According to a recent study conducted by the Social Science Research Center at Mississippi State and the American Academy of Pediatrics, 81 percent of adults agree that children are more likely to smoke if they see actors smoke in films. On top of that, 70 percent think any movies displaying the use of tobacco should receive an R rating to minimize children’s exposure to cigarettes. Yeah. That should fix the problem.This is just another example of parents shifting the blame. It’s happened with every medium. Columbine was “Doom’s” fault. Marilyn Manson helped, too. He practically pulled the trigger. Movies with too much violence encourage violence. There were all kinds of kids that saw “Terminator 2” and then thought they could recreate themselves from a puddle of liquid metal. “Grand Theft Auto” caused kids to go crazy, steal tanks, hire prostitutes and vote against their best interests. The list is endless and erroneous.
It’s true that some media may influence some children. Notice the two uses of the word “some” in the previous sentence. This limited number of children may attempt to imitate action on television or in a film, but even in this case, the program the impressionable child views should not be blamed. Once again, it’s the parents’ responsibility.
If parents will not get involved enough in their children’s lives to see that there is a problem (kids who smoke will smell like … get this … smoke), then the problem does not lie with the movie studio. Mothers and fathers should handle this situation on their own time, not on the time of filmmakers who may find it important in a film to have a character smoking. Sometimes it adds an aspect of personality to a character.
There are countless classic characters in film and television who smoke, and taking this away would diminish a significant personality trait. Humphrey Bogart’s Sam Spade smokes incessantly. The Hobbits in “The Lord of the Rings” are fond of pipe-weed, as it reminds them of home. The Cigarette-Smoking Man from “The X-Files” would just be The Man without his vice, and that’s incredibly boring and non-sinister.
This does not mean all these characters should smoke actual cigarettes. There are alternatives that would give the illusion of cigarette smoking, preventing the actors from dying of cancer like Bogart did. Still, smoking can often be seen as an important trait in character development, so taking that tool away is damaging.
Beyond this, what’s to be done about old movies like “The Maltese Falcon,” in which the characters smoke like Canadian chimneys? With parents’ current logic, kids could still be influenced by the habits of older movie stars. Will all old movies be subject to TV-MA ratings when they appear on television? Please tell the children to leave the room: “101 Dalmatians” is coming on and that Cruella de Vil just won’t put her cig out. Who cares about the adorable puppies?
One alternative would be to edit out all the smoking in these old films like so much bad language. How could this work, though? Blurring is an option.
“Mommy, what is that in Popeye’s mouth?” little Jimmy asks.
“Oh, it’s just a big, brown lollipop that’s subliming in the sun,” Mommy answers.
“What does subliming mean?” Jimmy asks, missing the point.
“Shut up, sweetie,” Mommy replies.
Another option is to just systematically remove cigarettes and cigarette smoke from scenes in TV shows and movies. Then, whenever a character puts an invisible stick in his mouth, audiences can just assume he has a very rare nervous tick.
Also, what precedent will be set if cigarettes are determined to be R-rated? Will this suddenly mean that smoking is worse than … well … drinking and driving? Movies that feature drinking and driving aren’t being pushed for R ratings.
If it were required for smoky movies to receive a fat “R” branded on their sides, a rating session for a PG-13 movie like “Casino Royale” might go a little something like this:
Okay, guy with a bomb is running through a crowded street. Good, good. Now he’s shooting policemen … no problems yet. James Bond corners him, beats him nearly to death, nice. Bond shoots a gas container, killing several innocent bystanders, still good. Returning to his hotel room, Bond proceeds to have soft-core sex with a voluptuous floozy … hot and acceptable. Oh, wait, Bond lights up a loosy after his presumably unsafe romp with Blonde #2? Slap an R on that wretched piece of filth!
There has to be a better way to go about this. The SSRC report also said that parents think if a smoking character is shown the error of his fumy ways, the rating could be less strict. There is a way to handle this that avoids making every smoking character a walking epiphany; simply run a summary at the end of every film featuring a smoker:
Though John Smokington did conquer paralysis and saved his daughter from drowning, he later died of lung cancer because of his nicotine addiction. You too will die this way if you start smoking.
Goodbye character flaws, hello perfect health!