Plot smoking

There has been some concern in Hollywood lately about the use of cigarettes in movies.

In the film "Pearl Harbor", set 1941, the main characters never spark up, even though most Americans smoked at that time.

Do you think actors smoking in movies glamorizes cigarettes, thereby influencing people to smoke?

__________________
r66

not really, i believe that they are mearly props, most of the time no one notices greatly the cigs are there, they simply add atmosphere. I dont believe they influence people to smoke but i could be wrong, its just my opinion that ive never been tempted into smoking by anything let alone movies, i believe its just another excuse to hide behind by blaming someone/something else rather than taking responsibility for your own choices and accepting you chose to smoke not Will Smith, not Brad Pitt, not peer pressure but the persons own choice. So in any terms if movies influenced the person (which i highly doubt) they still cant be blamed for someones choice.

It is up to the actors and directors to choose where smoking fits and where it doesnt in a movie and if they chose for it to be in than it wouldnt be to glamourise (unless some deal was created) the cigs it would be just because it fits into the scene or film.

I generally don't like when today's sensitive subjects influence how historical movies are made. Altough a subjects like cigarette smoking is no biggie, there are always the risk of Hollywood rewriting history to become more politically correct. I recall reading about how Spike Lee was rather upset of the way black/white relations was presented in The Patriot. I haven't seen the movie myself (not a big fan of Gibson, not at all) but it seemed from what I read that at least the "good guys" had no racial bias at all, and happily regarded blacks as their equals. This would of course be extremely rare in that time. This can be a serious problem since the power and reach of a big Hollywood movie can, sadly, be much greater than a history book to the general population. We whites have a dark past here, and pretending it never happened won't solve anything.

Anyway, back to the original question of the cigarettes. I would personally choose historical accuracy before PC any day of the week and, besides, I'm already hooked on tobacco, so I don't really care how much they smoke .

__________________
Ride Johnny ride

I feel it should be dependent on rating.

If it is a G, PG, or PG-13 movie then they should refrain from showing smokers.

If it is a R, or NC-17 then I feel it is ok if it is historically correct or furthers the mood.

If it is X-rated then I don't think anyone will notice.

__________________
"When I said my quarters were cold, I did not mean "Oh, I think it is a little chilly in here. Perhaps I'll throw a blanket on the bed." No! I said it was cold! As in, "Oh look - my left arm has snapped off like an icicle and shattered on the floor!"

hmmm good point, i still think that it comes down to the storyline and the director finding it suitable, but certainly rating should be another factor taken into consideration.

There is defintaly no reason to show smoking in a G rated movie.
PG 13 should be able to have smoking if its needed.

I hate it when the have cigs for props but the actors aren't really smoking. It looks retarted.

Oooohhh yeahhh smoke this baby....




You bunch of censors! Put the butts in if the plot warrants it. Stop trying to police the media/entertainment industries. I don't want anyone saying what can and can't be shown on film. Do your art, put it out there, beware of the risks. If you choose to show smoking in your G-rated film prepare for the backlash from parenting groups. It's called a free market and I for one love it. Survival of the smartest/fittest. The market will decide if your film lives or dies... I hate censorship in any capacity.

If I am taking my kid to a film that shows smoking you can rest assured that I've already told him that cigarettes/tobacco are not healthy. I don't need it excluded from a film i.e. pretending it doesn't exist to influence what my kid is going or not going to do.... I've got it covered and I don't need Hollywood to re-enforce it for me.

You all make good points about smoking in films, whether it be artistic freedom, character portrayal or just the MPAA rating guidlines.

BUT, what's the difference between a child actor drinking a "Pepsi" just so, so the label can be seen clearly by the audience(c'mon, no actor drinks or eats a product in the movies with the label obscure.)

E.T. ate "Reece's Pieces"; sales for that candy shot through the roof.

A child star in a G-rated film goes to "MacDonalds" and suddenly there are tie-ins galore. Why do you think action figures are born.

Let's not forget tobacco companies have thier hands in Hollywood too.
Maybe, just maybe cigarettes are the product placement equivalent to "Coke" or "Pepsi", only it's meant to sway adults rather than children.

What do you think?


*note: it's been said that kids can recognize "Joe Camel" before they can name our Vice Prez.

I think product placement is cool. I'm a firm believer in the market deciding. If people get sick enough of seeing and start going to movies less then hopefully the film-makers will get the point.

At some level we all identify with brand names. The ET thing came off as a joke. It was funny because we've all eaten Reeses Pieces and the idea that this goofy alien would like them too was comedic. It was also commercial but when done like that it's ok to me.

Now... Demolition Man, starring Stallone was a different story. That was blatant product placement to the point of being disturbing to the storyline. As Stephen King says... "your job is to tell the ******* story, if it's not story, lose it".

In ET the Reeses Pieces were stage setting for the the most... and they helped tell the story.

In Demolition man the lines where they describe the fast food wars and everything becomes "Taco Bell" is not story... it's obscene.

Good thread BTW.... great idea.

Oh, please. That's rubbish. Ratings?

