Great, another X-Men movie

In 2011 it seems we have reached a singularity of sorts. Every summer sees a new crop of movies adapted from Marvel comic book properties. Marvel’s film adaptations have ranged from the thoughtful and entertaining (Iron-Man) to the execrable (Ghost Rider and the Fantastic Four). They have been incredibly lucrative which is why 2011 has seen the release of three properties: Thor, X-Men: First Class, and Captain America, as well as a host of imitators from other comic book brands.

How many can you name? And don't worry - while we waste our time filling our head up with this nonsense children are dying of disease that are easily treated.

The Marvel Renaissance began in 1998 when Stephen Norrington’s adaptation of Blade, starring Wesley Snipes as the eponymous vampire/vampire slayer, hit big screens. When I saw Blade I remember thinking, that’s nice that the kid from The Power of One is still making movies. Blade grossed over $130 million on a $45 million dollar budget. Its sequels (Blade 2 and Blade Trinity) grossed another $280 million for New Line Studios. I don’t hear about Blade when people talk about comic book movies now. That could be because Wesley Snipes is supposed to be in jail for not paying taxes on any of the money he earned from it or because New Line went out of business a few years ago. The films people talk about followed Blade in the early 2000’s. Sam Raimi’s tiresome Spiderman movies and Bryan Singer’s X-Men are hailed as the beginning of the serious comic book movie. I won’t waste your energy or mine talking about Sam Raimi and his yuckster Emo Spiderman movies except to say that they’re finally over.

They made three movies about this jackhole. Three!

I do want to mention Bryan Singer, however, as an interesting character and a lead in for this review of a movie that is his film’s great-great-great grandchild. He made X-Men using the goodwill created by The Usual Suspects’ critical and commercial success. I’ve seen this film. I don’t like trick endings and Kevin Spacey gives me the heeby-jeebies but it is a good film. Singer is a talented man who makes curious career choices.

X-Men has spawned, ostensibly, four follow-ups now as X-Men: First Class met acclaim on its recent release. While characters in the film and comic spout nonsense about mutations and being “children of the atom,” X-Men is really just a fantasy about people with magical powers. When the comic was first released in the early 1960’s it asked its readers to sympathize with teenagers who had incredible abilities. X-Men provided its readers an opportunity to consider through the experience of other people, what it would be like to be able to shoot lasers from your eyes or to grow metal coverings on the outside of your body. It asked its readers what it meant to be ostracized for physical or mental differences. It asked its readers how one would reconstitute their circle of associations if one had been ejected from hearth and home. I’ll be frank here; I’ve never read the comics. My formative experiences with X-Men were based on the cartoon that Fox ran as part of its Saturday moring lineup. It showed at 11:00 in my hometown, which was typically when my dad would come down and yell at us for not having done our Saturday chores. As an adult I’ve shied away from super hero comic books. Writers and artists have been talking about the X-Men for a half century now. There are associate teams: X-Factor, X-Force, New Mutants, X-Calibur, etc. X-Men’s original heroes are grandparents, in some cases. There is too much story and too much contradiction to catch my interest at this point. However, I will fork over $8 and watch an adaptation of those stories on the screen. With my first caveat in place, I will issue a second caveat. I thought the first four X-Men movies (X-Men, X2, X-Men: Last Stand, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine) were not great movies.

First Class is kind of a prequel for those four films, although not really. There were continuity errors, but that is a post for another time. The film seeks to explain how the X-Men team was formed and how many of the trilogy’s iconic images were established. It is the story of how telepath Charles Xavier and metal-manipulator Eric Lensherr began to weaponize the latent abilities of “mutants,” human beings born with extraordinary powers.  The film’s producers hail Xavier as a kind of Martin Luther King Jr. for Mutants to Lensherr’s Malcom X. This metaphor is too little butter over too much bread. It becomes even more complicated when one considers the incredibly slim survival rate for mutants who happen to be not white.

During the course of the film these two men are recruited by the United States government to help apprehend an evil mutant played by Kevin Bacon who has plans for world domination.

Through the film, Xavier and Lensherr (aka Magneto) gather a group of mutants and set out to stop Kevin Bacon. The movie is full of arresting images. It does the best of any of the films at showing how these mutants can use their magic powers to wreak incredible havoc. There is power and true movie magic in some of these scenes. One scene in particular, shows how a mutant uses his powers to fill my brain with a new kind of nightmare. Unfortunately this movie suffers from prequelitis. We already know which sides the characters will end up on.  We know the history of these characters. While the film’s conclusion is predictable it hit me with convincing power and artistry.

