Smoking: an R-rated offense

[The Straight Story]

Smoking: an R-rated offense
Contrary to The Times' position, it isn't censorship to inform parents when a movie depicts lighting up.

The Times deserves credit for recognizing in its Aug. 23 editorial "Smoking in the movies" the tremendous impact smoking in movies has on our nation's youth. We disagree with its assertion, however, that giving movies that depict smoking an R rating amounts to censorship. The Motion Picture Assn. of America's rating system is not in place to control the content of films; rather, it allows parents to judge whether they want their children to see specific content such as drug use, violence or other risky behaviors. Because smoking kills more than 400,000 Americans each year and there is evidence (PDF) that more than 67% of adults agree that movies with cigarette smoking should be rated R unless they clearly depict the dangers of smoking, an R rating is simply a pragmatic approach to a public health epidemic.

We are joined in this position by the nation's leaders in public health, including the American Medical Assn. and the AMA Alliance, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Assn. and the World Health Organization, among others. We all contend that the most effective, least intrusive means to cut in half youth exposure to smoking images in movies is to take it out of films made just for young people. Ironically, the glamorization of smoking and its association with "sex appeal" cited in your editorial is in large measure because of the paid product placement in films and on television, which together with other tobacco advertising brought us the tobacco epidemic.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has repeatedly cited movie smoking as one of the possible contributing factors as to why the historic decline in youth smoking has stalled in this country. Both the Institute of Medicine and the President's Cancer Panel have recognized this and recommended that meaningful efforts be made to eliminate or counter exposure to the countless number of smoking impressions that Hollywood leaves with young movie-goers. A new report from the National Cancer Institute positions the federal government firmly on this topic: Smoking in movies is causally linked to smoking initiation among youth.

How many more studies will it take to show Hollywood that it has the power to make a difference and safeguard young lives from lifelong tobacco addictions? There are other and more original ways to convey independence, anxiety, toughness, weakness, desperation and sex appeal. If Hollywood makes connections on screen between cigarettes and these characteristics, or shows that cigarettes are a normal and effective way to deal with anxiety, weakness and desperation, it is doing much of the legwork for Big Tobacco.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/sunletters/la-oew-healton2-2008sep02,0,132488.story

Next up, beer?

[TahitiNut]

1. Insane.

:puke:

Yet we have a government that condones TORTURE and has ignored Habeas Corpus.

:puke:

[SheilaT]

2. I have long been bothered

by the way smoking is shown as glamorous and desirable in movies. Or that someone who never smoked will want to light up because something very stressful just happened. I think I can understand why someone who used to smoke would, but there's probably not one nonsmoker in a thousand or ten thousand who would do so.

Oh, and "renegade smoking" -- lighting up in a nonsmoking zone is shown as charming, clever, and even witty. Too bad they don't show the reality of emphysema or lung cancer or even how smoking is very aging.

[The Straight Story]

4. But do you feel movies can turn people into smokers?

or drinkers, etc?

[tburnsten]

5. I don't think so. Not to a major degree anyway

and this will hamper writers and directors artistic styles by confining certain characters to R rated movies, such as Lee Marvin or any other cigar-smoking cowboy or soldier.

[The Straight Story]

6. I wonder if old classic G rated dvd's will be now R rated

wouldn't put it past em.

[tburnsten]

7. SHHHHHHH! They'll HEAR YOU!

Could you imagine Angels with Dirty Faces being changed to an R rating? Or any of the old movies for that matter? Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe probably should have been R rated to begin with if it isn't already, but I think political correctness has already gone too far in this country and we need to scale back a little. Not everyone is a perfect parent but we need to give them space to make their own parenting decisions.

[cobalt1999]

14. Casablanca too.

Bogart smoked throughout the entire movie. Probably worth an R-17 rating for that.

[FloridaJudy]

33. Not to mention Citizen Kane. eom

[SheilaT]

17. What movies do is present

smoking as very desirable. And with no down side whatsoever. No wrinkles, no stinky breath, no heart disease, no burns in the clothing, no lung cancer. I'm not saying that only the bad side of smoking should be shown, but when everyone who smokes in a movie is smart, attractive, desirable, and a charming rebel (when lighting up in a no-smoking zone) that's VERY appealing to young people. It's pretty common to model oneself after someone in the public eye.

Again, if drinking is shown as desirable and with no down side, it's a whole lot more attractive to young and impressionable kids.

