Cinematical

"70% of respondents support a film being given an R-rating if it contains tobacco imagery"

So if CASABLANCA were to be theatrically rereleased it would get slapped with an "R" if these people get their way?

How about 70% of respondents acting like parents instead of leaving it to others to warn their kids about the dangers of smoking...

Reply

"70% of respondents support a film being given an R-rating if it contains tobacco imagery"

So if CASABLANCA were to be theatrically rereleased it would get slapped with an "R" if these people get their way?

How about 70% of respondents acting like parents instead of leaving it to others to warn their kids about the dangers of smoking...

Reply

Rich is right. This sounds suspiciously like parents who want to let movies do their childrearing for them.

While we're at it, can we put in a restrictive rating system on stupid movies? I feel like my IQ goes down every time I'm forced to see the "Norbit" trailer. Just sayin'.

Reply

Smoking is very pervasive in films aimed at an adult audience, and let's be honest, to young, impressionable youths, it can look very "cool" or "glamorous".

But to tag an R rating on films just because of smoking seems excessive, given that it's even hard to get an R rating on violent films.

I think this could be addressed a different way... codify the rules so no film which includes smoking by lead characters could get a G or PG rating.

Old films aren't rated or played in mainstream theaters anyway, so it's a non issue for those.

Reply

I'm all for this, sure. While we're at it lets make drinking onscreen an NR and kissing an X.

/end sarcasm

Reply

I don't know what I support, but to go so far as to rant that parents let films raise children, all over raising the ratings bar on cigarette-including films, is silly. Why are there ratings at all? If you don't support ratings in general, then fine, but if the complaint is about how movies raise children, look into reality! Movies heavily influence people, especially those with super-absorbant minds: kids.

It just might be a good idea.

Reply

The R-rating is backed by every leading health authority because:

(1) after tobacco ads were barred from TV in 1970, Big Tobacco spent millions over two decades to make movies smokier (according to their own documents) and a huge legal settlement barring the practice made no dent (perthaps because it doesn't cover the overseas arms of the tobacco giants; film financing is global)...

(2) research over the past decade, on three continents, strongly supports the conclusion that smoking on screen recruits kids to smoke — evidence that is much sketchier for violence, sexual imagery, etc. — and the effect is dose-related; that is, the more kids see, the more likely they are to start smoking (controlling for all other factors)...

(3) the strength of movies' influence and the universality of exposure mean that movies are a primary — if not the single largest — tobacco recruiter in the U.S., worth $4.1 billion in additional sales revenue annually to Big Tobacco (net present value); estimates are that on-screen tobacco promotion replaces every adult killed by tobacco annually with a new young smoker...

(4) the R-rating need not mean more R-rated movies, simply smokefree G/PG/PG-13 movies, reducing teens' exposure by about half — averting some 60,000 future tobacco deaths annually; this number is greater than the U.S. death toll at all ages from drunk driving, criminal violence, drug use, and HIV/AIDS combined...

The R-rating would be for FUTURE films, and there would be exceptions for films showing the dire health consequences of smoking (e.g., Constantine) and for depictions of actual historical figures who used tobacco (e.g., Churchill). See http://smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu for details and other info.

The R-rating would work because R-rated movies make less money on average. Everyone involved would have to decide if smoking in a film that would otherwise be rated PG-13 (two-thirds of which featured tobacco in 2006) is really worth it. If so — go for it and accept the R, just as other film content is now deliberately calibrated for ratings. Smokefree G/PG movies would reduce teen exposure by less than 5 percent, so a PG-13 with a tobacco descriptor would be a placebo policy that leaves teen exposure unaffected.

This is not just another "fault Hollywood" movement. This is evidence-based, has a history of payola, benefits Bg Tobacco, and causes 10,000 future deaths a month. The MPAA has known this for years and has done nothing. Why are the studios doing for free what they used to be paid off to do?

Adults think the rating system is silly, because it's designed to protect the film industry. Here, however, it's the least intrusive way to solve a huge, long-standing problem that has nothing to do with expression and everything to do with commercial exploitation — of cinema and of the teen audience, the age 90% of smokers start.

I apologize for the length of this post, but the details of this issue matter.

Reply

What about seatbelts? Seriously, check out how many movies and television programs there are where the characters do not wear seatbelts. Lame.

Reply