Movies: Where There's Smoking, There's Ire

While Some Are Enflamed Over On-Screen Cigarettes, David Edelstein Says Smoking Should Warrant an "R" - With Some Wiggle Room

(CBS)  What does an actor have to do on-screen these days to provoke a controversy? Critic David Edelstein has the answer:

---

In "Avatar," scientist Sigourney Weaver climbs out of a suspended-animation pod and demands a cigarette - which has enflamed an anti-tobacco faction led by Stan Glantz of the UC San Francisco School of Medicine.

Their problem is the film is rated PG-13, and kids are buying tickets by the millions.

Glantz and others are using "Avatar" to renew their call for movies with smoking to get an automatic "R."

Now, you might be thinking, "These health fascists: What are they trying to do to our pop culture?" Movies and vices, especially tobacco, have a stellar history.

Bogie and Bacall in "To Have and Have Not": That's foreplay!

Bette Davis and Paul Henreid in "Now, Voyager": Smooth!

A kneejerk "R" for cigarettes would be a threat to artistic freedom, a restraint on capitalism. It would be Puritanism! Censorship!

Right? Well, no. I think it's a good idea.

Now, let's be clear from the get-go. There should be one culture for all ages, and one for grown-ups. In an R-rated movie, I don't care if people do things too vile to say on TV. I don't care if they eat cigarettes. With kids, it's a different ballgame.

We know from a Dartmouth Medical School study that there's a strong association between adolescent smoking and watching smoking in movies.

"Exposure to Smoking in Movies Influences Kids Lighting Up" (1.14.08)

Tobacco companies have always understood that influence. There was a time when they even made deals to put their products onscreen. It wasn't disclosed publicly, of course . . . it comes out in court when files get subpoenaed.

In the '80s, we learned Phillip Morris paid the makers of "Superman 2" thousands to put its name behind the Man of Steel. Superman is Marlboro Man! Artistic freedom!

In the '90s, companies agreed to stop paying, but there's no way of keeping tabs.

Libertarians make the slippery-slope argument: Next you'll ban alcohol! Car chases!

Well, no. No one's banning anything, just saying, "Kids shouldn't be able to see it so easily."

The MPAA already restricts the language in PG-13 movies and there's no wiggle room: You can shoot someone, but can't use a naughty word for having sex with them. Frankly, I'd rather my kids hear bad words than see their favorite actors bleep their bleeping lungs with bleeping cigarettes.

There should be some wiggle room. No retroactive editing: Bogie keeps his smokes. Films about real figures like Edward R. Murrow might be special cases, although I wish there were a title saying Murrow died of cancer. So did Bogie at 57. So did the actor who played that beloved archetype, the Marlboro Man.

There's no word on Joe Camel, but I heard off the record he's very sick.

A Joe Camel biopic that ends in the ICU? PG-13.


For more info:
Smoke-Free Movies (UC San Francisco School of Medicine)
The Projectionist (David Edelstein's Movie Blog)

[magnumdr]

Is this stupid comment silll here. Maybe all of our movies should be ols lassie reruns.

I hope these types of stories will open up everybody 's eyes on how
much power special interest groups have these days. Incredible...
Whats the matter with today's generation...cant make a decision by
yourselves...
So if they ever get what they want.. but putting a R to a movie that
people smoke, the next step will be to edit all movies ever made and
delete smoking scenes cause all old movies are now available to all
who has money and especially the internet.
We shall have to see where this leads up ....
Today 's generation is a buch of wimps and crybabies...

[Dgunner]

As long as there are people or groups that disagree on many subjects the cost of politics will continue to sky rocket and the low life lobbyist will sit ever higher on thier mountains of pay and look down on thier opposition as pawns in thier game of stash the cash.This article only adds fuel to the fire and gives lobbyist a chance to renegotiate thier salaries to support both sides. Lobbyist are killers by proxy not the tobacco industry.The american people need to start at the resorce of multicultare opinons that sway public convictrion . That my friends are the lobbyist.

[magnumdr]

Ratings? would you rather watch people killing each others, or a rape sceen in the movie. There is so much trash in the movies now that smoking would be the least of my worries when a young person went to a movie. Most movies today have sex, violence, drugs and many other things that most adults shouldn't be watching. Who ever thinks like this has got to get a real life. Do you think that a young person that sees a murder mystery is going to go out and kill sombody?

[PudgeDiesel]

Just more lazy parents trying to find a way to avoid actually raising their children.

[Freedomforever88]

Whats next? If your eating a twinkie in a movie will that be considered "R" rated because of the low nutritional value. Maybe if some is driving a truck in a movie it will be rated "R" because of the carbon foot print. Please stop brain washing children! Stop the propaganda!

[luadda22]

They started with 2603 ended up only doing telephone interviews with 1791. Of that amount 13% progressed from never smoking to smoking. Of that amount they "estimated" (great analysis, a SWAG) that 34.9% could be attributed to movie smoking exposure. That's a little over 2% of the original survey group. Also they noticed that it only affected white kids. They couldn't explain why it didn't make a difference with black kids. In any statistical survey you have a "null" factor. This percentage would not even come close to that. This group was also a part of the "Great 3rd Hand Smoke" scare that was shown to be bs too.

[qj227]

Thank you Mr. Edelstein for continuing to speak out on this important issue. You've done your research and have the facts to back it up, unlike those who immediately cry 'censorship!' Just to reiterate some of those main, unsubstantiated counter claims--organizations like the CDC and WHO have recommended the policy of 'R' rating for smoking based on scientific research, but there is no governmental body imposing it; the MPAA is an industry board run by the major movie studios, so they are able to self-regulate and already do in regard to issues like language, sex, and violence(hence the rating system's very existence); should this policy be voluntarily enacted by the MPAA, it would simply discourage directors from having unnecessary scenes showing tobacco use (like the scene in Avatar--even today, not to mention the future, it is starkly out-of-place to have smoking in an enclosed lab facility), not forbid them from doing so; and although one may remark on other 'bad' things shown in movies, smoking is the only one (and there have been studies on violence, language, etc.) that has clear scientific evidence showing a causal relationship from the smoking shown on screen to teen usage. This is one of the single most effective actions that can be taken to improve public health in the U.S. and across the world.

[Julia_Cartwright]

Congratulations for taking a position that many in the public health community have long championed. It is not without controversy - as you no doubt are witnessing in the comments posted here. It is nonetheless the right thing to do if the nation truly wants to drive down smoking rates, beginning with keeping teens from ever starting.

Other ways movie makers can play significant roles in the fight to safeguard youth from lifetimes of tobacco addiction include putting an end to identifying tobacco brands in any movies, certifying that there have been no pay-offs for displaying tobacco products in films and requiring that strong and effective anti-smoking ads run before any film with any tobacco presence regardless of its rating.

The federal government has confirmed a causal link between smoking in the movies and youth smoking initiation. Together with an R Rating, if implemented, these four policy solutions would go a long way toward saving young lives from tobacco-related disease and premature death.

[VeniceAlum]

I find it interesting that many people continue to post about censorship. No one is saying smoking has to be removed from a film, just rate it appropriately (with an R rating) like one does when there is violence or sexual content.