Lately I’ve been noticing how often cigarettes are appearing in films (especially in the past ten years or so). Much more so than they used to I believe. Moreover, the smoker is usually depicted as being cool or glamorous.
Examples include Donnie Darko (most egregious- all the hip people are distinguished by the fact they smoke), High Fidelity, The Station Agent (IIRC), and I could go on and on. You never seem to see cigarettes portrayed in a bad light these days, and it seems to me that smoking is more common on screen than in real life.
This phenomenon seems a bit more common in smaller-budget films, which makes me wonder whether the cigarette companies are helping to finance films these days.
I know that DeBeers used Hollywood celebrities to glamorize diamonds years ago. So are cigarette companies, having been foreclosed from advertising on TV, paying (surreptitiously of course) for product placement to weave their product into moviegoers’ collective psyche?
Any thoughts, inside info, ethical debate, or other movie examples are invited.
(Hard to categorize this thread. It’s part GQ, part GD and part Cafe Society. I’ll start it in cafe Society and the mods can kick it around if they wish.)
As a former prop tart, I can say that cig companies do NOT provide their product for use in movies and most of the time, great pains are taken to "greek"or disguise the name brands so that there are no obvious brands shown–this is especially true when there are underage actors smoking. Watching the “X-Files” years ago, I noticed the Smoking Man character smoked “Morley’s”–a fake brand that is often trotted out to look like Marlboros. It’s a staple of the Earl Hayes prop company.
The choice for actors to smoke onscreen is usually made by themselves, the director or the writer. If they think it looks cool or dangerous or…whatever, they’ll do it. It’s a pain in the ass for us prop flunkies to keep continuity on the things, I’ll tell you that much!
As a former prop tart, I can say that cig companies do NOT provide their product for use in movies and most of the time, great pains are taken to "greek"or disguise the name brands so that there are no obvious brands shown–this is especially true when there are underage actors smoking. Watching the “X-Files” years ago, I noticed the Smoking Man character smoked “Morley’s”–a fake brand that is often trotted out to look like Marlboros. It’s a staple of the Earl Hayes prop company.
The choice for actors to smoke onscreen is usually made by themselves, the director or the writer. If they think it looks cool or dangerous or…whatever, they’ll do it. It’s a pain in the ass for us prop flunkies to keep continuity on the things, I’ll tell you that much!
Oh I’m quite sure that brands are not shown. If, say, Marlboro boxes kept popping up conspicuously in movies, that would surely draw the attention of the feds. I’m suspecting a more subtle form of propaganda- an effort to make cigarette smoking in general seem cool.
I also don’t doubt that at least on some occasions, the decision to use a cigarette as a prop is made by the actor. I think maybe John Cusack does this quite a bit. He seems to smoke conspicuously in most (all?) of his recent movies.
I suppose actors could be given “incentive” to work cigarettes into their scenes just as easily as could directors, though my suspicion would fall most upon the people who are trying to find financing for a film. Do tobacco companies “help” struggling productions, one wonders?
Maybe I’m entering tinfoil-hat territory. On the other hand, if I’m a tobacco executive, I’m thinking this would be a great way to promote my product.
Admittedly, all I have are a suspicion, and a sense that smoking is becoming more common on film.
In fact, I’m beginning to suspect that you’re working for Big Tobacco, because I’d swear you’re smoking something. Seriously, there is no conspiracy. Why don’t you relax with a smooth, refreshing cigarette? It’ll help you calm your nerves and look cool doing it.
I rather liked the fake brand used in Kevin Smith’s “askewniverse” movies, especially Clerks (because they sold cigs in the store after all). Every pack shown is proudly emblazoned, “Nails.”
The PIRGs don’t offer any evidence in that article, and are not a reliable source of information on the subject. How are they defining “tobacco use” as a quantifiable component of a movie? Have they factored in the fact that movie producers try to avoid R-ratings for movies they hope will become hits?
I also wonder what sort of “neutral or positive light” they’re objecting to. Is a character in his mid-twenties supposed to come down with emphysema in the dramatic timeframe of the movie?
