smoking Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Near the end of the closing credits for Clint Eastwood's new Gran Torino is a disclaimer that caught my attention. It reads as follows:

"No person or entity associated with this film received payment or anything of value, or entered into any agreement, in connection with the depiction of tobacco products."

In other words: Some of the characters smoke in this movie, but that was our choice. The tobacco industry didn't pay us off.

According to the site Smoke Free Movies, which makes some excellent points but tends to go overboard (they think any film with smoking should automatically be rated R), the disclaimer is a recent addition to Warner Bros. products. It started appearing on Warner DVDs of movies that contain smoking at the beginning of 2008, and was added to smoky theatrical releases this fall. Gran Torino was the first time I'd noticed it, but I don't always stay for the credits.

The site also reports that Universal Pictures (at the behest of its parent company, General Electric) has started including a somewhat weaker disclaimer on its movies that contain smoking: "The depictions of tobacco smoking contained in this film are based solely on artistic consideration and are not intended to promote tobacco consumption." Note that they don't say they weren't paid off by the tobacco industry, only that they didn't intend for it to encourage people to smoke.

Last year, smoking became an action that would lead a film to a higher rating by the MPAA. A year later, the debate is heating up once again. This time around, The Hollywood Reporter posts that the anti-tobacco American Legacy campaign is descending on the U.S. Capitol for an event this Thursday. There's no word on what this event will entail, other than some guests who include Jonathan Klein and Stephenie Foster, but the goal is to get Congress thinking about smoking on film.

American Legacy says that 1/3 of all teens start smoking because of the movies, and that "the nearly 14 billion smoking images" they say young people see has contributed to "the nation's 40,000-person tobacco-related death toll."

Okay, I can see the old days where the Rat Pack and every other cool dude and dudette on screen lit up. These days, not so much. When I was in school and university, I knew a LOT of smokers, and each and every one of them started smoking because of their immediate surroundings -- friends and family. Heck, most of them didn't even watch a lot of television or movies. I agree that smoking is a problem, but it seems like the movie industry is getting way too much of the blame -- and I say this as someone who hates smoking, is allergic, and wishes it didn't exist.

I can't help but wonder: With this push to eradicate smoking on film, will old films fall victim at some point? Will their scenes full of the smoky haze of cigs only be allowed to screen on public stations late at night like those soft-core sex flicks?

Does smoking on the big screen bother you?

Last month, I brought you news of the Harvard School of Public Health's proposed plan to take depictions of smoking out of movies marketed to young people. This February, Harvard and Johns Hopkins academics made a presentation on the matter to the MPAA, as well as executives from all the major studios. (You can read in-depth notes on the materials presented and view PowerPoint presentations from the meeting here). In 1999, a similar meeting had little to no impact. But times have changed, and today the HSPH's plan is being put into effect. Smoking will now affect movie ratings. It was just announced that the Motion Picture Association of America "is expanding its current consideration of teen smoking to all smoking when evaluating and assigning a movie rating."

Said Harvard School of Public Health Dean Barry R. Bloom at the meeting that brought the change about: "No one has died from hearing the f-word. But 438,000 people in U.S., and five million worldwide, die each year from tobacco-related illness. We appreciate that movies are expensive, complex and demanding to make. If you are honest I think you will admit that most smoking in movies is both unnecessary and cliched, and serves to make smoking socially acceptable to kids." The MPAA agrees, releasing a statement today saying: "In the past, illegal teen smoking has been a factor in the rating of films, alongside other parental concerns such as sex, violence and adult language. Now, all smoking will be considered, and depictions that glamorize smoking or movies that feature pervasive smoking outside of an historic or other mitigating context may receive a higher rating." I'm no fan of censorship, but I can agree that smoking should be held to the same standards as sex and violence. A kid's a lot more likely to start smoking than he is to blow up a building based on seeing it in a movie. What do you guys think?

When it comes to smoking in the movies, it looks like the butt might stop here. Harvard's School of Public Health is the latest organization to join in urging Hollywood studios to stamp out cigarette smoking in movies seen by young people. Executives from the major studios, NATO, the Director's Guild of America, the Screen Actor's Guild and NBC recently joined academics from Harvard and Johns Hopkins in meeting with the MPAA to discuss the issue. Smoking in movies has stirred up controversy for years -- a similar meeting was held back in 1999, but not much came of it. Anti-smoking groups want restrictions on smoking to be incorporated into the ratings system. Jay A. Winsten, Harvard School of Public Health associate dean, and director for the school's Center for Health Communication says: "What's needed is a movie ratings policy that creates an incentive for filmmakers to consider, and worry about, the depiction of smoking as a factor in the determination of a film's rating ... the goal should be the elimination (with rare exceptions) of smoking from youth-rated films."

The folks at Harvard presented statistics from a study where they found that 66% of the top-50 grossing films over a 12 month period (spanning 2004 and 2005) contained depictions of smoking. And 68% of PG-13 films over that time showed characters taking a puff. That broke down to 12.8 incidents of smoking per hour of running time -- the highest in a decade -- for the top-50 pics, and 14.2 depictions per hour of running time for the PG-13 movies. R-rated films over the same time period averaged 20.4 depictions per hour. Harvard School of Public Health dean Barry Bloom urged Tinseltown honchos to "take substantive and effective action to eliminate the depiction of tobacco smoking from films accessible to children and youths, and take leadership and credit for doing so. Don't ignore the issue or put a fig leaf on it, like a descriptor on DVDs. That would be the equivalent of the tobacco industry cynically putting smoking warnings on cigarette packages."