Next thing we'll be having censorship about people drinking coffee in films. People smoke, people do it, it is what, get this, people do. There are smokers everywhere and yet do we have people shielding the eyes of the young so that they don't get any crazy ideas? Surely, if they're worrying about a monkey-see-monkey-do sort of effect, surely making people stop smoking in the real world is going to be far more beneficial that stopping them from smoking in the movies. Oh and by the way, while we're at banning cigarettes from films or rating films based on their nicotine content, why don't we keep on killing as many people as we possibly can in the movies with gunfire and pyrotechnics? I think we should, becaus that isn't a big deal at all.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

im offically admitting i was wrong and have changed my opinion

Silver Bullet, I agree with you. Censorship should not be tolerated, and therefore people like you and me should continue to rebel against the conservatives in Washington who continually lobby for laws that would restrict "offensive" material in the form of art.


I remember the "Blockbuster" video rental chain used to cut their R-rated videos to more "family friendly" versions. I don't know if they do that anymore.

But, it is the director of the film, no one else, that has the ultimate say as to what goes into his film. He can include smoking, violence or even pornography if he wants to. He or she has the choice. But he or she must consider what the MPAA will rate their work.

I mean are you suggesting that we not use a rating system, and just release films without warning to the public?

Do you want a five-year-old seeing an R-rated movie without supervision? How about an X-rated movie?

I bet you have a system in place that dictates what movies you choose to see. Aren't you just censoring yourself then?

Even though I agree with your views on censorship, I don 't think there is anything out there that can't be done, save a real homicide, on film. Yet.

Maybe I should re-phrase the original question; Since there really are no limits as to what you can put in a film, do you think the FILM MAKERS should be held accountable for what they intentionally put in, like smoking?

I'm not taking back my opionion.
Rating are in effect for a reason. Parents take their kisd to G rated moveid beucase they trust that it will be child friendly and not include things like smoking.
I agree that their should be censorship, but someking does not belong in a G rated movie. If director or the writers want to put smoking in their movie thats fine, but the rating should reflect that and be PG-13 or R.
Peddling pop in a movie is a lot different that showing smoking. Their are a lot of parents out their that don't want to expose their children to drug use (which smoking is) and they hav to right to it. Thats why rating are in place.
Let them smoke all they want in movies, just let the rating reflect that.

Wellll....
That's a damn broad brush you're painting with there, skipper. When you include the government in your argument you have to ask why the conservatives are really doing it. I KNOW it boils down to the dollars. Some are VERY offended by some of the stuff that's out there but what they are lobbying against is throwing money at projects that they find offensive via organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts.

A case in point involves an artist who was a recipient of monetary support from the NEA. What he chose to do was to sculpt a likeness of Christ out of human excrement with the thousands of dollars taken from your and my pocket. What cultural value could that possibly have?

Now.. I'm labeled as a conservative and I believe that anyone should put anything in a film that they want to put in as long as they're using their own money or money they've generated somehow. Using tax dollars to fund some of the garbage out there ain't right to me.

This might not be the right forum for a political debate Toose, but I can't be led to believe that conservatives, and only conservatives, should decide where money should be thrown.

The casualty of any over-exploited government budget is always the "Arts".

Just because a conservative doesn't think an art project is worthy of government funds doesn't mean he can take that opportunity away from someone less fortunate than he. Regardless of whether he thinks it's trash or not.

By the way, the culture value of "Christ in Excrement" is that you can use it as a point to support your argument. For free!

I don't think this is a conservative/liberal thing. This is about shock. I wouldn't want my money going to fund a sculpture of Osama bin Laden engaging in sodomy, either. If it's about shock, taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bill. Do it on your own blasted dime.

I wouldn't want to see a sculpture of Osama being sodomized either, let alone know an artist who thinks its a good idea.

But as a "free" American I'm glad they have the option. And I'm glad there are government programs in place for them to exercise it.

Now about smoking in movies....

Free to do it? Sure. But free to have ME pay for it, even if only a small fraction of it? Abso-friggin-lutely not! Why do they need the government's support for their art, if it's so blasted important to them? I 100% disagree, but you're right, it's another discussion for another thread.

Nice thread.

I'm interested by the idea of smoking in movies as a kind of product placement--and I totally buy that. When characters smoke in movies, it gives me the urge to smoke; when I'm out with friends and one of them lights up, I want to, too. It's basic advertising, and cheap as all hell, and, frankly, I'm surprised that more movie studios don't take money from RJ Reynolds for that purpose.

BTW, there's a great, funny book called Thank You For Smoking, wherein the main character, the PR rep for a major cigarette manufacturer, gets the movie/cigarette payola idea, and puts it into practice while dealing with a Joe Camel-type backlash. You should check it out. Anti-smoking terrorists try to assassinate our hero by kidnapping him, stripping him naked, and covering his entire body in nicotine patches. What a way to go, eh?

And, hey, I got the urge to light up while reading this thread... It's a ******* conspiracy...

Mmm... tar...

__________________
You were a demon and a lawyer? Wow. Insert joke here."

Uh, how about no?

I was saying thar rating films based on their cigarette content is crap. That's it. Jump to whatever conclusions you want. There are more offensive things to worry about in our films; ridiculous amounts of violence, mainly. That being said, I don't believe in a rating system, but I suggest each film is given a list [if you will] of things that could be considered offensive within it and people can make their judgments from that:

"Oh, sex, violence, adult themes and drug use; well I think Jimmy can handle that." Rather than:

"R. Well that tells me a heap now, doesn't it?"