State Governments Are Urging Censorship

[Tony]

http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries/reader/0,1854,566450,00.html ..full article

Attorneys general from 24 states have written a letter to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) urging that filmmakers refrain from showing smoking on-screen, Reuters reported Aug. 26.

"We are hopeful you will use your best efforts again here to rally the industry from being a source of the problem," the letter to MPAA President Jack Valenti said. "Simply by reducing the depiction of smoking in movies, the industry can protect our nation's youth from the known perils of smoking."


Meanwhile, Im going to continue to buy cigarettes for "minors".

[American]

You and I have jobs, and we both give about 30% of our total check to pay people like them to write letters to Hollywood and ask them not to smoke, for our childrens' sake.

If I spent 30% of my lost income on keeping my kid from smoking, and other such government "protection" measures that help kids, well... you might actually call me a good parent!

(I don't got kids yet, least none that I know of. I'm working on it though.)

[shanek]

To lift what TV Producer/Writer J. Michael Straczynski said about the violence on TV issue, "They're not attacking the problem...They're attacking the picture of the problem."

[KelvinG]

Oddly enough, one of the reasons that characters smoke in movies is to give them something to do.
Most scenes in movies are about creating a dynamic frame in each shot. How often in an action film do you see two characters sitting in a boring restaurant, hands on their laps, talking to each other. Hardly ever. It's much more exciting to meet in a smoky bar, drenched in contrastly light, smoke hanging over the character's heads.

Also, when holding a cigarette, there is more energy and motion in the characters actions, and this subtle, yet effective technique contributes to an energetic pace.
Think of how many things a character can do with a cigarette that he can't do if his hands are empty.

I doubt many filmmakers give characters cigarettes so they "look cool."
It's a visual technique, and a way to add "character" to the characters.

Now, will kids smoke if they see a famous movie idol smoking on screen.
Maybe.
Does this mean Hollywood should stop showing characters smoking. No.

[peptoabysmal]

The X-Files just woudn't have been the same without the "smoking man" character.

[EdipisReks]

i hope my state isn't on that list.

[shanek]

The full letter, with list of participating states. (http://www.tobacco.org/resources/documents/030826agmovieletter.html)

[rustypouch]

I'm thinking of starting smoking just jto poss people off.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by shanek
The full letter, with list of participating states. (http://www.tobacco.org/resources/documents/030826agmovieletter.html)

damn. well, i already knew that the ohio attorney general was an ass, so no big surprise.

[KelvinG]

The only real power the MPAA would have in regulating such a proposal would be to give films depicting smokers a harsher rating than they would normally deserve. i.e. a PG film would be given a PG-13 rating.

I think this is unlikely to happen.

Other than that, the MPAA does not have the power to dictate terms to filmmakers outside of the ratings they assign after a screening.

The only thing that will stop filmmakers from putting smoking characters in their films is if the moviegoing public decided not to go to those movies. Will this happen? Also unlikely.

[EdipisReks]

as has been mentioned already, movies without smoking would be boring. nobody would go to them. unless movie makers added more sex and violence!!!!! yeeee-haw!!

[Yahweh]

From the article:
"We are hopeful you will use your best efforts again here to rally the industry from being a source of the problem," the letter to MPAA President Jack Valenti said. "Simply by reducing the depiction of smoking in movies, the industry can protect our nation's youth from the known perils of smoking."
I really doubt that a move like this is going to make any impact on smoking. If anti-smoking campaigns dont work, how is this reckless and needless abuse of censorship going to help?

[Chupacabras]

Originally posted by Tony
"Simply by reducing the depiction of smoking in movies..."

Uh... What about "smoking guns" :) I mean, let's not show violence, bad behavior, bad language, daring acts, poverty... Maybe avoid "nucular" explosions and evens spies altogether and foreign governments would also be deterred. I can barely imagine a 100-minute scene in which a man reads a book or calculates his taxes to be succesfull in making a point - any point.