The Harvard speakers find depictions of smoking to be even more detrimental to our children than the other issues that ratings already cover. "No one has died from hearing the f-word," said Bloom. "But 438,000 people in U.S., and five million worldwide, die each year from tobacco-related illness. We appreciate that movies are expensive, complex and demanding to make. If you are honest I think you will admit that most smoking in movies is both unnecessary and cliched, and serves to make smoking socially acceptable to kids."

I will admit that I started smoking when I was a teenager (planning to quit this month -- yay!), but the urge to take up a new hobby had absolutely nothing to do with an R-rated film. Same goes for friends of mine that smoke; last time I checked, their habit did not begin after a screening of Die Hard. However, a new study apparently shows that white teens who are exposed to R-rated films are seven times more likely to start smoking compared to those teens whose parents refuse to expose their kids to content above a PG-13 rating.

This was not the case with black youths, as the study showed no similar impact. Their reasoning is that since the majority of films feature white actors, white teens are automatically drawn to those actions of a similar race. Wait, this is my favorite part from the article: "Even after taking into account such things as having a friend who smoked, lack of parental guidance or doing poorly in school, those who watched more R-rated movies were still three times more likely to start smoking, the study found." That's wonderful ... now when do we get to call bulls*it? Somehow I cannot believe that's an accurate statistic; you're telling me a teenager whose friends all smoke is more likely to pick up the nasty habit after watching Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back?

Of all the bad behavior we see on screen, is smoking really the one we need to worry about? Since the '90s, the tobacco industry claims to have denied requests from the movie industry to use their products, but most of the time they just went ahead and used them anyway.

The Guardian reports that tobacco giant Philip Morris will be putting ads in industry papers like Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter, asking studios to no longer use any of their brands in feature films. Media critics have often accused cigarette makers of using movies as free advertising, but lately most of the attention was unflattering; images of dying Marlboro Men and sinister corporate thugs in movies like The Insider and Thank You For Smoking. Since there has already been a policy in place for years about product placement with little effect, you have to wonder whether these ads will really do anything -- well, other than making Philip Morris look like good corporate citizens. You really can't take their complaint very seriously when they're unwilling to even sue studios for breach of copyright.

Other than a return to a "production code" style of policing the movies -- an idea that should make everyone just a little uncomfortable, I doubt a few half-hearted protests from Philip Morris will make the movies hang a "no smoking" sign.

Odds and ends from a very busy Wednesday:

• Though no reason was given, Sarah Jessica Parker has replaced Rachel Weisz in Smart People, a new comedy being directed by Noam Murro. Pic, which also stars Dennis Quaid, Thomas Haden Church, Ellen Page and Ashton Holmes, revolves around a recent widow (Quaid) who becomes increasingly bitter about life until he meets and subsequently falls in love with that chick from Sex and the City. I've always been on the fence regarding Parker. What do you think about her career choices post-Sex in the City?
• After watching Flightplan (ugh) last night, I was thinking about how I'm really digging Peter Sarsgaard lately. I don't know what it is about the guy (perhaps it's his calm, quiet and creepy demeanor), but he's suddenly shot up my "actors to keep an eye on" list. Variety reports the dude has just signed on to star opposite Jake Gyllenhaal and Reese Witherspoon ( I love how she's getting these big, serious parts now) in Rendition. Pic marks Gavin Hood's followup to Tsotsi and revolves around a CIA operative in the Middle East who becomes all shaded out when he witnesses some nasty police interrogations.
• Hey, remember that South Park episode where Rob Reiner invades the town in order to combat the spread of smoking amongst teens? He's all fat and can barely move, yet all he does is bitch about cigarettes? Well, in a related story, Harvey Weinstein has taken it upon himself to join the fight against nicotine addiction by placing anti-smoking ads in the Weinstein Co.'s DVD releases. Seriously. He wants to educate young people on the negative effects of eating your face off smoking. I say, good for him!

Facing a vote in Great Britain to ban smoking - all the time, anywhere - unrepentant two-pack a day smoker Lynn Barber waxes nostalgic on cigarettes in cinema history, using iconic smoking moments in film to explore how cigarettes have been used to add depth and subtext to films from The Big Sleep to Casablanca. How, bemoans Barber, will future smoke-free generations have the social knowledge of smoking to understand the subtler meanings cigarettes have imbued in films of the past? Will a smoke-free citizenry be so obsessed with the health issues of Mrs. Robinson kissing while holding in a lungful of smoke, to fully appreciate the meaning of that cinematic moment?

What great moments in film wouldn't be the same to you if they had been smoke-free?

[ via Matt Dentler's Blog ]

In what is possibly the most politically incorrect promotion of all time, the only tobacco producer in all of Japan is trying to encourage smoking through a clever reward system. All smokers have to do to qualify for the promotion is fill out a questionnaire in which, among other things, they confirm their nasty habit. (And actually smoke, I presume.) Then the prizes come flying at them - not only can entrants win seats at Sin City preview in which the audience can light up, but 100 of them will also win new LCD TVs. The grand prize, though is insane: one smoker will win AN 11 POUND GOLD BAR. Just for smoking! Hey, I'm trying to be healthy over here, dammit. Why isn't anyone giving out gold bars to nonsmokers? Screw this - get me a ticket to Tokyo and a cigarette.