|
|
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by Smoker Sympathizer
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:39 am |
|
I know this might seem like a light topic, considering the serious issues you all are dealing with, concerning the persecution of smokers, but it's something I noticed and I wanted to bring it up. I know there's a push to make movies rated "R" just for having smoking, which I think is criminally stupid. But this thread is more about how smoking is portrayed in movies. Have any movies or even parts of movies been ruined for you because of how they portrayed smoking?
I have three so far:
He's Just Not that Into You (one of the character's wives was an anti-smoking psycho, so over the top that I couldn't take her seriously, almost a mouthpiece of the anti's)
Angels and Demons (one character a smoker, passes out before a non-smoker when deprived of air, and the smoking was brought up too, just smacks of anti tinkering)
It seems like every movie made within the past few years that involves smoking has to have some kind of negative comment on it. It really irritates me. |
|
|
Smoker Sympathizer
Toker
Joined: Jul 19, 2009
Posts: 86
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by activist0000
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:16 pm |
|
Smoker Sympathizer wrote: It seems like every movie made within the past few years that involves smoking has to have some kind of negative comment on it. It really irritates me.
One reason Hollywood included so many shots of characters smoking in the movies in the '50s was just the fact that spiraling smoke creates a dramatic and appealing visual effect. The smoke from a lit cigarette creates beautiful shapes in the air. I doubt if anyone had any evil intentions back then; they were just a bunch of artists making pretty films. |
|
|
activist0000
Toker
Joined: May 26, 2009
Posts: 86
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by activist0000
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:22 pm |
|
Smoker Sympathizer wrote: I have three so far:
He's Just Not that Into You (one of the character's wives was an anti-smoking psycho, so over the top that I couldn't take her seriously, almost a mouthpiece of the anti's) |
|
|
activist0000
Toker
Joined: May 26, 2009
Posts: 86
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Slearwig
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:40 pm |
|
Yeah, it bothers me when I can't light up.
As for smoking in the 1950's, you have to remember when theaters sold cigarettes at the snack bar and from vending machines, and that smoking was permitted while watching the movie, and not while using a pair of binoculars a half a mile away from a drive-in.
You might be interested in this youtube of a set of typical drive-in intermission shorts.
There are cigarettes offered for sale at the 0:33 second mark, but this used to be standard at all theaters, indoors or out. Judging by the brands and by the previously-shown candy bars, the pack of Oasis cigarettes and the style of the Nestle's Crunch bar wrapper tip that these segments came from the late 50's to early 60's. It also helps to know that the Nestle's Crunch Bar was invented in 1957-58, so the candy segment can't be earlier than 1957.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW1VluGucyI |
|
|
Slearwig
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 28, 2009
Posts: 213
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Slearwig
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:43 pm |
|
The intermission shorts for the cigarettes might be from 1961-65 because Carlton cigarettes were a new brand in 1961. A pack of Carlton is seen in the lower right-hand corner, at the bottom. I normally know that light and ultra-light cigarettes did not exist before 1960-61, but it slipped my mind.
I did like how smoking was portrayed in "John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13" (1976)
Are you in the movie industry, or doing school research, or? |
|
|
Slearwig
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 28, 2009
Posts: 213
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Smoker Sympathizer
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:50 pm |
|
activist0000 wrote: Smoker Sympathizer wrote: I have three so far:
He's Just Not that Into You (one of the character's wives was an anti-smoking psycho, so over the top that I couldn't take her seriously, almost a mouthpiece of the anti's) That character irritated me, too. It wasn't realistic because if someone was that opposed to smoking based on their personal history of losing a parent, they would never even date a smoker, much less marry one. It didn't make sense unless the point was to portray the wife as a neurotic, illogical loon.
Unfortunately, that didn't seem to be the case. I came away from that whole experience thinking she was a nut case and a child and was not "capable of handling an adult relationship" (read that last part somewhere, not my own words). I don't think the movie saw it the same way. If I hadn't been with other people, I would have been yelling at the TV for her sheer stupidity. If it wasn't for Justin Long and Gennifer Goodwin that movie would have been completely ruined for me.
Why can't smokers be good characters? If cinema is a reflection of life, there are many good people who happen to be smokers. Why can't human life be portrayed honestly instead of twisted to make a propaganda point for the people in charge? That's why I believe this topic is important, even as it may be considered "light". It is said that Shakespeare "held up a mirror to human nature". Entertainment has the power to transform worldviews and shape lives. I'm trained as a writer and one of the main rules above all is to be honest. Whenever I see blatant propaganda in my entertainment I notice it and think it's a slap in the face to other artists and honest people. Am I wrong? |
|
|
Smoker Sympathizer
Toker
Joined: Jul 19, 2009
Posts: 86
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by activist0000
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:59 pm |
|
Slearwig wrote: Are you in the movie industry, or doing school research, or? |
|
|
activist0000
Toker
Joined: May 26, 2009
Posts: 86
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Slearwig
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:27 pm |
|
| I think they allow a PG-13 rating if the smokers contract cancer or a heart attack and are shown 'the error of their ways'. In England they've either done it or they were talking about it, but they were going to automatically rate any movie featuring smoking without illness as 18+. |
|
|
Slearwig
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 28, 2009
Posts: 213
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by activist0000
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:37 pm |
|
Slearwig wrote: I think they allow a PG-13 rating if the smokers contract cancer or a heart attack and are shown 'the error of their ways'. In England they've either done it or they were talking about it, but they were going to automatically rate any movie featuring smoking without illness as 18+.
I have noticed that many of the smoking characters quit smoking at some point during the movie now. They always have to include a little speech where the character says they quit, so that no one in the audience will miss it. |
|
|
activist0000
Toker
Joined: May 26, 2009
Posts: 86
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Slearwig
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:01 pm |
|
At least with the MPAA in America, the catch phrases are "glamorizing smoking" or "pervasive smoking" with respect to higher ratings. Smoking diseases do not glamorize smoking.
Take a look at this .pdf about smoking from the MPAA's website. On page two it states in effect that between July 2004 and July 2006, 25% of the movies which contained smoking received an "R" rating for smoking period.
http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/mpaa%20statement%20smoking%20as%20a%20rating%20factor%20_2_.pdf
Quote: From July 2004 to July 2006, the percentage of films that included even a fleeting glimpse of smoking dropped from 60 percent to 52 percent. Of those films, 75 percent received an ‘R’ rating for other factors. So, three out of every four films that contained any smoking at all over the past few years are already rated ‘R.’ |
|
|
Slearwig
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 28, 2009
Posts: 213
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
|