The film’s great success lies in capturing the incredible irony of these comics. Xavier establishes a school that trains teenaged mutants to use their powers as weapons to defend themselves and humans. However, in all of the films that have been released so far Xavier’s students end up leaving this school and using their weaponized powers to try and kill human beings. Xavier is the source of many of his world’s problems. It has been argued quite elegantly that the US government is right to lock all the mutants up. Because of his interactions with this film’s villains we finally understand why Xavier created his school. And miracle of miracles, the filmmakers trust us enough not to spell it out. The film’s second great success is that there are flashes of incredible emotional brilliance that crop up from time and time again. Variety blogs have noted that this is the movie that will make Fassbender a true star. I’m not sure about that I but do recognize that he acted the hell out of his role. I would love to see a movie where he plays this part without the magical powers. I’d bet any of you a nickel that he could win an Oscar but for the blue and yellow suits, bullshit mutant powers, and the presence of  January Jones.

The problems with X-Men First Class are much more numerous. The film demonstrates how a film with a large cast and an uneven script generates tiers of actors. The first tier is occupied by Kevin Bacon as the satanic Sebastian Shaw and Michael Fassbender as his impressionable apprentice Magneto. Kevin Bacon is a genuinely creepy man and is most effective when playing evil men who blend into polite society. Michael Fassbender plays Magneto as a heartbroken Holocaust survivor who channels his anger into a revenge plot that is quickly derailed by all the mutant bullshit. The second tier is occupied by James McAvoy as a boozy Xavier and Rose Byrne as CIA agent Moira MacTaggart. Then there’s everyone else including the predictably awful January Jones and Rade Šerbedžija, who always seems to be having fun in everything he’s in even when, in this case, its playing yet another Russian power-broker who is tricked into having sex with himself (Yeah, its super awkward).

I ask a lot of the movies I watch. I’m paying the filmmakers with my time and my money. I expect them to make something that will hold up to scrutiny. You’ll never, ever hear me say “well I went into it because I just wanted to be entertained” unless I’m refuting that I would ever say that. It would be like saying “I went to the Lourve because there are a lot of pictures of naked chicks there.” I go to movies because I want to be knocked on my ass. I want to be impressed because I know how much meaning films can express but so often good filmmakers let me down with easy fixes and stupid mistakes. And this movie is no exception. I won’t dwell on its problems except to point out two. The first is a perennially problematic character named Mystique. In the comics and in the films, Mystique is a blue-skinned woman with large “basketball-like” bosoms and red hair. In the original trilogy she was played by Rebecca Romin-Stamos-Romin. In this film she is played by the actress who will be someone in the Hunger Games movies.

I know what you're thinking - where are her nipples? There should be two of them but instead there are none. Its so weird, right!?

Mystique is a shape-shifter who’s power allows her to match herself with the physical form and appearance of another person. This could denote an interesting economy of power. Imagine if, in this film, she could change her shape but that she has to find clothes and accessories to match the person that she’s copying. This could be intelligent sci-fi (I’m sorry, sy-fy). Instead, Mystique’s power is incredibly efficient, like magic. Her body generates the appearance of clothing as well. To fit in, she chooses to appear as a dull-eyed blonde woman. It bothers her though, that she is not accepted in her blue skinned form, which she never shows to anyone unless she’s coming onto them sexually. I won’t elaborate on that anymore than to say that she tries to seduce three men in this movie: her adoptive brother, a 15 year old with giant feet who turns into a cat, and a man who notes that he is twice her age. I am not sure its the blue hair they’re rejecting sugar.

I was able to articulate my problem with Mystique after a training montage in the second half of the film. In the scene Magneto makes a point about how dangerous it would be for her to constantly maintain the appearance of an 18 year old blonde woman. He also suggests that she is not being true to herself. “Tigers don’t change their stripes,” he says. So Mystique spends the next three films going around naked. See, in the comic Mystique was a schemer who used her powers to manipulate the X-Men for personal gain. She wore a white smock with a belt made from skulls. In the film, for some reason (blink, blink) all the time that she isn’t shifted into someone else Mystique wears nothing but blue body paint, like. Flying an attack helicopter or a top-secret jet? Naked. Infiltrating a government facility? Naked. Sleeping in the woods? Naked. When the character appears she is played by a child in a cringe worthy moment, NAKED.

