November 18, 2005
Smoking warning labels on movies?
The world is going to hell, you know how I know? It's because every day we get a little bit more crazy, and our political correctness scale creeps past the balanced zero mark edging into the minus numbers. Another notch on that scale is that we're set to see "this movie contains scenes of smoking" on DVD and video covers. What?
Okay, first off we have a perfectly good certification scale both in the UK and the US. It tells you what age someone should be to see a movie. It's defined by some careful markers of what the movie contains, sex, violence, etc. It even goes so far as to analyse what kind of sex or violence to determine ratings. It's all very sturdy.
Apparently not when it comes to smoking. Smoking is far worse than sex, violence, drug taking, and whatever else is currently shown in the movies, and thirty two American States feel the need to notify people that not only is a certain movie an 18 or a 15, but that it also contains scenes of - oh my god, prepare yourself - smoking!
What nonsense is this? Now I'm dead against people smoking in the presence of non-smokers, I think that violates the non-smokers right not to have drugs that are proven to be harmful and toxic forced into their body by someone else. However, it's not so bad that it needs to be highlighted on movies seperately to the sex, violence, drug taking, etc that are already shown by the current certifications.
Why stop at smoking? "This movie contains scenes of...drinking alcohol, drinking caffine, taking headache pills, eating starch based products!" Are we going to start having overly PC and Nanny-State like labels on movies regarding every action that might possibly be misconstrued?
2 Fast 2 Furious or Bullit - "Driving too fast may kill you"; Leaving Las Vegas - "Drinking too much might be harmful"; Philadelphia - "Having unprotected sex might give you a disease and kill you"! Where will it stop? Miracle on 34th Street - "Be aware Santa doesn't exist."
IMDB carry the story and it just makes me mad...whatever happened to choice, understanding, trust and that thing called parenthood?
The attorneys general of 32 states have called upon the major studios to slap anti-smoking messages on all home-video releases in which smoking is depicted. The AGs...affixed their names to a letter drafted by Maryland's J. Joseph Curran Jr., who observed that he and the other AGs have repeatedly raised concerns about studies showing that movies play a large role in influencing young people to smoke. The letter specifically referred to a new study conducted by Dartmouth Medical School which concluded that adolescents with the most exposure to depictions of smoking in movies were nearly three times as likely to try cigarettes as those with the least exposure to such depictions.
Wait, a new study? Would that be a study in the same vein that once proved smoking was good for you, then bad, then good...and eventually bad again? Oh, and how scientific is that study? Did they expose half the school to movies and see who started smoking, and then ban the other half and see likewise? Of course that would need strict 24 hour supervision and...blah blah blah. They asked the kids. Yeah, and that's gonna be accurate!
I'm going to release a study saying that beauraucrats who sit on their arses and listen to the inane sound of their own voices and scribbling of pens on official paper are a bloated mark on our landscape and should stick their noses into the corruption, red tape, and petty mindedness in their own organisations before they start preaching to the parents about how they should be raising their kids!
I read once that the major cause of kids taking up smoking is based on their parents or peers smoking. What are you gonna do about that? Quick, stick more labels on movies, books and magazines. That'll help.
Breath Richard...So, apart from commenting on all that idiocy, looking at the stupid warning labels I've highlighted for movies above, what other equally daft warning labels can you think of for a movie?
Posted by at November 18, 2005 11:49 AM
Comments
Posted by: Handa at November 18, 2005 05:15 PM
Johnny Depp is going to be very unhappy.
Posted by: nilblogette at November 19, 2005 11:11 AM
Only in America could I see this happening. Companies, as well as the government, are so overwhelmed about liability that it has reached the point of now being forced upon to consumers. It’s bad enough we get overloaded by the millions of commercials on television and the continuous advertising, and now even more. What is the point of having the movie ratings if there is going to be individual advisories as well. I thought the point of the rating was to warn the audience, so why differentiate smoking? Yes, smoking is harmful, but probably falls closer to the bottom of the list when in comparison to other things that are present in movies. Smoking is a part of our society, despite our personal opinions on it, therefore, we generally assume to see it and do not to be warned about it. After all, the smoke isn’t going to come through the screen, so that isn’t the smoking we should be most concerned about!
Posted by: Laur at November 20, 2005 06:43 PM
I'm with Mr Brunton that the logical extension of this would be to apply the same standard to every action in every film - much as some Christian reviewers catalog every profanity and offense in a movie, rather than focus on story or what lessons might be drawn from the film's plot.
Only in America could this happen, where not only do we have the idea that our media diet completely controls our minds and determines our destinies, but also that children must be protected above all costs from anything resembling reality.
It'd be really funny if they started posting warnings inside the film - so during a sex scene you'd have 'UNPROTECTED SEX SIMULATED BY PROFESSIONAL BODY DOUBLES: DO NOT ATTEMPT'.
Posted by: Brakhage at November 20, 2005 08:00 PM
Indian Censor Board for Movies nearly implemented this rule. According to that you could not show a character smoking on the screen unless he/she is an historical figure. They have made some relaxations to that rule but I am not completely aware of it.