you've gone from "I just don't like soccer" to "you're un-American if you do."
Now undoubtedly, some of you are reading this and saying, whoa, not only have I never said that, I don't know anyone who has! Or would! But it's too late: the caricature is out there, and it is going to stick. If you doubt me, just Google "Ann Coulter Soccer" and read the headlines. This is how you lose elections: you become known for what you oppose rather than what you support. If you're conservative, you have to deal with the uncomfortable reality that most people in the media hate you.  They want to make you look bad. They don't need a *good* reason, just an opening. And what one of us says, ALL of us believe. It isn't true and it isn't fair, but THAT is our perfectly-manicured over-sized playing field. We are always the visiting team, and the refs are wearing home colors.

 Does this mean we compromise our ideals and move to the center? No, of course not. But it does mean that we must have a good strategy, and we will only sway the crowd by playing the game better than they do. If you don't recognize that it's a game, go to the showers; you've already lost. And if you object to a sporting event because it requires minimal equipment, then you're clearly an elitist who hates poor children. (Remember, there is no logic in the media--object to healthcare reform and you want grandma to die.)

 Just for the sake of argument, let's deal with a few common objections to soccer.
LOW SCORING
Yes, soccer games are typically very low-scoring. If you're a fan of baseball or hockey, though, you should not use this objection. Remember that scoring is not the only action in the game. Watching guys dunk the basketball fifty times in a row can get monotonous too.

IT'S JUST GUYS RUNNING AROUND
Well, running is a good thing. It even has its own sport! If we want our kids to be active and healthy and burn off all that extra energy, there are far worse things they could do than running around on the grass kicking a ball.

YOU CAN'T USE YOUR HANDS--WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?!
Every sport has its idiosyncrasies. You can't move the basketball without dribbling. No icing the puck. Don't nod your head before the snap--that's a penalty! It makes a lot of sense that a game referred to as "football" by millions of people requires that you move the ball primarily with your feet.

TIE GAMES IN AN ELIMINATION TOURNAMENT?
This is what I'd call an "organizational flaw" rather than a structural flaw. The game itself would be exactly the same if there were a requirement for overtime or penalty kicks to decide every single game and require that every game have a winning score. For whatever reason, FIFA has chosen not to do that. Maybe if enough fans demanded it, they would. NCAA football used to allow ties; now they have almost ridiculously long overtimes to determine a winner. This is like complaining about baseball's designated hitter; it could be easily changed with a rule modification that does not impact the actual play of the game.

WHY SHOULD WE LOVE IT JUST BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE DOES?
Why not? A lot of people think soccer is fun, and believe it or not, a lot of those people are Americans. A good number of them are immigrants who loved soccer and then came to love their adopted country too. Do we want to be the ones telling them that they'd better give up their sporting passion if they want to blend?

LIBERALS WANT TO FORCE US TO LOVE IT BECAUSE IT'S EUROPEAN.
Well, that may be true. Many liberals say becoming more like other nations, especially European ones, is something America needs to do. But we should not object to a game simply to be contrary to our political opponents. If a person simply loves the game, we are being shallow if we allow that to become a point of political division.

Winning elections is about winning the culture. Winning the culture is about giving people a reason to believe that your ideas are better for them and their neighbors. When your reaction to a sports tournament is to chalk up reasons why Americans shouldn't like it even when they have a team competing, you are not broadening your coalition. You aren't welcoming new people; you're giving them a reinforcement of their notion that conservatives are stodgy, close-minded, obnoxious traditionalists who just don't get it. Sporting events bring people together. We should see that as an opportunity.

Person A: Wow! Have you been keeping up with the World Cup? What a game the other day!!!
Person B: Not really; I never got into soccer. What happened?
Person A: We lost the game, but we still managed to make it to the next round. Still alive!
Person B: That's awesome! I don't care if it's competitive kitchen-tile painting, I want to see the US team holding that trophy when it's all over!