We get it.

For the first three movies Mystique was played by a model who couldn’t really act. Be honest friends – how many movies has Rebecca Romin-Stamos been in since X-3? She was a model who wanted to be an actress so she agreed to do the movie naked. They’re  making am obvious, low-altitude appeal to a certain demographic. Here’s the thing though we see her boobs all the time and when we see them, we observe the most frightening thing about this woman. It isn’t her blue skin or her terrible psoriasis or her red hair or her yellow eyes, its something else: Mystique has no nipples. We see her several times in this movie and the other ones walking around in the buff and she has no nipples. Why? I mean, I know why. The filmmakers wanted a PG-13 rated film and too many nipples nullify that rating. But there is also the willing suspension of disbelief. They show boobs as often as they can get away with it and she clearly has no nipples. One of two scenarios is playing out here to make this feasible. One, she has no nipples as a result of her mutation. Why? Why would the mutation do that to her? Two, she chooses to maintain a nipple-less appearance for kicks (or for ratings). But I don’t know why she would do that either.  This character makes no sense. And furthermore, why does Magneto suggest that the use of clothing a function of pride in one’s mutantness? I could shrug off the implied sexual relationship between Magneto and Mystique in the first few films because I know Ian McKellan’s heart belongs to Frodo Baggins but Michael Fassbender is young and not dissipated at all.

Why would he care if she were naked or not? Why doesn’t he go naked? See, this is my first problem with X-Men. I spent the second half of the movie thinking about these kinds of problems. And trust me, this isn’t the only one. If you make a movie and I spend most of it thinking about what a character’s lack of nipples represents then you have failed in some significant way.

This is my big problem with X-Men. Do we really need this story? In 2011, do we need a $200 million film about men who scream so loud they can fly and women who can projectile vomit acid? From a purely artistic standpoint do we need a fifth X-Men movie?  If you answer yes then please send me an email or a comment and tell me why and don’t tell me it’s to escape. We have TV, radio, internet, I-Pods, and video games. Our culture, American/Western Civilization, is founded on escape. I think we need more films that remind us that life is real and magic is not. I think we need more films that remind us that life is fragile and ours is ending one minute at a time. We need more films that give us reasons to get out and live instead of taking them away. That’s the kind of experience I’m looking for when I got to a movie theater.

Tell you what, if you must watch a movie, instead of watching another X-Men movie, rent McKellan’s King Lear or Lars and the Real Girl. Watch the film, then think about what it means to be sane and healthy. You won’t regret it and you might enjoy yourself.

Tales from Earthsea

It is father’s day today. One cannot help but recollect. I came back from my LDS mission  in the middle of BYU’s winter semester. My father arranged for me to work as a receptionist at his medical practice. Frequently his patients would ask me if I was going to be a doctor like my father. I might have considered it until I met my day one day after he had removed a large, ham-shaped cyst from one of his patient’s lower back. He was so excited. “Son,” he said. “I never get to do stuff like this.” There is an assumption though, that sons ought to follow in their fathers’ footsteps. Is there honor in this? I’m not sure.

In an earlier post, Chip Kinkaid reviewed Ponyo, which is one of the most wonderful animated films I have ever seen. I won’t belabor the points he made, but I will add a tip of my own hat to the work of Hayao Miyazaki. You may not love his movies but it is hard not to admire a man who is so plush with ideas and so liberal in communicating them.  Before Wall-e, Princess Mononoke was the only movie I ever watched more than once during its theatrical run. Hayao Miyazaki has a son, Goro, who is also a filmmaker. Goro’s “debut” film, Tales from Earthsea, was recently released on DVD in the US. I first read about T.F.E. when it came out in 2006.  I was bummed because the article explained that the SciFi (Sy Fy) channel’s recent production of an Earth Sea miniseries meant legal entanglements which would prevent the movie from making its way to our fair shores for years and years. Well friends, the time passed and I recently discovered a copy of Tales from Earthsea at Target.

Having seen the film, I suspect that there are other reasons for its delay. While Goro created this film with his father’s production team, it is his work. There are smacks and hints of the elder Miyazaki’s touch and standards. Strong female protagonists, non-D&D magic systems, explorations of the balance between life and death, and the conflicts between civilization and nature are all present. There is an animal companion. The film is marked, however, by a heightened attention to violence more akin to mainstream anime than to the elder Miyazaki’s films.  That isn’t to say that Hayao Miyazaki’s films are gentle: in fact some of them are jam-packed with straight up murder. However, the tenor of this film is different and I accept that criticism.