Something else in movies: characters almost NEVER wear a seat belt, despite the fact that most (maybe all) states have laws requiring their use. Movies also show unbelted people surviving crashes that would at the very least maim if not kill them.

I actually have a lot of complaints about the way movies portray lots of stuff. A good example is the recent movie Fracture with Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling (2007). It has the Hopkins character being brought to trial for attempted murder of his wife (she's simply in a coma and is not expected to live during most of the movie) within about three weeks. They do that because the attorney played by Gosling is getting ready to leave his DA job and go with a private law firm, and so there's this phony and unnecessary and, more to the point, it could not possibly happen that way in the real world of criminal justice, time crunch -- the trial simply has to take place that soon, given the set-up of Gosling's character. The essential idea was a good one, and didn't need the quickie trial, which I must repeat, simply could not and would not happen that way, to work.

Clearly, that kind of thing is very different from whether or not smoking and drinking should or should not be in a movie, but my point is that way too many people honestly believe that movies show things accurately. Smoking is cool, and all the really cool people smoke. A man can try to murder his wife, be brought to trial and acquitted within six weeks.

[tburnsten]

18. Oh shut up

Movies are generally pretty heavily stylized, everyone and their mother knows that. They are films, not health documentaries. Of course they don't show the health effects.

Could you imagine if The Maltese Falcon had Humphrey Bogart die of lung cancer halfway through? What a crappy movie that would be! Public Health Advisories do not belong in our films! Keep them away!




TV is fine, legislate a public health commercial every hour per channel, cool, TV is already heavily restricted (but god I love Burn Notice!) so it's no artistic loss. Anyone who gets their information from movies is a tool. For instance, all the people who get their information about guns from CSI: Miami. Dumb tools. I knew a guy who bought his own gun and thought it was "registered" to him. What a dumb bastard, we live in a free state with no registration.

[SheilaT]

20. I don't think that most people

understand to what extent movies are stylized, or even flat-out wrong about stuff.

And I'm not suggesting have a main character die of lung cancer in the middle of the movie. What I am trying to point out is that a lot of stuff is glamorized, of which smoking is only a small part. And that guy you mentioned who bought a gun and thought it was registered is all too typical of the average person out there.

I won't shut up, and I'll thank you not be be so rude.

[tburnsten]

27. Sorry, was trying to come off as flippant

And I think you are absolutely right about the average person, unless something is a personal interest they often don't have a clear idea of many things, and go with recollections. Which often means going with the movies.

[The Straight Story]

22. That's why they call em movies - they don't generally portray the real world

:)

[tburnsten]

3. Dumb. Hyper-sensitive and yes, it is censorship.

Now a movie that may have been slated all the way for the PG or PG-13 category is going to get an R rating because of any depictions of smoking? That strikes me as really, especially, off-the-wall stupid.

[wuushew]

9. How is it censorship?

Censorship is when content is forbidden from public screening as is done in China.

[tburnsten]

19. Consigning it to a harsher rating

over something like a character smoking is a form of softer censorship than what you have described. If you make something so onerous no one will do it, or cut the high school crowd out of a movies theater audience, you are cutting down on the movies sales and so reducing everyone involved's ability to get work later, besides, do you really think Maltese Falcon or Casablanca should be rated R?

[wuushew]

21. I don't believe in a "right to hypothetical profit"

That is same line of bullshit the RIAA is using to claim that they lost trillions of dollars on shit muzak.


Regarding viewing classic movies, I can't conceive of a situation were a minor would be unable to view a historical film given a proper venue or permission. We live in a video-on-demand and NetFlix world, where are these film noir art-houses that would be closing because of not enough teenage attendance?


Alternatively you could exempt films made before a certain date or the proposed rating change.

[tburnsten]

Sure, but why put more useless legislation

on the books? Don't we have plenty of it already? Other than vengefully lashing out at anything cigarrette related, why not put the manpower inherent in changes like this into coming up with ways to make smoking less harmful, or repair damaged lungs, or fight cancer, or anything else? Save the money and time? Lord knows we don't have enough to go around anyway!

[wuushew]

32. The rating system for movies is not a governmental invention

If you have a problem with it, write the film industry and make a complaint as a customer.

[tburnsten]

31. Sure, but why put more useless legislation

on the books? Don't we have plenty of it already? Other than vengefully lashing out at anything cigarrette related, why not put the manpower inherent in changes like this into coming up with ways to make smoking less harmful, or repair damaged lungs, or fight cancer, or anything else? Save the money and time? Lord knows we don't have enough to go around anyway!

