Up Front: No Smoke
177 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
Read Bellwether, it's awesome.
Preachin' to to choir sister, preachin' to the choir
-
Also, having every incidence of smoking followed by a negative consequence of smoking would be completely unrealistic.
I don't know about unrealistic, but certainly not feasible within the scope of most plot arcs. But that's my point. It's because there's generally no feasible way of showing the negative consequences that there should be an R-rating.
-
Karma Chameleon...
...the main character's job is to edit old films to remove/replace props (ie alcohol or tobacco) or people depending on the latest court case.
I wonder if this is where they got the idea from?Stalin, Hitler and Mao would have been early mentors...
...or Woody Allen in Zelig -
Okay fair point. And how many times do you remember seeing kids in the playground imitating the Karate Kid crane pose? Lots. So I'll have to think about that one a bit more.
I would personally beg you not to. I don't want to see violence moved to a late time slot next - it would seriously harm my Wile E. Coyote watching sessions with the kiddies.
You're misunderstanding the meaning of "normalise", which is to bring towards the mean, or average. Most people don't smoke, so by that definition, smoking is not normal.
And most people don't smoke in films. So really in order to be realistic, shouldn't we insist that enough people are shown smoking in films to reflect reality? And if not, why not exactly?
Poor argument. Death from motor vehicles results from using them in a way that was not intended, or from unskilled use. Death from tobacco use results from using it exactly as intended.
Another way of looking at it is that accidents occur simply by cars being on the road. And many people who die because of smoking related causes are very heavy users. Also, cars carry significant health costs beside the numbers of deaths in accidents - pollution is a major killer and cars are a major cause of pollution.
-
Stalin, Hitler and Mao would have been early mentors...
Wait, did you just associate anti-tobacco compaigners with Hitler? Well, I guess this thread's over then.
(And yes, I'm well aware that Hitler was anti-tobacco, and you can bet tobacco companies use that to their best advantage too).
Even if it's not over, I'm going to have to leave it. I'm getting too irritated and frustrated at arguing when there's too much of a gap between my knowledge of the issue on one side (health), and I concede possibly not enough on the other side (censorship), and no quick way of bridging that gap.
-
Why not demand that every male and female lead in films be shown to be a keen jogger?
Ashby II: Electric Joggaloo
-
pollution is a major killer and cars are a major cause of pollution
And yet no annoying busybody ever comes up to me and tells me to remove my 'cancer wagon' from the road, as they do to my outside-smoking mother.
-
That's just because I haven't done your area yet. I'm only one man, you know.
-
And yet no annoying busybody ever comes up to me and tells me to remove my 'cancer wagon' from the road, as they do to my outside-smoking mother.
back when Wellington was looking at banning smoking on footpaths (at cafes and things), I had a massive hissy fit at several co workers, pointing out that I breathe in a damn sight more cabon monoxide walking down Courtenay place from all the buses than I do from the odd bit of passive smoke from outside a bar.
Grump.
-
@Lucy:
Most people don't smoke, so by that definition, smoking is not normal.
*head-desk* Redacted original comment until I can get Mister Grumpy on the first bus out of town.
-
Last night's Media7 discussion of smoking on screen is in chapter 2 of the ondemand video. I thought Simone Horrocks was really interesting on the topic. Clever family, that one.
-
One of the wonderful side effects of the social discouragement of smoking is it gives justification to those that wish to be rude, arrogant, opinionated fuckers. Hopefully they take up jogging and they go away quicker.
-
I would buy into the idea that smoking in movies and TV glamourises it. Certainly Joan Holloway makes it look pretty hot.
But here's the thing. People do shit that is bad for them. Whether that's smoking, eating too much, drinking too much, shagging inappropriate people, or getting into fights. Blowing shit up or taking illegal drugs. Or whatever your harmful behaviour of choice is.
And you know what? People like doing those things. Because they are fun. And if we're going to restrict the veiwing of those things, or remove them completely, then the cinema is simply going to be showing science fiction. And aside from the fact that means I'll never get to watch a movie again, I'd re-pose Emma's question:
what's the job of art? Is it to present an aspirational and respirational ideal, or to accurately reflect the world we live in?
-
One of the wonderful side effects of the social discouragement of smoking is it gives justification to those that wish to be rude, arrogant, opinionated fuckers. Hopefully they take up jogging and they go away quicker.
And the annoying thing is, blowing smoke directly into their face seldom makes them go away.
-
Just to change tack a bit, I'm now trying to think of any films/TV shows on before 9.30 (when alcohol advertising is allowed) that do regularly show tobacco use.