Goro Miyazaki’s work on this film illustrates one of the most complicated aspects of film criticism: the important difference between an adaptation and a translation. How many times have you asked someone about a film or a book and heard them sniff and say, “I liked the __(cultural artifact that preceded it)__ better”?

I remember reading Jurassic Park and then watching the film. I was impressed with how closely it followed the novel’s action but somewhat let down that Spielberg left out the second T-Rex. We walk into theaters with our own preconceptions and expectations. In the case of adaptations, we’re almost certainly guaranteed a little bit of sourness. At worst the film can annoy its audiences by needlessly betraying their expectations or insulting their imaginations. At best a film can transcend the pre-existing experience by expanding those expectations and feeding imaginations.

I’m secure enough in my own aesthetic judgement to accept that films are films and books are books and rarely will the two meet. I am more interested in judging the film on its own merits. When I am judging a film I ask myself simple questions. How holistic was the story? Was the story’s action linked to the characters’ choices? Was there a complete moral that was communicated? Did film help me understand some aspect of my own life? In the case of these considerations, Tales from Earthsea was largely successful. And yet the film was panned. I have been  film’s production had a choppy history that began when everyone discovered that, evidently, Ms. LeGuinn is kind of an old biddy.

Google search "old biddy." Go on, try it.

In the 80’s, Hayao Miyazaki asked to create an animated version of Earthsea. LeGuinn refused, admitting on her blog that she “did not know his work” and “knew only Disney-type animation, and disliked it.” According to the DVD’s featurettes, this unrealized Earthsea project was a kind of albatross for the elder Miyazaki.  By the time he decided to retire following the release of Howl’s Moving Castle in 2004, LeGuinn had changed her mind. I think it is important to note here that the author isn’t doing the filmmaker a favor. A successful adaptation means a big boost in book sales for an author and a raise in profile. LeGuinn is like 1,000,000 years old and has been writing for a long time. I doubt she needed the ink but she did sign the contract and she was paid. Once money enters into the picture she should take her ego and step out of it; this is all business, right?

In any case, Miyazaki was tasked (with the author’s contractual permission) with making a cinematic adaptation of 4 novels and a collection of short stories worth of material. He had to do this standing in the shadow of his father, who is arguably the most famous Japanese filmmaker who ever lived. I’m not as familiar with the Earthsea books as I am with LeGuinn’s other fiction. I think that the Dispossessed is brilliant, for instance. Was Goro Miyazaki faithful to the source material? I think so. He didn’t translate the material detail for detail but he followed the arc of the stories. How much fidelity does a story about wizards and dragons demand? Peter Jackson drastically altered vast swaths of the Lord of the Rings. No one tied him to a tree. Zach Snyder radically altered the ending of Watchmen and they let him keep the blue penises. This is all fiction. Miyazaki’s film isn’t rediscovering a history that was lost. He isn’t retelling a true tale. Quentin Tarantino rewrote the end of World War 2 as a Jewish revenge story and came as close to winning an Oscar as he’s likely to get. Why do fantists and a 1,000,000 yr old authoress with a made up name demand high fidelity to a story about wizards and dragons? Miyazaki is appropriating mythology for an adaptation of a novel that appropriated mythology. This is a movie which is a story of a story of a story of a story, etc. etc. etc.  I know that elements were changed but I also recognize that perhaps Miyazaki understood the kind of experience his audience was looking for and played to them instead of a million year old woman and her acolytes.  The better question here is: why does Goro Miyazaki, or any other “adapter” need to be faithful?

The best part is when the small town dragon moves to the big city, gets a job dancing in a bar, finds a hot Australian boyfriend, disappears for 10 years, and makes it big as the star of a basic cable Alias-rip off.

After viewing the first cut of the film, LeGuinn wrote “Much of [the film] was, I thought, incoherent. This may be because I kept trying to find and follow the story of my books while watching an entirely different story, confusingly enacted by people with the same names as in my story, but with entirely different temperaments, histories, and destinies.” This reminds me of the king of boo-hooing, Joss “the Avengers is going to be a hot mess of terrible” Whedon, describing Jean-Pierre Jenuet’s adaptation of his script for Aliens 4: Aliens take Manhattan.  Whedon said “they said the lines … mostly … but they said them all wrong… They cast it wrong. And they designed it wrong. And they scored it wrong. They did everything wrong that they could possibly do.” Those grapes sour much? I wonder if Whedon was so distressed that he offered his paycheck back to the studio, you know, as a purely artistic statement?