We're the land of the free. We put astronauts on the moon. You better believe that World Cup should be ours. Let's go get it.

This is cross-posted at http://politicalprospect.com/2014/06/30/david-proctor-why-conservatives-should-embrace-soccer/ . My thanks to Kayleigh McEnany!

Thoughts On Film: Saving Private Ryan

 As row after row of Soldiers are cut down by constant machine gun fire and artillery blasts, a few manage to find footing on the beach. The only sounds are the rattling of the guns, the booming explosions, and the screams of the wounded and dying. Captain John Miller sees one Soldier run up to him through the cascade of enemy fire.

 "Sir, what's the rally point?"

 "Anywhere but here!"

 This is the invasion of Normandy as depicted in one of the landmark films of recent years, Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. The story is a simple one: A squad of US Army Soldiers in Europe manage to survive the hellish attack on Omaha beach of June 6, 1944. Three days later, they are tasked to locate Private First Class James Ryan of the 101st Airborne Division. PFC Ryan's three brothers were all killed in action and the Army has decided that Ryan must be sent home. (Though fictional, the story was inspired by real-life examples of siblings who fought concurrently. Department of Defense policy now allows for serving family members of those killed in action to be exempted from combat.)

 SPOILERS AHEAD

 "...like looking for a needle in a stack of needles."

 Naturally, the troops have misgivings about what seems to them a public relations mission rather than a tactical one. Without cellphones, GPS systems, Twitter, or Facebook, they have to find one man whose location is "somewhere in France, probably, if he isn't already dead." On top of that, someone who is not trying to be found. Even CPT Miller (Tom Hanks), who properly refuses to question his orders in front of his men, holds out little hope for success. The horror of the opening battle is a shadow through the rest of the film, with any moment holding the prospect that the small group will encounter a larger German force, or that a single well-placed sniper could take them down. (This is to say nothing of the possibility of other American or Allied troops accidentally mistaking them for the enemy.)

 "You wanna explain the math of this to me? I mean, where's the sense of riskin' the lives of the eight of us to save one guy?"
...
 "We all have orders, and we have to follow 'em. That supersedes everything, including your mothers."

 As they make their way through the countryside, occasionally encountering other Army units and trying to determine if Ryan is in their ranks or among their casualties, the Soldiers wrestle with the thought that, officially, Ryan's life is more important than theirs and how they too have families back home. The new guy (there's always a new guy), translator Corporal Upham (Jeremy Davies), wants to learn about the camaraderie of the team, but to them, he's still an outsider. He's spent the war behind a desk and hasn't seen the action that they have. CPT Miller still tries to maintain some distance by refusing to reveal anything about his life and family back home; he has to order these men to kill and may have to order them to die and prefers that they not get too close.

 When skirmishes break out and men in the team die, the question is no longer hypothetical: is saving Private Ryan worth the cost?

 Eventually, they manage to find PFC Ryan (Matt Damon) as part of a contingent of men holding a strategically important bridge. Of course, finding him is not the end of the mission. They have to get him back safely to a secure transport, and the odds of a quiet jaunt through the French countryside are not good. What they hadn't counted on was Ryan choosing to stay, when any of the men who were hunting for him would gladly have gone back home after surviving D-Day. But the camaraderie that unites Miller's squad is also felt by the man who is their mission.

 "Tell her that when you found me I was here and I was with the only brothers that I have left and that there was no way I was gonna desert them. I think she'll understand that. There's no way I'm leaving this bridge."

