Darkefang
03-10-04, 06:25 AM
Quote:Smoking 'bad as swearing' in film
Movies which feature actors smoking should be given adult ratings, according to a US study.
A report issued by the University of California suggested smoking should be treated in the same way as swearing.
Professor Stanton Glantz called on films such as Seabiscuit and Chicago to be given adult ratings because they include smoking.
He wants film-makers and studios to consider the influence that featuring smoking in films can have on children.
The report was sponsored by the charitable foundation The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund and the National Cancer Institute.
'Offensive'
A study of 775 US movies from the past five years found nearly 80% of films rated PG-13 featured smoking, while 50% of films deemed suitable for younger audiences also included tobacco use.
Among those singled out were 102 Dalmatians, Secondhand Lions and What a Girl Wants, all aimed a young audiences.
"No one is saying there should never be any smoking in the movies," said Professor Glantz.
"What we're simply asking for is that smoking be treated by Hollywood as seriously as it treats offensive language."
Professor Glantz would like to see more PG-13 films that feature smoking, like Chicago, given an R-rating.
Since R-rated films typically earn less money because they are not open to cinema-loving teenagers, Professor Glantz hopes this tactic might discourage "unnecessary" smoking scenes.
Creative freedom
But the plan to rate films for smoking would not include historical figures who were known to smoke.
"For example, if they wanted to make a movie about Winston Churchill, they could show him with a cigar without triggering an R-rating, but the number of movies where that actually happens is very small," said Professor Glantz.
A spokesman for Sony said: "We are aware of the health hazards posed by smoking and while we do not advocate our film-makers to use smoking in our films, we cannot endorse guidelines that promote censorship or restrict creative freedom,"
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which represents the studios but is also responsible for rating movies, denied its members positively promoted cigarettes.
"We are not in the business of advertising," said Vans Stevenson, senior vice president of the MPAA.
"We are in the enterprise of creative storytelling. All elements in motion picture storytelling are determined by the creative artists involved."
BBC link to the story
I'm not a smoker, but after reading something like this, I'm about ready to donate money to the Tobacco companies. The anti-smoking propaganda is ridiculous and getting worse. I don't see how rating movies R for smoking content is anything but censorship. Movie ratings in general are bad enough when they are used to warn about violence and nudity in movies, but this has crossed a line into sillyness now. This is not to mention that it could dilute the usefulness of movie ratings for parents in choosing a movie appropriate for their kids.
I haven't seen the other kids movies they mention, but in 101 Dalmations, its Cruella DeVille that is smoking. I don't think they are exactly meaning for her to be a role model for the kids to emulate.
They also talk about Chicago. I hate to break it to them, but people in general smoked like chimneys in the 1920s, and people like the characters in the movie would have definitely smoked.
I also really enjoy the part where they say that they'll allow movies that feature historical figures famous for their smoking. I can just see the debates now about who smoked and who didn't smoke.
Anyone that has ever hung around actors or theatre people knows that, in general, they smoke more than the average person. I guess its part of the theatre culture. It is only natural that actors will often have their characters smoke. These crusaders are also ignoring the fact that characters in movies are often, high-strung people with extremely stressful lives, and those types of people are more likely to smoke.
An argument they use is that tobacco companies are using movies as a method of advertising. When was the last time you saw a brand name in a movie? I've rarely ever seen a brand name on a pack of cigarettes in a movie. However, I have seen blatant logos for Coca Cola, McDonalds, Nike and Sizzler in many movies. If Big Tobacco really is trying to advertise in movies, they are really doing a poor job of it.
Movies which feature actors smoking should be given adult ratings, according to a US study.
A report issued by the University of California suggested smoking should be treated in the same way as swearing.
Professor Stanton Glantz called on films such as Seabiscuit and Chicago to be given adult ratings because they include smoking.
He wants film-makers and studios to consider the influence that featuring smoking in films can have on children.
The report was sponsored by the charitable foundation The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund and the National Cancer Institute.
'Offensive'
A study of 775 US movies from the past five years found nearly 80% of films rated PG-13 featured smoking, while 50% of films deemed suitable for younger audiences also included tobacco use.
Among those singled out were 102 Dalmatians, Secondhand Lions and What a Girl Wants, all aimed a young audiences.
"No one is saying there should never be any smoking in the movies," said Professor Glantz.
"What we're simply asking for is that smoking be treated by Hollywood as seriously as it treats offensive language."
Professor Glantz would like to see more PG-13 films that feature smoking, like Chicago, given an R-rating.
Since R-rated films typically earn less money because they are not open to cinema-loving teenagers, Professor Glantz hopes this tactic might discourage "unnecessary" smoking scenes.
Creative freedom
But the plan to rate films for smoking would not include historical figures who were known to smoke.
"For example, if they wanted to make a movie about Winston Churchill, they could show him with a cigar without triggering an R-rating, but the number of movies where that actually happens is very small," said Professor Glantz.
A spokesman for Sony said: "We are aware of the health hazards posed by smoking and while we do not advocate our film-makers to use smoking in our films, we cannot endorse guidelines that promote censorship or restrict creative freedom,"
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which represents the studios but is also responsible for rating movies, denied its members positively promoted cigarettes.
"We are not in the business of advertising," said Vans Stevenson, senior vice president of the MPAA.
"We are in the enterprise of creative storytelling. All elements in motion picture storytelling are determined by the creative artists involved."
BBC link to the story
I'm not a smoker, but after reading something like this, I'm about ready to donate money to the Tobacco companies. The anti-smoking propaganda is ridiculous and getting worse. I don't see how rating movies R for smoking content is anything but censorship. Movie ratings in general are bad enough when they are used to warn about violence and nudity in movies, but this has crossed a line into sillyness now. This is not to mention that it could dilute the usefulness of movie ratings for parents in choosing a movie appropriate for their kids.
I haven't seen the other kids movies they mention, but in 101 Dalmations, its Cruella DeVille that is smoking. I don't think they are exactly meaning for her to be a role model for the kids to emulate.
They also talk about Chicago. I hate to break it to them, but people in general smoked like chimneys in the 1920s, and people like the characters in the movie would have definitely smoked.
I also really enjoy the part where they say that they'll allow movies that feature historical figures famous for their smoking. I can just see the debates now about who smoked and who didn't smoke.
Anyone that has ever hung around actors or theatre people knows that, in general, they smoke more than the average person. I guess its part of the theatre culture. It is only natural that actors will often have their characters smoke. These crusaders are also ignoring the fact that characters in movies are often, high-strung people with extremely stressful lives, and those types of people are more likely to smoke.
An argument they use is that tobacco companies are using movies as a method of advertising. When was the last time you saw a brand name in a movie? I've rarely ever seen a brand name on a pack of cigarettes in a movie. However, I have seen blatant logos for Coca Cola, McDonalds, Nike and Sizzler in many movies. If Big Tobacco really is trying to advertise in movies, they are really doing a poor job of it.