Some layering added, and more performance shots:
...
Hello, welcome to my blog! This is dedicated to my A2 Media Coursework, creating a music promo package through film, print and web work.
![]() |
Last website design |
![]() |
Current design |
James Murphy wasn't sure what to expect when the Arcade Fire arrived to record with him at DFA Records' New York studio in March. "There's a lot of them, and they're mostly self-produced – like, they don't need a producer in a certain way," Murphy tells Rolling Stone. "So I didn't know how it would go."
The band caused some controversy with the video when it was banned for its depiction of two men engaging in a kiss.[citation needed]
The video, directed by David and Raphael Vital-Durand, features a grim, Nineteen Eighty-Four-like setting. It was initially banned by some TV stations including MTV for being too violent. The video features car burnings, cross burnings, and various violence to humans.The banning of MTV affects the promotion of the artist. So just like the darker theme of the music saw them pushed down the charts, the visual imagery of this video also meant they were prevented from further coverage, especially in the USA (where a legal dispute with an artist of the same name hadn't helped either)
I’m sure Levine and his bandmates think they’ve done something edgy here – ooh, so dark! – but there is nothing “alternative” about showing women being stalked, hunted, raped or killed because it’s something that happens every damn day.What’s particularly disturbing about Animals is that the song’s message – that men are “animals” with no self control – implies there is nothing we can do about issues of sexual violence. If sexual predators are “animals”, or “crazy”, than it absolves us of social responsibility ... because you can’t control an animal, amiright? It’s just in their nature. (A fairly insulting vision of male sexuality, I must say.) Maroon 5’s Animals also comes on the heels of a Time article from professional provocateur Camille Paglia, who argued, apparently in all seriousness, that a culture that condones and glamorizes violence against women isn’t the problem - “evil” is. “Young women do not see the animal eyes glowing at them in the dark,” she wrote.
Writing in The Telegraph, former Archbishop of Cantebury Lord Carey states that the video is “juvenile” and criticises Bowie for “upsetting people”. “If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery perhaps Christians should not worry too much at such an exploitation of religious imagery,” Carey writes. “I doubt that Bowie would have the courage to use Islamic imagery – I very much doubt it. Frankly, I don’t get offended by such juvenilia – Christians should have the courage to rise above offensive language, although I hope Bowie will recognise that he may be upsetting some people.”BAN FROM YOUTUBE:
Additionally, the Catholic League, which bills itself as America’s “largest Catholic civil rights organisation”, has taken issue with the video’s overtly religious subject matter – posting a scathing blog post on its website titled “BOWIE’S ‘JESUS’ VIDEO IS A MESS”.
The group’s President Bill Donohue writes: “David Bowie is back, but hopefully not for long. The switch-hitting, bisexual, senior citizen from London has resurfaced, this time playing a Jesus-like character who hangs out in a nightclub dump frequented by priests, cardinals and half-naked women.”
Continuing, Donohue claims that the video is”strewn with characteristic excess” and Bowie himself is described as “nothing if not confused about religion”. Donohue concludes: “In short, the video reflects the artist – it is a mess.”
The video gained wide attention and caused a controversy. It was banned from YouTube just two hours after its release due to "violation of YouTube's Terms of Service."[4][12][13] However, the video returned on the website shortly after its removal, with an age restriction. A YouTube spokeswoman stated: "With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes we make the wrong call. When it's brought to our attention that a video has been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it."[3][13][14]
![]() |
Reuters News |
Madonna’s BDSM bedroom antics in Justify My Love. Freddie Mercury in drag as a housewife for I Want To Break Free. Too-hot-for-BBC leather daddies in Frankie Goes To Hollywood’s Relax. Pop music has long been a place for subverting sexual norms, not least in videos. But for queer artists in 2016, it feels as if this medium of expression could be under threat.
The fact that we’re having such a political conversation over a campy video like Loner, which is as sexual as an evening at a Ringling Brothers Circus, is sad,” Blanco says. “That video is a celebration of kitsch, in many ways turning the pop aesthetic on its head, empowering the LGBTQ [community] through its flamboyance.”
Streaming sites might think that age restrictions are helpful, but acceptance won’t change if some queer art is deemed illicit. Blanco himself vows to make bulgier, queerer visuals in future. “We combat this by saying: ‘F*** you, we will not be silenced,’” he says, “[and] demanding our art not be treated as ‘less than’. We will get there.”