*     *     *

 From the day it hit the theaters, Saving Private Ryan was a game-changer. The realism of its battle sequences has impacted every historical war movie made since then, including star Tom Hanks's own landmark HBO mini-series Band of Brothers, based on the real exploits of the 101st Airborne's Easy Company. According to William Manchester,  men in war do not fight for flag, country, glory or other abstractions, but for one another. The men in this film are not in a position to see the "big picture," so they do the only thing they can--fight to get themselves and their buddies through one more day. They resent anything that makes that harder, or reduces the odds that they can all go home. For me, one of the biggest messages of the film is that even if one does not think war is wrong, one can still acknowledge that war is a terrible thing, and that even good warriors pay a price for their participation. What the men in the film can't see in the heat of battle and the insanity of a war zone is that their mission to find one man and protect him is essentially what the military is supposed to do for all of us: fight the enemy so that complete strangers can be safe. When a mortally-wounded Miller tells Ryan, "Earn this...earn it..." I find myself thinking about how all of us today benefit from the sacrifices made seventy years ago. Thousands risked their lives, and many of them lost their lives, to allow us to have the freedom we have now. Let's not waste that gift, but rather use it to keep this nation a free one, and to make this world a better place for everyone.

Good Friday

 I'm going to spend this blog writing about some things I don't often write about, but sometimes I feel moved to get certain ideas out of my system. Partly I am prompted to write because, among most Christians around the world, today is celebrated as "Good Friday," the day Jesus of Nazareth was crucified by Roman governor Pontius Pilate in order to keep the peace in the troubled nation of Judea. And of course, Good Friday is the prelude to Easter, the following Sunday when the grave, sealed with a huge stone, was found empty and the followers of Jesus saw Him in person, very much alive. Nearly all of his apostles went to their deaths proclaiming this to be true.

 But if you're reading you probably already know all this. But the thing that we often seem to forget is that while we all grew up thinking of the Easter bunny and eggs and baskets and chocolate and marshmallows, there is nothing cute about crucifixion. There is nothing happy about a mob calling for the death of an innocent man. There is nothing cuddly about betrayal, or cowardice, or fear, all of which were on display by the men who were Jesus's closest friends. There is nothing pleasant about sin, which is what this is really all about.

 It is normal for people in the church to talk about how Jesus died for our sins, or was crucified for our sins, or something to that effect. What we really need to think about is why. After all, the Son of God was not executed for the purpose of atonement, in a legal sense. The Sanhedrin accused Him of blasphemy, but Roman governors, as a matter of course, did not execute violators of the Torah. No, if Jesus is who He claimed to be, He let Himself be crucified. Beating, scourging, public shame, followed by about six hours of death-by-torture. That is how important sin is.

 Sin can be defined as "missing the mark." I suppose this is what Paul meant when he wrote "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) A fatal flaw, the one thing--the one little thing--that keeps a person from that perfect score. Except that we all know it's never one thing. Usually it's several things, and often the same several things multiple times. How bad is sin? The only payment for it is death. Under the law of Moses, it was animal sacrifices. Jesus made Himself a sacrifice--the perfect, final one. The perfect innocent willingly going through all that because you (and everyone you've ever met) missed the mark. Serious stuff.

 What got me thinking about it is this trend in modern churches--not just those other churches, but yours too--to teach that sin really is not that big a deal. Everyone does it, everyone has it, so no harm, no foul. And if it's no big deal, then why bother actually doing something about it? Forget those lists of all the bad things you aren't supposed to do--we don't want to be judgmental. Just pray, and sing some repetitive simple songs, and hold hands and feel good about talking to Jesus, because we're all messed up and He loves us all so there is no point in actually having standards. We don't bother talking about Hell, we just talk about how we've been saved...from....well, something.

 But what about that part where we are supposed to die to sin? Yes, we're supposed to love everyone--that means, figuratively, that you tell them when they're missing the mark. Love isn't about making people happy; it's about telling the truth. I expect people who are not Christians to misinterpret, twist, misunderstand, and generally screw up what the scriptures say to make whatever points they want to make, but when people who claim to be Christians do it I really question what churches have been doing the past twenty years. Modern social media has been great for opening lines of communication; sadly, it has also made it all-too-clear that years of attendance at churches, camps, retreats, and Christian schools has been virtually useless for thousands of people who can't defend, explain, or justify a thing they claim to believe, to say nothing of all the folks who have turned away from the faith.

