THE VIDEO Bon Jovi, "Living in Sin," New Jersey, Mercury, 1988
Click here to watch this video NOW!
SAMPLE LYRIC "Baby can you tell me, just WHERE we fi-it in / I call it love, they call it living in sin / is it you and me or just this WORLD we li-ive in / we're living on love, or are we livin' in sin"
THE VERDICT I have to give this song the award for the greatest ode to premarital sex (sorry, Winger). So what if the allmusic review claims that Bon Jovi's "trying to recreate Born to Run using cheaper materials." I don't know man but for me, this song puts JBJ dangerously close to Springsteen territory. Let's face it: No matter how I really feel about the state, if there's one thing I love, it's a good story-song about doomed lovers from New Jersey. The Boss is king in those parts -- I mean, "The River," "Atlantic City," etc. -- but Bon Jovi's no slouch.
And "Living in Sin" is the best of his story-songs -- though all the details about squabbling parents and Catholicism don't do it for me, his voice is so choked with emotion at the song's opening that it brings a lump into my throat nearly every time. And the video -- oh, the video. It's a total sobfest!
To review: This is the video MTV originally banned back in the day because it was too racy, though I'd argue they actually banned it for a couple of reasons. One, it contains a lot of Catholic imagery, and this was just a little before the whole "Like a Prayer" controversy. If the church didn't enjoy Madonna burning crosses and getting stigmata, I don't think they were going to exactly embrace Bon Jovi showing a vaguely sexy communion and crossing himself repeatedly while singing about the hypocrisy of religion and the idea that love is more important than the legality of one's relationship.
Two, the video is actually not that racy -- lots of clenched hands and unidentifiable swaths of bare skin (between the long hair and the lights being out, there are a lot of shots where it's not clear who we're looking at). This is particularly true of the shorter version, which omits the one brief peek of silhouetted side-boob (see below for an overly-long discussion of the different versions.) Call me crazy, but I think the bigger problem is that it shows sexuality in a positive, loving way -- this is no "Girls, Girls, Girls," which shows way more skin even in the censored version they show on TV. It also has way less nudity than Chris Isaak's "Wicked Game," which has a very similar overall look and feel. Compared to both of those, too, the shots in this video are too quick to really figure out what's going on; you kind of just get a sense of what you're seeing. Which at least for some of us is, admittedly, probably more titillating than the brazen sexuality of say, Motley Crue's love letter to the ladies of the Body Shop.
Instead of Sunset Strip strippers or Helena Christensen, we get a couple of people who actually look young (particularly the girl -- the guy looks vaguely like the friend who dies in "18 and Life"), and who for metal videos are strikingly good actors! They're adorable together, and he's so affectionate with her, it just ... oh no, here it goes. I'm getting teary. It was going to happen at some point, so let's just let it come. Anyway, they're a pretty realistic couple in the sense of they look like people you could've met in New Jersey circa 1988. I feel like this as well was likely part of MTV's problem with the video -- these folks look underage.
There's also an interesting class aspect in here -- while in most Bon Jovi songs, its implied both lovers are working class (think his other big "Living" song, i.e. "On a Prayer"), this video makes it appear that the boy is working class while the girl is middle class. Her family dresses neatly and eats dinner around the table, his keeps a junker car in the front yard and eats in front of the TV. So the video adds the implication of disapproval of downward mobility to the whole no-sex-before-marriage thing (in other words, it's not just the sex her parents disapprove of, though we can assume they disapprove of that too).
But they're in looove! I mean just look at these two, on the beach, in the car, at a motel... can't anybody take the "if you're going to do this, let's do it at home and be safe" approach? I can't stand the thought that this couple isn't going to make it!
If you see the full version of this video, it includes bits before and after the song ends that give a bit more context (it also includes more explicit sexuality than the shorter version, which is also considerably tamer). Both show the girl having dinner with her parents, and standing up to look out some large windows (or maybe French doors?) out to the street. The beginning includes a voiceover (we assume from the boy) saying, "There's always something that we have to do for them, but this is one thing that we have to do for us."
In the longer ending, we see the girl looking out the window again, and the boy's car driving by. We then see the girl running out to the boy's car. Some folks claim this means she's decided to run away with him. However -- since a) she's wearing different clothes and b) we also see this shot of her running to the car in the beginning of the video (when they're leaving for the motel?) -- I've always taken this to be a memory. In other words, she's looking for his car, but it's not there anymore. Noooooo!
Then again... there's also the shot of them being discovered in bed at the beginning of the video, which is obviously foreshadowing and repeats again at the end. So maybe... hmm. Maybe the whole intro is foreshadowing her leaving with him at the end. But doesn't she need more than that tiny backpack? I mean that'll barely hold her Aqua Net, let alone her enormous supply of giant hoop earrings! Nonetheless, I think further study is required to solidify my interpretation of this video. Are they truly star-crossed, or is this "Tommy and Gina: The Early Years"?
P.S.: Yes, I got the idea for this title from Parks and Recreation.