Movies heavily shape teen smoking, study shows

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Nearly 40 percent of U.S. adolescents who give cigarette smoking a try do so because they saw it in movies, a study said on Monday.
The study, described as the first national look at the influence of movie smoking on youths, urged Hollywood to cut back on depictions of smoking or shots of cigarette brands.
The industry also should consider adding a mention of smoking to movie rating data that now mention explicit sex, violence and profanity, it said.

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-11-07T103608Z_01_DIT720638_RTRUKOC_0_US-SMOKING.xml

but i oppose censorship...so it really is up to the parents and then bottom line up to the kids themselves to decide whether or not to smoke...hopefully they will make an informed and level headed decision not to smoke.

:eyes:


You know, maybe Hollywood should also make sure anyone who rides a bike in a movie wears a helmet.

Oh, and they should all wear seat belts.

Oh, and they shouldn't kill anyone, cause that's wrong too, even if it does make for a good plot...

Hmmm.. violence in movies is wrong. Amazing how quickly one can go from this ostensibly left-wing position (anti-smoking) to an ostensibly right-wing one (violent, oversexed Hollywood).

Let's start with Good Night and Good Luck!

To represent all the smoke staining that must have been at CBS...
How did those people back then keep their ciggys lit while they took a shower?

Keeps them squares a sizzlin'

Too often lately, the central players smoke, even when it seems in direct contrast to their character. It looks like a direct effort by the tobacco companies, in concert with the movie makers, to portray smoking as something cool.

I noticed this beginning about 3 years ago or so, and it really irks me. They never show the downside of smoking, such as others' reaction to the smell, the mess, ashes that burn clothes, people coughing, stained fingers, etc.

if you compare modern movies with the classics, you'll see FAR less smoking. Compare any movie from today with, say, Casablanca.

Also remember back then, smoking was not known to be dangerous. I found old magazines from that time and was amazed at the advertisements for smoking as something "refreshing" to your health.

There was a long gap where main characters in movies did not smoke very much. Then it seemed like the trend went in the opposite direction, and the main character was shown as a smoker. I think that probably 90 percent of the movies I've seen lately have featured a deliberate focus on a character smoking.

I wouldn't go so far as to eliminate smoking from movies, or to issue a warning about it, but it would be nice if at the end of the movie, they had a credit to the tobacco company which paid for the inclusion of smoking.

Same goes for other products. I saw the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, and the Neutrogena sunscreen product was prominently displayed, thrown into a suitcase haphazardly and the camera zeroed in on it for a second too long. What was particularly egregious about this scene was that the character was very precise and methodical in her actions. She just wouldn't be the type to toss such a product into the center of her open suitcase :)

I wonder if there is a list anywhere which identifies movies where the main characters smoke, and also to identify which products are featured in which movies. It's, like, I pay to see a movie, not to have not-so-subliminal messages constantly displayed.

it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Movies make millions upon millions of dollars with this stuff. It's quickly becoming a pretty sizable share of a movie's gross (Premiere magazine had a story on it a few months ago).

As for them not knowing smoking was bad back then, they knew it, they just didn't want to admit it.

For all the "refreshing" claims in magazine ads, there's plenty of other sources. I recall one Sherlock Holmes story (remember, these were written back in the 1890s) in which Dr. Watson refers to Holmes as a "self-poisoner" with tobacco.

Even with many magazines, half of the paper is wasted on advertising. Very annoying. It's a major reason I've stopped buying magazines, especially since so much info is available online, too.

I was referring to the general public not knowing. Or maybe they did know, but I can't address that because I wasn't around then. I do remember an aunt being the only one in my father's family who smoked and no one ever said anything about it being bad for her.

I didn't read Sherlock Holmes but it's interesting that such an awareness was stifled.

Starting in the 80s there was a move to NOT show smoking in films. This continued through the mid-90s. Now it seems that smoking is shown when appropriate to the characters and/or setting. For instance, if you read The Wheelman's mini-review of Clooney's new film (Good Night and Good Luck) at my site (http://www.neuralgourmet.com/node/450) he mentions the degree to which everyone smoked in that era. It's appropriate in that instance. Roughly 25% of the population smokes. At what point do you sacrifice artistic fidelity to political correctness?

However, I haven't seen very many films made in the last few years so I can't say whether or not smoking is shown inappropriately.

The brazillionish majority of smokers start when they're basically kids, so this is not a good thing. I quit ten years ago, and know what a hold those suckers get on you once you start sucking 'em down....

The last one I saw was Melinda Melinda. The main character smoked, a lot. But it was in keeping with her character. What was interesting was that she was visiting friends who lived in a very pristine house. No one said, "Please don't smoke in here, could you step outside and smoke."

Maybe there is a list that identifies which movies show more or less prominent smoking.

Are you a smoker? Maybe smokers are less likely to notice this. I don't smoke, nor do my friends. I just think if they're going to push cigarette smoking, the name of the tobacco company should be identified in the products. If kids are beginning to smoke based on what they see in the movies, let them be aware of the manipulation.

