Smoking In American Films

I think anyone with an opinion on the smoking ban should take a look at some of these links.

Look at this editorial from the American College of Physicians (ACP seems to be a respectable institution with a seventy five year history). It notes the close association between the tobacco and film industries in the US. It also suggests some solutions - banning of course is not one of them. I would have to quote the full thing here to drive home the point of the article. I won't do that, and will just give some excerpts.

On the depiction of smoking in the movies and its effects on kids (it provides links to the actual studies involved - I've removed them - they can be found on the actual webpage):

After a decline in the 1970s and 1980s, the amount of smoking in American movies began to increase dramatically in 1991 and now exceeds the amount present in 1960. In contrast to reality, smoking in the movies is usually associated with high-profile, successful figures. A teen going to the movies today will leave with the misimpression that smoking is widely accepted— that is, the "winners" smoke, and no health or social consequences are associated with smoking.

Smoking by high-profile actors is associated with favorable attitudes toward smoking and actual smoking among teens.

On the relationships between the tobacco and film industries :

The major goal of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Hollywood's political arm, is to protect the movie studios and the multinational corporations that own them from anything that would restrict their activities or profits. In response to efforts by the government to censor the content of films, the MPAA instituted a voluntary system of rating films in 1968 ... The MPAA does not consider smoking—the most widely used addictive drug that kills the most people—in assigning ratings. The fact that the MPAA does not consider smoking when rating a movie is very important to the tobacco industry because it recruits and retains new smokers—the children that the MPAA rating system is supposedly designed to protect—by associating its products with excitement, sex, wealth, rebellion, and independence.

... The tobacco industry has built its alliance with Hollywood for decades by working at every level, from payments to studios to distributing free cigarettes to the people who make movies ... the president of a production company wrote RJ Reynolds Tobacco reporting that all the characters in a suspense thriller they were producing smoked, then added, "Film is better than any commercial that has been run on television or any magazine, because the audience is totally unaware of any sponsor involvement."

As for solutions it suggests four.

• Take into account the smoking content in a movie when rating the movie - lots of smoking gets an 'R' rating. Of course the movie industry is resisting since audience size is automatically reduced since kids are excluded (mostly) and thus profits decline.
  
• Certify in the closing credits that no one involved in the film's production received anything of value—cash, loans, tobacco products, publicity, or anything else—in exchange for using or displaying tobacco.
• Require strong antitobacco advertisements before any film that contains smoking (including those on television, videotape, and DVD) to immunize audiences from the pro-tobacco influences in the film.
• Stop identifying brands.

An old review of the movie The Insider from Indian Express:

... no two industries have waltzed together as merrily through the years as tobacco and moving pictures. Films make cigarettes glamourous, and cigarettes lend that glamour back to generation after generation of chain-smoking stars. There have been stories of underhand deals to make sure actors smoked as much as possible through films, and actors who openly advertised cigarettes.

A report from ABC-KSAT TV on a study about the effect of smoking on kids:

"The positive portrayal of smoking in American movies is probably the single, most powerful pro-tobacco influence worldwide when you talk about children," said Stanton Glantz, a tobacco control advocate and the author of an editorial that accompanied the published findings in the Dec. 15, 2001 issue of the British Medical Journal.

Some points that arise from all that reading:

• If Hollywood takes payments from the tobacco industry in return for showing smoking onscreen, then a question arises : does Bollywood do too? If not, why does the poster of the comedy Bunty Aur Bubli have just the face of Big B, lighting a cigarette. The movie shows shows the hero and heroine lighting up frequently too - that is what my 15 year old nephew says. The movie's audience includes kids in a big way - he was so desperate to see this movie that he was prepared to go alone.

• The solutions seem completely and utterly reasonable and simple - will Bollywood accept them in lieu of the ban?

• When was the last time a movie on TV was preceded by a clear certification - A or U or A/U or whatever. What will it take for the TV industry to start showing an age based certification like in the US? Parents would at least have something with which to stop their kids from watching a particular program.