[wuushew]

8. Is your problem with the R rating or the MPAA system in general?

Just like video-games and television such systems allow both more informed choices by the consumer and some degree of legal protection for the producers of entertainment.


There is no definitive barrier which prevents you allowing your child to see such films if you so desire.

[The Straight Story]

10. R rating (nt)

[nomorenomore08]

11. Yeah, let's further extend our lifespans, just when the world is spiralling into chaos and misery...

:sarcasm:
More and more I find these campaigns against smoking, fattening foods, what-have-you, to be a load of bullshit. I mean, do you really think our quality of life 50, 100 years from now, is going to be worth making it that far? To these people, I say that your children may well curse you in the future, for keeping them away from the Big Macs and the Marlboros. Maybe dying young is for the best, if it means missing out on the collapse of civilization. :shrug:

[cobalt1999]

12. What behavior will be next?

Driving without a seat belt? That's dangerous. Rated R.
Riding a motorcycle? Oh my god, that's really dangerous! Rated X.
Boating without a life jacket? That's an R rating.
Having a hamburger? Think of your arteries! That's another R rating.

[Dukkha]

13. that would make classic Disney, Warner Bros, and MGM toons R-Rated

and do absolutely nothing to reduce smoking. idiots. Anti-smokers have the worst campaign tactics ever. Do nothing to fight the big tobacco lobby, instead attack the users and anything else affiliated with alarmist tactics and censorship.

[Obamanaut]

15. Soon we will have to replace letters in some words with ****, else

some folks find looking at the entire word offensive.

[G_j]

16. why not an S ?

to be clear what it means

[Mind_your_head]

23. I'm doing an "R-rated activity" right now - as I type!!!!

(how come I don't feel like I'm doing an R-rated activity)?

There's just no 'there' there, ya know? I don't feel any 'guilty pleasure'?

Awwww, it's them d*mn 'smokin' nazis' AGAIN! :eyes:

[Dem_4_Life]

24. You need to see "This film is not yet rated"

It is an awesome documentary about the MPAA.



As it turns out, Kirby Dick's eye-opening documentary isn't rated. When he submitted it to the Motion Picture Association of America, they slapped it with an NC-17 (though he had always intended to release it unrated). This is fitting since he sheds much-needed light on the inner workings of a secretive organization that wields great power over the movies the public gets to see (since most mainstream media won't touch the dreaded NC-17). It's just as well since This Film Is Not Yet Rated focuses on the more controversial films of the past three decades. Aside from the stories of filmmakers who have tussled with the MPAA, Dick hires a private investigator to determine who sits on the board, since this information isn’t in the public domain. With her assistance, he solves the mystery. Directors include Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream), Mary Harron (American Psycho), and Kimberly Peirce (Boys Don't Cry). Though frequently humorous, This Film Is Not Yet Rated should be required viewing for serious film fans, because the MPAA doesn't just affect what gets seen--but what gets made. If it has a flaw, it's this: In his attempt to generate transparency, Dick (Twist of Faith) arguably crosses the line. It's one thing to identify the board members; it's another to divulge their vital statistics. Whether or not these "guardians of morality" are working for the common good, they're still entitled to a little privacy. That said, this is vital stuff for anyone concerned about First Amendment issues. --Kathleen C. Fennessy

Product Description
Documentary filmmaker Kirby Dick delights in uncovering the hypocrisy and political corruption that are inherent in the ratings system employed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Gay icon John Waters is also on hand due in no small part to the MPAA's consistent treatment of gay cinema in harsher (NC-17) tones than straight / violent movies.System Requirements:Run Time: 97 minsFormat: DVD MOVIE Genre: DOCUMENTARIES/MISC. Rating: UNRATED UPC: 796019798679 Manufacturer No: 79867

[fishwax]

25. that was a good movie

:thumbsup:

[Mind_your_head]

26. Thank you!

:thumbsup:

[tburnsten]

28. I will have to check it out

Sounds good, and the MPAA has always rubbed me the wrong way for some reason. I hate ratings.

[SOS]

29. Documentaries about FDR and Churchill now for adults only.

nt

[Overseas]

30. I am waiting for white sugar and white flour ads to be banned from TV.

We have a national obesity epidemic. We try to ban cigarettes and hard liquor from TV, but keep hundreds of snacking messages right in the mix. We say our kids must not see cigarette consumption or they will be encouraged to smoke. Well how about the tons of snacking messages?