LeGuinn created a story for a western audience. She chose to novelize it. Years later, that story was adapted for an eastern audience in the form of a film. Inevitable changes occurred. Don’t believe me? Try and experiment. Tell a very simple story to two friends who are gossips. Wait for them to pass the story along to other friends. Ask the set of recipient friends to name details of the story. They will get it wrong. Take a moment to note which details were misrepresented. Which ones were omitted? Which were modified? We call this the telephone game. I learned to play it in grade school. I wish Ursula LeGuinn had learned to play it too. How could she have not seen the necessity of changes to characters and plot?

Willem Defoe sure cleans up well, doesn't he?

But here I am, complaining about an old lady. She’s probably in a wheel chair. I’m terrible. The film does have a key structural weakness which is unresolved by the plot – however, how many films can you name that don’t? Without revealing it I will only say that crazy is crazy and there sometimes an explanation isn’t needed. T.F.E is engrossing high fantasy with compelling characters and a terrifying villain. The voice acting is superb. The film is a subtle exploration of the treatment of insanity and a powerful examination of accountability. T.F.E. won Japan’s Bunshun’s Raspberry Awards for “worst film” while Goro Miyazaki won “worst director.” However, the film was a finalist for the Japanese Academy Awards for Best Animated Feature. T.F.E is a stronger film than Hayao Miyazaki’s weaker work. I think it is also interesting to note that Goro is the same age now as his father was when he made his first film. This is probably not Goro’s Princess Mononoke but if it is his Porco Rosso then we’re in for a treat. How many people on the internet would die on a hill for the sins of “Lupin 3: Part 1”?  I suspect we have not seen the last of Goro Miyazaki and for sons everywhere I say: happy father’s day!

Kurtwood Smith will drink your milkshake

Madness? This is KURTWOOD SMITH!

Oftentimes when I watch movies it occurs to me that the actors in those movies are playing the same part in all of their films. Have you ever seen a movie where George Clooney is a smug know-it-all who is not an asshole because he’s good looking? How about the movie where Angelina Jolie is a sexy-assasin/unstable person? We buy into these portrayals if we like the actors in question, that is what makes them movie stars actually. Kurtwood Smith is a legendary tool, or he has made a tidy career for himself playing them on the big and small screen. I could never buy into watching That 70’s Show because I was always waiting for his character to snap and beat the hell out of his wife and kids. His smug, self-satisfied disgust for his son set the tone for every episode I saw. I didn’t like the character, so I didn’t watch the show.  I’m not trying to imply that this is how Kurtwood Smith is in real life. I am also not trying to imply that Kurtwood Smith is a bad actor because of this.

I actually think actors are suceeding when their efforts carry an emotional effect over into real life. I believe this is effective acting.

I bring up Kurtwood Smith because in one of his earlier roles he played Robert Sean Leonard’s fearsome paterfamilias in The Dead Poet’s Society. Leonard is “probably” best known for playing second fiddle to Hugh Laurie’s Dr. House on Dr. House TV (another show I don’t care for – for other reasons to be discussed at another time, possibly). Before he was a gasping-seducer of patients on the small screen, he was an empassioned and disturbed prep school stuent in Peter Weir’s film.

I watched The Dead Poet’s Society for the first time a month before I went on a mission for the LDS church. It is a big part of my current career. When I saw Robin Williams on screen rewatching the movie a few years later I thought that I could be the kind of teacher who creates a safe kind of cognitive space for kids with lousy parents.  I won’t dwell on Williams’ performance, except to say that it is one of his best. Peter Weir has an uncanny ability to take performers who are noted one-trick ponies (notably Jim Carey in the Truman Show and Harrison Ford in Witness and Mosquito Coast) and coax from them the performance of their career.  Some how Weir strips away all of the jade and show-biz lacquer and ego and enables the actor to present a completely different persona and the “movie star” is transformed.

The movie is full of fine performances.  I don’t see many films with teenage characters that bother to characterize the teenagers. While some of the students’ subplots are tiresome (cough, cough – I’m talking to you Josh Charles – your character isn’t a romantic, he’s a creep and Mutt Sanders was right to beat the shit out of him), the film finds its center in Leonard and Smith’s performances as son and father. Leonard’s turn is heartbreaking and made wholly understandable by the monster that Smith summons each time he comes on screen. Smith is truly terrifying. Watch the scene where his wife discovers him cradling the body of his newly-suicided son and gauge his reaction to her grief.

