I was a bit flabbergasted by the MPAA deciding to use instances of smoking in films during their decision making for what to rate movies. It got a good amount of press, but nobody seemed all worked up about it... which surprised me.
Look, don't smoke. Seriously. Don't. It will probably kill you. Okay? Cool.
However, should the amount of smoking in a film really play a part in what a film should be rated? And if you say yes, what about other activities that may denote a risky lifestyle? Sky diving? Overeating fast food? The aggressive driving in Herbie: Fully Loaded certainly set a bad example for today's youth... and yet it still received a G rating from the MPAA. The horror!
This doesn't even mention the amount of violence in today's horror porn that gets rated R instead of NC-17, and it's clear that you can't show sex onscreen, because that's infinitely worse than Hostel II (according to the MPAA), which will get you the dreaded NC-17 (see Lust, Caution).
It's all so broken... but to me it comes down to money. Studios make money on these horror films (or at least they did until recently - the Rob Zombie Halloween film did okay, but Hostel II got beaten up) so they're willing to make lots of them, and they'll fight the MPAA to keep them rated R. Studios don't see smoking as a selling point (rightfully so, they won't sell more tickets for films that have more smoking in them) so there's no reason to fall on their sword over this issue, right? It's only freedom of speech, the First Amendment - no biggie.
Anyway, I mention all this because ESPN's Tuesday Morning Quarterback (or TMQ) wrote up a great piece on the smoking vs violence issue, and I wanted to share:
In Scream IV, Good-Looking Teenagers are Trapped in the MPAA Headquarters and Stalked by a Madman with a Press Release: Tuesday Morning Quarterback asked in 2005, "If Hollywood won't show smoking because viewers are impressionable, how come the movie industry eagerly glamorizes violence, torture and murder of the helpless as forms of cool recreation?" This question is worth asking again in wake of the recent decision by the Motion Picture Association of America to factor depiction of smoking into movie ratings. So Hollywood wants to discourage scenes of people lighting up -- but scenes of young women being tortured to death, that's fine, show 'em in the mall! Even given that Hollywood's leading product is hypocrisy, this development borders on surreal. The movie industry trade association is very, very worried about depictions of legal use of a lawful product -- TMQ doesn't smoke, so I've no brief here -- yet has no problem with the glamorization of slow-motion slaughter. The same month the MPAA wrung its hands about lighting a cigarette, the MPAA gave its blessing via an R, rather than an NC-17, to Hostel II, which graphically depicts pretty girls being tortured to death with power tools. Because of the MPAA's ratings favor, this depraved flick was shown in suburban shopping malls. But should someone want to light up, the MPAA has pangs of conscience!
Individual Hollywood studios are exhibiting the same double standards. Universal Pictures (owned by General Electric), 20th Century Fox, Disney (parent company of ESPN) and Time Warner all have said recently that they would forbid or strongly discourage depictions of smoking in their movies. But slashing, torture and splatter -- why not! Time Warner-owned studios produced the recent Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, which glorifies torturing the helpless to death, plus Freddie vs. Jason, a movie about two psychopaths who hold a competition to see who can slash the most teenagers to death. Universal produced the recent Land of the Dead, a film whose premise might have been absurd but whose content was nonstop gore. Disney-owned studios brought us the Scream series, in which teen characters crack jokes while stabbing and shooting their friends. Fox-owned studios recently produced the extremely graphic remake of The Hills Have Eyes, which depicts multiple beheadings and throat cutting. All these movies got the big-studio green light. But don't you dare film a pack of Marlboros!
The reason to worry about depicting smoking in cinema is that viewers are impressionable and might imitate what's on the screen. If you watch a Star Wars flick, it does not make you decide to jump into hyperspace because you can't. But if you see smoking glamorized in the movies, you can decide to buy a pack of cigarettes -- and if you see the killing of screaming young women glamorized in the movies, you can decide to pick up a gun and start shooting your college classmates. Why does Hollywood make the connection regarding glorifying smoking but not the connection regarding violence? Among specialists, there is no controversy about whether watching violence causes violence. An overwhelming body of psychological data demonstrates that the more cinematic depictions of violence to which a child or teenager is exposed, the more likely the person is to commit violent acts in adulthood: The studies are summarized in this joint statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics and five other medical professional societies.
Today, big movie studios glamorize torture and murder as really super cool fun, then market such films to the young -- the worst possible combination of social irresponsibility. If the MPAA had any interest in making Hollywood accountable, it would rate all films depicting graphic personal violence as NC-17. That would be a fair compromise between safeguarding the moviemaker's prerogative to film and depict any kind of material for adults -- the First Amendment is absolute that adults should be able to watch whatever they please -- while protecting society from harm to the minds of the young. "Clearly, smoking is an increasingly unacceptable behavior in our society," the MPAA intoned in announcing its new ratings policy. But cutting girls' throats, shooting your classmates -- why should Hollywood have any problem with that? It's not unacceptable!
