Double-plus good. Our work here is done.
Page not found.
Care to summarize what your point is?
Showing Rose smoking a cigarette implies quite a bit about her - that she is not happy with the status quo and very much wants to be modern. It matches much of the other parts of her and says, hey, she’s a rebellious modern girl who is rather cheeky to her parents! Smoking by women in the 1910’s was on the cutting edge of acceptability - it was sort of like twerking is today - something that is becoming quite popular but isn’t quite what “good girls” do.
The hilarity should be obvious.
Unjustified? Why would any aspect of a film character’s behavior need justification?
In one of John Wayne’s movies (Flying Leathernecks, maybe), he’s getting a physical from a military doctor who, IIRC, offers him a cigarette before lighting up himself.
Because it’s a aspect of the film character’s behavior which has been inserted artificially due to bribes from Big Tobacco, who kills 500000 people in the USA every year, including 50000 NON-smokers.
But in fiction, every aspect of a film character’s behavior is artificial.
Still getting page not found.
It was one of the Rama sequels. I’m not going to bother trying to figure out which one.
I detest smoking in all forms in real life in but there are certainly times where it is important to the story or setting in a film, especially a period piece like Good night and Good Luck or The Man Who Wasn’t There, or a neo-noir like Kiss Kiss Bang Bang or Pulp Fiction which depends on the conventions of the genre including characters doing anachronistic and self-destructive behaviors. To argue that this is purely due to tobacco interests or tobacco-addicted actors is silly. But yes, tobacco companies have, and in more subtle ways continue to use films and televison to generate interest for their productz, often in unexpected ways.
Why Cameron elected to have Sigourney Weaver (who in real life is not a smoker despite portraying smoking in many films) light up in a laboratory is curious at best. Cameron stated tat he wanted her to portray a character who is careless of others to the point of rudeness but it still seems unnecessary and unlikely. Clint Eastwood (also a non-smoker) choking down one cancer stick after another in True Crime and Gran Torino, on the other hand, fits the character to a T, and is a plot point in the latter.
Stranger
Showing her twerking would have been much more enjoyable.
It’s a lazy shorthand for lazy writers.
Just watch the movie. The relevant scene is at 17:30, after Michael Rennie gets shot:
That 500,000 number is a crock of shit, by the way. 500,000 smokers die each year, from all causes. If a smoker dies from getting struck by lightning, that’s counted in the 500,000.
An estimated 42.1 million people smoke in the US. (18% of the adult population)
Around 2.5 million people die each year
What’s 18% of 2.5 million? 450,000.
Nope. “Cigarette smoking is responsible…”
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/
*Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including an estimated 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure.1 This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.*1
It’s easily refuted by simple arithmetic, as demonstrated above.
If smoking is responsible for 480,000/2,500,000 = 19.2% of all deaths in the US, and 18% of the US smokes, then smokers can only die from smoking. Don’t want to die from a drunk driver smashing into you? Start smoking!
You’ve totally bought into the bogus, easily-refuted anti-smoking PR machine. Smoking is, of course, very bad for you. But the scare tactics used to lobby against it are absurd, outright lies.
Is there evidence that cigarette makers bribe movie makers to include smoking? I know this was a plot point in Thank You for Smoking, but is there evidence it actually occurs?
Your arguments, like most of the arguments in this thread, are valid and perfectly reasonable.
My problem is that when I hear these very same arguments from people who work in film and theater, they’re almost always waving a Marlboro around and blowing smoke in your face while making those arguments. Then they’ll segue into a rant about anti-smoking laws and throw in an anecdote about their Aunt Hazel who smoked unfiltered Camels and lived to be 112.
It’s very difficult for me to take claims of “historical accuracy” and “characterization” seriously when they’re coming from someone who can’t go five fucking minutes without a cigarette. I’ve also noticed that directors and actors have no problems letting other anachronisms slide (like all the characters with dazzlingly white teeth in historical dramas), but insist that smoking is absolutely essential.
The absolute number of deaths is meaningless.
The only statistic that matters is what are YOUR chances of dying because of smoking?
For a 60-year old male smoker who’s smoked a pack a day for 40 years, Sloan Kettering puts your chance of getting lung cancer at 2%.
I just checked; it’s in The Ghost from the Grand Banks (1990):
Clarke’s prediction of this happening by the “mid-90s” was obviously way off.