 Jesus did not die to make everyone happy. He did not die to justify us getting what we want. He didn't die to make sin OK; He died to make us OK. Jesus did not die because it was the best solution or the most convenient solution; He died because it was the only solution. The fact is that Jesus died to absolve you of every sin you could ever commit--this speaks to how great His forgiveness is, but it also speaks to how awful every sin is that you could ever commit. You'll never meet a person for whom Jesus did not die. You'll also never meet a person who has any hope without Him.

 Pilate famously asked Jesus, "What is truth?" The truth is that sin is real, and it is destructive, and it touches every life. The truth is that if there were any other way besides the crucifixion, Jesus would have done that instead. The good news--our Good Friday--is that in spite of how awful sin is, He wants us anyway, and He died--and lived--to make that possible.

Video of the Week: "Say Say Say" (Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney)

 After some time off from blogging for work, rest, and travel, I'm back this week with this gem from 1984, "Say Say Say." This collaboration, written and performed by Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney, is a great showcase for two of the best vocalists in pop music history. The two made two recordings together: "The Girl Is Mine," which was one of the numerous hits from Jackson's landmark album Thriller, and this one from McCartney's album Pipes of Peace. While the former was one of the admittedly weaker songs on an album full of great songs, the latter is generally agreed to be the best song on an otherwise mediocre album. McCartney had another notable duet with an African-American in the early 80s with "Ebony and Ivory," a sappy ballad about racial harmony performed with Stevie Wonder.

 This song was recorded in 1981 when Jackson was visiting the UK, though it was not released for two more years. Like much of McCartney's other work, it was recorded at Abbey Road Studios in London and the sessions were produced by George Martin. Sadly, this was the final project the two worked on together, as a rift developed later when Jackson purchased the publishing rights to Northern Songs, meaning that he collected royalties from most of the Beatles' record sales and broadcast performances, as well as other artists' recordings of Beatles songs. Ironically, McCartney gave Jackson the idea by showing him the catalog of songs for which he had purchased the publishing rights, but McCartney was not happy when Jackson outbid him for the Northern Songs property.

The video was directed by Bob Giraldi, whose previous credits include Jackson's "Beat It" video. Giraldi remarked that the video works because, "Michael didn't outdance Paul, and Paul didn't outsing Michael." The video has been credited as popularizing the idea of using dialogue and a story in music videos, though in this case the plot of the video seems to have little to do with the content of the song. The song is about a man trying to rekindle a failed relationship, while the video features the two performers as con men/vaudeville performers who run numerous scams and give the money to orphans. Critics pointed out the unlikelihood of Jackson besting a muscle man in arm wrestling, but these critics seem to miss the point, since both of them are in on the scam.

 In addition to the two main stars, there are a few other familiar faces here. Linda Eastman McCartney, Paul's first wife, appears as a member of the gang, which is a case of art imitating life since she had been touring as a member of the group Wings and then as part of Paul's solo band for years. Though not highly regarded as a musician, her presence on tours may be a big part of the reason the McCartneys had a successful marriage up until Linda's death from cancer in 1998. Michael's older sister LaToya is also in the video, as the girl who attracts MJ's attention and gets a bouquet of flowers at the end. Actor Harry Dean Stanton shows up as a pool shark who winds up getting hustled by Paul. Stay tuned for more videos and commentary, some more of which will feature both of these guys....