Huh? They point to a 50% increase in use of cigarettes in PG-13 films. That’s evidence (albeit circumstantial) that something is up. It is the sort of evidence that invites further inquiry to see whether money is changing hands somewhere along the line. A Congressional inquiry would not be inappropriate, IMO, and that is what the PIRGs are requesting.
Presumably, number of scenes depicting tobacco use (though that’s just a guess since we do not have access to the full report).
I don’t see your point. That’s certainly not a new phenomenon. Why (and how) do you think it should be factored in?
The problem, as I see it, is that the movies show young, healthy, sexy people smoking, and smoking is almost never depicted in a negative light. How often do you see someone take a puff and then break down in a hacking cough. No yellow teeth or yellow fingers for movie smokers. No negative reaction to their smoking by other characters.
I’ll grant you, we don’t have enough information to prove that money is changing hands. But we do have enough information to be awfully suspicious: our knowledge that product placement is a proven sales technique, combined with a quantifiable increase in smoking depictions on film (occurring contemporaneously with new advertising restrictions on tobacco).
Where there’s smoke there a slimy tobacco operative, sez I. Certainly there’s enough there to warrant further investigation to see whether big tobacco is violating the terms of its settlement.
If the tobacco companies really aren’t involved, fine. Then I lay the glamorization of tobacco use at the feet of directors and actors (John Cusack, I’m looking at you) who turn their movies into *de facto * cigarette ads.
Well, let’s hope there’s also an ashtray nearby, we wouldn’t want to burn the white carpeting.
I guess it would be kind of funny to see a militant anti-tobacco protestor yelling about their allergies to Alfred Hitchcock as he got off the elevator in Spellboud. Your line about negaitve reactions left me with the impression that you may have found an ally in:
I feel bad for the guy, but find myself wondering if he had instead come down with HIV after a night of unprotected sex, would he be on a crusade that called for the showing of the condom wrapper in every sex scene? Or, if his family was wiped out by some drunk behind the whell, would he be calling for a return to prohibition & the removal of all scenes that include alcohol consumption?
Now you’re fighting a straw man, JohnBckWLD. I haven’t said anything about banning cigarettes from film and certainly haven’t said anything about imposing some sort of general prohibition against tobacco.
The question at hand is whether the tobacco companies are surreptitiously violating the terms of their settlement by paying for cigarette placement in films.
I do think, regardless of the answer to that question, that fimmakers and actors should think about the effect their work has on the moviegoing public. If you show young, hip and sexy people happily smoking away, that sends a powerful message. I am not advocating censorship. Rather, I am asking that the filmmaking community exercise a little responsibilty. (And kudo to Esterhas for doing just that, albeit belatedly.)
(JohnBckWLD, don’t take this as a knock, but are you a smoker perchance? You seem a bit defensive.)
No knock taken. Do you by chance have a light? My zippo just died. Actually, I do get defensive every time I hear about the next crusade from the anti-tobacco lobby. It’s incrementalism gone ashtray
I truly wasn’t attempting to build up or knock down any strawmen by posting that last link. I was attempting to show the more militant stance espoused by Mr. Eszterhas. I’m sure most people would agree his completely zany ‘Basic’ brand name cigarettes conspiracy theory lurches extremely close to tinfoil-hattedness.
That’s a good question. How often do you see someone take a puff and then break down in a hacking cough? :dubious:
People smoke in the real world – there’s no compelling reason that filmmakers should distance themselves from reflecting this, or be take pains to illustrate the most negative consequences of a life-long habit every time someone is shown smoking.
Where does that lead? You can’t show someone eating cheesecake without becoming a diabetic? No coffee drinking without the character being diagnosed with heart disease? No eating french fries without developing a bad complexion?
Lots of people manage to smoke without having nicotine-stained hands and teeth and ashtray-scented clothes. (For example, a girl I’ve known for four years was recently horrified to learn that I’d ‘started’ smoking, when the truth of the situation is that I’ve smoked the entire time I’ve known her, albeit never excessively, and never around her, because I’m conscious that it makes for stinky breath.)