Wait... I'm not in the USA! :)

[homunculus]

That's just great. Rather than educating people properly in the first place, we'll just protect the poor stupid public from negative influence by censoring the media. Grr!

What really gets me, though, are parents who complain about obsenity or violence on the TV. It's THEIR job to bring up decent kids, which would include (I imagine - although none of the little critters in our house) monitoring what they watch on TV.

Paul.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Here's my two cents.

Cigarette companies wouldn't grease Hollywood palms to get cigarettes on film if they didn't think it would pay off.

It's cigarette advertising, pure and simple.

If you have a problem with cigarette advertising, you should have a problem with smoking being portrayed attractively in film.

[shanek]

Originally posted by KelvinG
The only real power the MPAA would have in regulating such a proposal would be to give films depicting smokers a harsher rating than they would normally deserve. i.e. a PG film would be given a PG-13 rating.

I think this is unlikely to happen.

Don't be so sure. There's a lot of politics in the rating system. For example, independent films always seem to get a higher rating than a studio film with the exact same content.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by shanek


Don't be so sure. There's a lot of politics in the rating system. For example, independent films always seem to get a higher rating than a studio film with the exact same content.

Oh absolutely. I've experienced it first hand.
In theory the MPAA is supposed to be impartial and objective, but they know who butters their bread.

However, I would be surprised if, in general, they began showing a bias towards smoking. But, it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility.

One curious thing about the MPAA is that after the screen a movie and slap it with a rating, let's say an R, they don't tell you what sections of the film were the problem areas. They might give general statements like "too violent" or "explicit sex", but they won't say "the close-up of the guy getting his throat slit pushed it over the edge."
I would be curious how they would handle excess smoking in a film. Would there have to be a certain number of smokers in the movie before it came a problem? Would it be an issue if the protagonist smoked as opposed to the bad guys? How about holding the cigarettes in suggestive ways!

Again, I would be very surprised if smoking ever played a part in the MPAA rating system. Well, unless the characters in the next Pixar film all starting puffing on cigarettes!!

[Dancing David]

ROFLMAO!

Thats what we need more reasons to have an R-rating on a movie , people smoking.

It never ceases to amaze me how the rating system works! You can show gun violence, have an implied rape and other sexual activity including toasting a baby while sodomising it, as long as it is implied. And you only get a PG ratinf, but say the f-word, show a man's butt and there goes the rating! Up to R, I think that violence should get a much higher rating than showing a man's butt.

AAAARGH!

Smoking is way down in movies. No eating french fries or get this DRIVING in a dangerous or recless fashion.

Art for the people, of the people and by the people.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by rustypouch
I'm thinking of starting smoking just jto poss people off.

Don't. I did that when I was sixteen. It took me three-hundred tries to quit, and I still get the odd overwhelming craving five months after my last cigarette (fortunatly, though, I'm at the stage where cigarettes taste like crap again).

Interestingly enough, movies had no effect whatsover on my decision to smoke. It was the righteous don't-smoke preaching of the education system.

And finally, it's a bit ridiculous to expect Hollywood to be an upholder of good standards and safe behaviours. More people die in car accidents than of smoking-related causes. Do you expect them to get rid of car chases now?

[Mr Manifesto]

I may amend what I just said to 'car accidents are a competing cause of death', since I can't find statistics to support my case.

[shanek]

Originally posted by KelvinG
One curious thing about the MPAA is that after the screen a movie and slap it with a rating, let's say an R, they don't tell you what sections of the film were the problem areas. They might give general statements like "too violent" or "explicit sex", but they won't say "the close-up of the guy getting his throat slit pushed it over the edge."

Not officially. That would be interfering with the artistic integrity of the movie making process. But directors know that if you talk to the right people you can find out unofficially what they want you to change...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
To lift what TV Producer/Writer J. Michael Straczynski said about the violence on TV issue, "They're not attacking the problem...They're attacking the picture of the problem."

But that's what politicians do - put on a phony show, while failing to tackle any serious issues.