Video of the Week: "Hold Me" (Fleetwood Mac)

This week's video is 1982's "Hold Me" by Fleetwood Mac, a group whose history rivals that of any soap opera. Formed by drummer Mick Fleetwood and bassist John McVie, the group has been through many lineup changes but is best known for its "classic" configuration that also includes keyboardist Christine McVie, guitarist Lindsay Buckingham, and vocalist Stevie Nicks. During the recording sessions for this lineup's second album, 1977's Rumours, Christine and John were in the process of ending their marriage, in large part because of his alcohol abuse, Buckingham and Nicks were ending their relationship, and Nicks and Fleetwood had an affair also. While much of the group's tempestuous dynamic is reflected in their fantastic songwriting, the fact that they managed to produce so much great music is a testament to just how good and dedicated they were. It helped that Fleetwood and John McVie formed an incredibly tight rhythm section for the band, Buckingham was one of the most inventive and talented guitarists of the century, and he joined Nicks and Christine McVie as extraordinary songwriters whose voices made for a distinctive blend despite the three of them having totally different singing styles.

 This song was included on the album Mirage, which may explain the video's surreal desert imagery. The video is also influenced by Belgian surrealist painter Rene Magritte. The numerous mirrors in the video might suggest the fractured nature of the group's relationships, but they may also just be there to look cool, which was a major element of visual style in many music videos from the early 1980s.

 The song was written by Christine McVie and Robbie Patton, who opened for FM on tour. McVie shares lead vocal duties with Buckingham, with Nicks joining on the chorus. Meanwhile, Fleetwood and John McVie engage in an archeological dig which seems to end in the enviable discovery of a lot of guitars, though I doubt all that sand is good for them. Reportedly the video shoot was an ordeal for the band members and the crew, partly because of the heat of the desert and partly because various members of the band did not want to be around each other, which is understandable given the drama between all the personnel. And yet, out of all that comes a fun video and a very catchy song.

Bad Idea: Ending Tax Exemptions For Churches

Most of that $71 B came from this one congregation.

 So today I came across something as I was scouring the web, and it was not a happy sight.

This graphic proclaims that churches (and, I presume, synagogues, temples, mosques, and whatever else you may call a house of worship) are getting a free ride. All that money, contributed freely by the members, going somewhere other than the government. Of course, this is surely not intended to show a hostile attitude toward religious people, not an indication of distrust toward places of worship, just a desire to have everyone pay their fair share.

Right? Well, wrong. Dead wrong.

 Why do I think this is a bad idea? Because, as with many of the pictures with pity captions and clever graphics that you find online, it is deceptive. There are some things that you are not being told, and are not being encouraged to consider. Ending tax exemption for churches (and, by extension, every other place of worship) would have far-reaching consequences that even the creator of this image probably hasn't considered.

 One thing that supporters of this idea have missed is that churches do not get exemption just for being churches. The reason they are not taxed is because they are non-profit organizations. Like other organizations that are considered not-for-profit, they must complete paperwork to the effect that their primary purpose is not engaging in commerce. Non-profits perform charitable services; services that quite likely might not be done should their income be reduced by payments to the government. The federal government has long recognized the value of encouraging people to contribute to charitable services (churches or otherwise) which is why contributions to them can also be deducted from individual income tax payments. (Implicit in this argument is an understanding that a person's income belongs to that person to do with as he or she chooses; there is no compulsion to contribute to charitable non-profits, but the system is designed not to discourage people from doing so.) And of course, churches and other non-profits often benefit people who are not members of the congregation and may not even be sympathetic to its beliefs and goals.

 Now, here's where it gets interesting: there is something in the US that we refer to as the First Amendment. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." (emphasis mine) What that means is that no federal law can be designed specifically to target a religious institution, whether it is positive or negative for that religious institution. The rules that exempt churches from paying federal taxes are not a form of "special treatment" for churches; they are simply addressed to numerous institutions that include churches. If churches are to be required to pay taxes, then every non-profit institution must pay federal taxes. Every tax incentive that benefits every non-profit organization must be eliminated. Now, if you think that doing so, regardless of the nature of the non-profits affected, is a good idea, then that makes this a different discussion. However, I doubt that this is what the creator of this graphic had in mind. I have a suspicion that whoever made this had an animus toward organized religion, and would be shocked to find out that all sorts of secular organizations, many of them beneficial to the community, would suddenly find themselves deprived of potential millions of dollars, because they now must pay taxes on what they collect, and because contributions will eventually go down once the tax benefits of giving have vanished.