Outrageous Fortune is currently airing at 8:30. As Russell mentioned in the Media7 discussion last night, Robyn Malcolm insisted that Cheryl smoke, because Cheryl smokes.
And yet no annoying busybody ever comes up to me and tells me to remove my 'cancer wagon' from the road, as they do to my outside-smoking mother.
I would like some way of getting all the people who are rudely confrontational to outdoor smokers in Christchurch to walk around the city at night in winter with someone white tied over their mouths. (This is where the 'did it once, was so revolted I needed a cigarette' joke goes.)
-
Let's name our nannyism. I'd ban advertising of all things to children under the age of, say, 12, and ban advertising of things that cause harm to people other than the direct consumer - so alcohol and yes, cigarettes as well on account of the second-hand smoke thing. Let's have people in films and tv shows indulge in whatever vice their characters require, so long as it doesn't come with brand placement.
-
I to walk around the city at night in winter with someone white tied over their mouths.
I say, that's a touch racist, init?.
-
Okay, I can reply to this bit 'cos it's unrelated and won't get my blood pressure up:
Outrageous Fortune is currently airing at 8:30.
Yes, but if we start watching it now, we'll have missed all the cool stuff in between. We need to catch up on the other seasons first.
-
I would like some way of getting all the people who are rudely confrontational to outdoor smokers
Um, yes.. On a trip on Australia, there was a very nasty gent who apparently objected to us smoking four large tables away from him on a huge outside terrace that was a posted smoking area. Ended up having to get the manager to calm him down (and I was this close to bitch-slapping the shit), because this chap was quite literally in my face and obviously drunk.
We left without our lunch. Also had the pleasure of telling the manager I'd happily explain to the police why I had no intention of paying the bill.
-
what's the job of art? Is it to present an aspirational and respirational ideal, or to accurately reflect the world we live in?
Oh but art doesn't have a job. So bourgeois! Art's on the creative dole, mining and moulding our collective subconscious while lying on the couch being clever. And yes, probably occasionally lighting up.
But yeah, it should have an effect: Stendhal's moving mirror, Kafka's axe for the frozen sea within us; something in between the two.
What is the job of a film rating, on the other hand? Simply to point out that certain parts of a given film may be objectionable for certain reasons, and then to let the filmgoer (or their in loco parentis person) decide, on that basis, whether to view. "Contains smoking, bad language, and parlous fashion choices," sort of thing.
Needn't be limited to sex & drugs, either. I'd rather have known, for example, that a recent otherwise incredibly excellent movie contained a gruesome scene involving a corpse. Similarly, if I was trying to give up smoking, I might want to avoid a super-smoky movie.
Giovanni's approach is a tidy and honest one. That's a nonna-state I could approve of.
-
I feel like I've posted this before, but here it is again: Goodnight Moon Goes Smokeless, which inspired this parody.
-
Let's name our nannyism. I'd ban advertising of all things to children under the age of, say, 12, and ban advertising of things that cause harm to people other than the direct consumer - so alcohol and yes, cigarettes as well on account of the second-hand smoke thing.
I can't let that one go without suggesting that all forms of religion and religious "teaching" be banned for that age group as well.
-
Needn't be limited to sex & drugs, either. I'd rather have known, for example, that a recent otherwise incredibly excellent movie contained a gruesome scene involving a corpse. Similarly, if I was trying to give up smoking, I might want to avoid a super-smoky movie.
I'm constantly outraged that shock ads for road safety, ACC etc. don't come with a warning, and a loud one at that. If it wasn't that we already don't show the children the six o'clock news because it's too asinine, we'd have to do it on account of the genuinely upsetting advertising.
-
Something else just occured to me.
Smoking in a movie has never made me want to smoke, simply because I pretty much always want to smoke. It might remind me that I want to smoke, but that urge is always there. I imagine it's the same for alcoholics and drug addicts.
I started again this year, in a particularly shitty time in my life, having quit for about 5 years. It wasn't a movie that made me start again, it was just that I didn't have the energy to exercise the willpower any more. (I should point out, I don't smoke that much, and having had the flu recently means I haven't had one for almost 2 weeks.)
I'm not entirely sure what my point is, except to say that I highly doubt telling people there's someone smoking in a movie is really going to stop anyone who has already started smoking.
-
What is the job of a film rating, on the other hand? Simply to point out that certain parts of a given film may be objectionable for certain reasons
And some of the notes the MPAA attach to their ratings are Dada haiku of offensive desire to avoid offending anyone. "Contains strong horror violence" -- as opposed to the romantic type that makes you want to run out and French kiss kittens? And, really, WTF were you expecting from Saw LXIX?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.