People can smoke without succumbing to emphysema or cancer, just like people can drink gin without losing their job and ending up living in an alley. It’s kind of silly that some people think there’s a moral imperative to portray tobacco use in the most negative light possible at all times.
I’m a non-smoker. I’ve never smoked a cigarette in my life. And I have never received any under the table payments from Philip Morris (though I’d be glad to take whatever they can spare).
My experience as a moviegoer has been just the OPPOSITE of the Original Poster’s. I’ve found that, as a rule, Hollywood uses cigarettes as shorthand for “this guy is evil.” If a supposedly good character is shown smoking cigarettes, he’s likely to be exposed as the bad guy before long.
The only characters MORE likely to be shown as evil are those who quote Scripture or act in an ostentatiously religious manner. (If a character smokes AND quotes the Bible, run for your life!!!)
[QUOTE=astorian]
My experience as a moviegoer has been just the OPPOSITE of the Original Poster’s. I’ve found that, as a rule, Hollywood uses cigarettes as shorthand for “this guy is evil.” If a supposedly good character is shown smoking cigarettes, he’s likely to be exposed as the bad guy before long.
[QUOTE]
Well, I listed specific examples, and can think of others. For example, the movie Max makes quite a point of the good guy (John Cusack again) being a prolific smoker, while the bad guy (Hitler) abhors cigarettes.
In each of the movies cited in the OP, the lead characters are smokers.
Can’t think of any counterexamples from the past ten years where the bad guy is a smoker, astorian. Do you have any specific films in mind?
Used to happen to my mother quite often. In fact, when I was a child my sister and I were able to locate my mother in a department store or other public place by following the sound of her coughing. She, by the way, did later develop emphysema, pleurisy, etc., before dying of cancer. (So maybe I have an axe to grind on this point. My experience certainly does make me less tolerant of tobacco companies trying to get people hooked on their product.)
True, but it’s becoming less and less common. The percentage of smokers on film seems a helluva lot higher than the percentage in real life these days.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying smoking should never be portrayed on film. I just don’t think it should be endlessly glamorized, which is what I see happening.
I am inviting counter-examples (if anyone has any…which I doubt…)
Well, I listed specific examples, and can think of others. For example, the movie Max makes quite a point of the good guy (John Cusack again) being a prolific smoker, while the bad guy (Hitler) abhors cigarettes.
In each of the movies cited in the OP, the lead characters are smokers.
Can’t think of any counterexamples from the past ten years where the bad guy is a smoker, astorian. Do you have any specific films in mind?
Used to happen to my mother quite often. In fact, when I was a child my sister and I were able to locate my mother in a department store or other public place by following the sound of her coughing. She, by the way, did later develop emphysema, pleurisy, etc., before dying of cancer. (So maybe I have an axe to grind on this point. My experience certainly does make me less tolerant of tobacco companies trying to get people hooked on their product.)
True, but it’s becoming less and less common. The percentage of smokers on film seems a helluva lot higher than the percentage in real life these days.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying smoking should never be portrayed on film. I just don’t think it should be endlessly glamorized, which is what I see happening.
I am inviting counter-examples (if anyone has any…which I doubt…)
Again, there is no information about how they define this. Does the number of scenes depicting smoking mean actors with talking parts, or also extras? Anyway, you’re presuming, because you have no information. As far as I know, they made it up.
If movies that would once have been R-rated are now being cut to make a PG-13, then the “increase” in smoking in those movies may be due to more movies receiving that rating.
We don’t have any information that money is changing hands.
John Cusack’s character in High Fidelity smoked. So did his character in the book. So did just about every independent record store owner in the early 90s. I haven’t seen The Station Agent, because I was busy the week that it ran here. If the tobacco companies are going to use conspicuous placement, wouldn’t they use a movie that their target audience will actually see?
Actually, I do get defensive every time I hear about the next crusade from the anti-tobacco lobby. It’s incrementalism gone ashtray