 Also, I have to mention that the government still gets a little tax money from churches and other non-profits, because some of that money goes to pay salaries for clergy, preachers, secretaries, etc. The people who make a living working for these organizations must still pay tax on their own income, just as they would for a "regular" job. (I confirmed this with my dad, who used to be a preacher and thus can be considered a subject matter expert.) And keep in mind that for the majority of religious people in this country, it is absolutely essential that they pay whatever taxes the government requires of them. Likewise, they use the funds they collect to pay for utilities, plumbing services, construction, supplies, and all the other things that allow them to function. The people who are paid for providing these services pay income tax on their earnings. Let's also note that this exemption does not apply to religiously-affiliated business, such as bookstores, which are considered for-profit, because their primary goal is commerce rather than charity or teaching.

 I'd like to think that I'm open-minded, and despite my biases I do my best to present ideas that might be controversial or incendiary in a fair and even-handed manner. But this is a terrible idea, short-sighted and narrow in its focus. In their zeal to punish churches for, well, being churches, they would risk crippling any and all institutions that serve a charitable purpose. No matter how noble the intent (not that I think the intent is noble anyway), the outcome would be nothing short of evil.

Video of the Week: "Somebody That I Used To Know" (Gotye feat. Kimbra)

Today, I'm beginning a new feature on The Freedom Trombone blog, the Video of the Week. I was just starting school when MTV came on the air and music videos became popular, so I've long been fascinated by the medium. For a time last year, I posted videos on my Facebook page with trivia and commentary and I've decided to carry that idea over to this blog. In fact, I will be posting some of those in the future, but today I'll start with "Somebody That I Used To Know," which was the most-played song on the radio in the United States in 2012 and just last night won Grammy awards for Best Pop Duo/Group Performance and Record of the Year. (And just in case there is any confusion, Record of the Year is awarded for the quality of the recorded performance; Song of the Year is awarded to the songwriter(s).) This song was written and produced by Wally de Backer, who was born in Belgium but has lived most of his life in Australia. He took the stage name Gotye as a re-spelling of Gauthier, the French form of his given name Walter. The song and its video have been the subject of relentless parodies, covers, and tributes, and it has become a major cultural touchstone of the past year, along with that other viral foreign video that will probably not be the subject of one of these commentaries...at least for a very long while.

 I guess it is a bit ironic to have this video posted on the week of Valentine's Day, especially since I am not personally dealing with a break-up at the moment. But a lot of people, myself included, can identify with the song's story, a couple dealing with a post-romance relationship: they both knew that the romance was doomed, but he wants to continue being platonic friends while she wants nothing to do with him.

 The music is an odd conglomeration of a brief sampled guitar lick by Luiz Bonfa along with a distinctive repeated figure played on a xylophone. Feeling that the song lacked drama after the first two verses and chorus, Gotye searched for a female singer to tell the other side of the break-up story. He ended up with New Zealand pop singer Kimbra, and the pairing catapulted them both to international fame. (Humorously, Gotye initially tried recording the song with his actual girlfriend, but decided that their romantic feelings did not match the emotional content of the song.) 

 The video, directed by Natasha Pincus, is notable for its use of abstract imagery, with the random geometric shapes symbolizing the fractured nature of the relationship. Reportedly, it took nearly a full day of work to execute the stop-motion photography that is used to blend Gotye into the painting (and remove Kimbra from it). I presume that her "removal" is really just her being painted but shown in reverse. The style of the artwork is inspired by his father's artwork, but the actual painting was done by Australian artist and skin illustrator Emma Hack. For a great cover version that has also received a lot of attention, click here to see Canadian group Walk off the Earth perform the song on a single guitar.