I don’t know why I come back to That 70’s Show, except to say that I see Smith’s character from Poets whenever I see Red Foreman and I get the heeby-jeebies.

I wonder how Smith would play as kind or generous?  Mabe Peter Weir will give him a chance one of these days.

2010’s best music videos #3 and 4

4 Fighting Trousers

We covered this one already. Its amazing.

3 Weeds

I don’t know much about Provo, Utah based singer-songwriter Joshua James except where he’s from and what he does. I do know that I’m a sucker for movies that have underwater sections and beautiful composition. I also think the desert can be beautiful. File this one under music that people won’t listen to because they should and films that honor big, important ideas. Also, its gutsy for James to play the devil. What does he mean to say, I wonder?

2010’s best music videos #5 and 6

6 Electric Twist

Reader, I’ll be honest with you. I haven’t listened to much of Alison Sudols’ music but I think most of it is not great. Its’ like Sarah Barellis or Vanessa Carlton’s music. In fact, as a redhead, she fits with them as a kind of triumvirate of singer/songwriters who are always on the radio without an explanation beyond they’re pretty and their music is good and then I see this music video. How does it fit into my theory?

Friends, Alison Sudol won me over and gained a spot on this list with her dancing. She’s not a good dancer. I’m not judging – I’m not a good dancer either but this video surprised me. She’s not trying to be sexy (think of Rhianna – don’t think this list couldn’t feature “Rude Boy”) or appealing. I honestly believe she’s just trying to find a sense of wonder in the tired medium of music videodom. Watch her dance? Wouldn’t it be fun if there was more spontaneity in life? The tiny  cowboy, the hula hooper, and the exercising pregnant woman make the video weird enough, visually, for me; but its Sudol’s terribly dancing that wins her #6 on our countdown.

5 Happy Up Here

When you watch the video, consider these essential questions:

*Have you ever seen anything like it?

*How did it make you feel?

*Did you like it?

I think

2010’s best videos # 7 and 8

8 Crossfire

I’ve read that Brandon Flower’s solo album, Flamingo, was supposed to be the Killers’ fourth studio album but the band thinks he’s a dick and wouldn’t do it to spite him. I’ve read that Flowers has a reputation for difficulty and for being a diva. That sounds about right for the most famous Mormon in the music biz (move over Bachman Turner Overdrive, that’s what you get for resigning your membership).

I don’t really care about that because the only place I’m likely to meet Flowers is in an LDS meetinghouse and none of that matters there. I think his music is just as brilliant solo as it is as part of the Killers so either way we benefit.

The video stars Flowers as the trouble beset paramour of Charlize Theron who is resigned to rescuing him from increasingly outlandish predicaments.

There are a lot of reasons why I like this video. Charlize Theron is probably the most beautiful woman alive, that’s a good palce to start. She and Flowers create an interesting kind of chemistry. I think their characters are going to go through this again. Is all of this action a metaphor for something else? I don’t know but I do like watching it. The action is unconventional. The director makes some interesting choices in how he frames these scenes. The video is ultimately fun to watch. Go on, give it a try. You’d be wrong not to.

7 Dog Days are Over

Florence and the Machine’s video is the strangest entry on this list. I first heard this song played over previews for USA’s execrable Alias rip-off Covert Affairs. Remember when USA made cool spy shows about inexplicably over-powered blondes? Me too, it was the early 90’s. We kind of miss you Le Femme Nikita. Don’t you know you weren’t on Battlestar Galactica? You don’t belong in SyFy movies.

Sometimes music videos feature one or two things that I really like and usually that is enough to hold my attention span and to make me think about what it might have meant (if anything). This video, as if to put those videos to shame, features literally thousands of things that I like. In fact, having just watched it two more times I can’t say that there is anything that I don’t have strong, positive feelings for. I will leave it at that and let you make up your mind after I share one final thought with you: when showed the video to my sister she asked me “what color dust would you turn into if you danced so much you exploded into a million tiny pieces?” I can’t say but I bet Florence knows. As for me and mine I suspect that Florence, like the Apostle Paul, was taken into the third heaven. Unlike Paul, however, she was permitted to speak of the unlawful things she saw and so we get this video. #7, for luck.