Something just occurred to me. Perhaps movies geared to a younger audience show smoking moreso than those geared to an older audience.

that you began to notice it 3 years ago, and that it happens too often lately. I figured you'd be able to reel off a good number of movies, and I would be interested to know that there really is this definite trend. I'm not saying there isn't, but concrete examples would be persuasive.

http://www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/problem/now_showing.html

I can't cut and paste, but it shows the list of top DVD rentals for the week ending October 23. 7 out of 10 movies have the icon for "Promotes smoking."

I agree with the premise that era movies would certainly tend to have more smoking. For example, The Interpreter was set at a time when smoking was more common; thus, it's no surprise to see the protagonist smoking in that film.

Gotta get back to work. :hi:

...is any depiction of tobacco use that is not inherently negative or showing of the consequences.

I don't think they defined "promotes." It is an interesting site, includes quotes from tobacco companies and much more as a basis for their claims.

Who knows why, really, people smoke, or why some people start smoking when they're young and then stop and others keep smoking. It's a mystery to me. I just have contempt for blatant product promotion, whether it's considered beneficial or harmful. My remark about Neutrogena, I use that product and think it's great, but it still irritated me to see it displayed in such a conspicuous brand-awareness position.

This is their bit under R ratings for any smoking in movies.

"The only exceptions should be when the presentation of tobacco clearly and unambiguously reflects the dangers and consequences of tobacco use or is necessary to represent the smoking of a real historical figure."

B certainly makes sense but A is a bit pruritanical isn't it? And fits with what I stated in relation to what is considered promotion of smoking.

and the ones you noticed in the last 3 years whose central characters smoked. The ones in your personal experience that irked you & moved you to post. You're the one who brought up these movies. Which ones are they?

much less in the last 3 years. I notice trends, as it begins to dawn on me that something is happening in an industry. The specifics of which, I cannot relate.

I can't do any more homework on this thread.

was it? You've since said you don't see many movies, and that you don't remember the ones you do see. You sounded very authoritative at the beginning, very sure about movies where the central characters smoke, and how they never show the downsides. I figured you were a movie maven, and would be able to inform me. But you, who boast about personally noticing trends, can't remember actual specifics. You remind me of people who crusade to ban a book because they are very sure it is bad although they have never actually read it.

Granted, you could claim that showing certain kinds of characters as smoking was realistic. But what's definitely "not" realistic is that nobody ever objects to it. Nobody says, "If you're going to do that, please take it outside." Nobody says, "I think you're cute, but I just can't kiss someone who tastes like an ashtray."

There definitely was a period when smoking had almost disappeared from movies, but since the 90's it's come back in a big way. Not only are smokers glamorized and the downside of smoking never shown, but the world is depicted as totally smoking-friendly. And that's just plain warped.

Should the downside of any societal problem be shown in its entirety because its referenced?

After all these studies referenced by others seem to prove the teeange mind as pliable enough to accept just about anything.

Did we need to see Kelly Leak with emphezema and Buttermaker with scirossis?

I'm sorry, could you explain that? What are the characteristics that might determine whether someone is a smoker or not?

From my experience, people who are mellow and laid back tend not to smoke. Very active athletic people tend not to smoke. People who are fussy about their clothes and surroundings, where they want everything neat and precise, tend not to smoke.

This is just in my observations. I'm not saying that people who smoke are nervous, lazy or messy. Okay?

My main problem with featuring smoking in movies is that I do believe it has increased solely because of contributions from the tobacco companies in their effort to get more people to begin smoking. Smoking is not good for anyone's health.

Now I've got to go to work. :hi:

My friends say I am the most laid back person they've ever met and I smoke like a chimney!

BTW, I took some time to look up, briefly, the rate of smoking in movies. I found this interesting site and it includes backup data.

http://www.tobaccofreeadirondacks.org/asp_movies.asp

Smoking in films is inconsistent with real smoking rates…

* Although actual smoking rates are nearly half what they were 50 years ago, the number if incidences per hour of smoking in movies in 2002 exceeded the number of incidences per hour in films from 1950; and
* Although adult smoking rates have been steady or declining since the 80s, smoking in movies is more than twice as common now as it was during its all-time minimum between 1980 and 1982.

* Research shows that adolescents are aware of the high prevalence of smoking in films; and that this perception of high smoking rates on screen leads to perceptions of high smoking rates in real-life, leading to exaggerated ideas of the numbers of peers and adults that smoke."


As for the psychology of smoking/smokers, there are plenty of sites which explore that phenomenon. I really don't notice a difference in movies portraying certain socioeconomic classes as being more prone to smoking, but according to this site they do indicate that youth are influenced by "celebrities" being shown as smoking. Interesting that it doesn't matter if the celeb smokes in real life or not, because the influence stems from what is being shown on the screen.

From your descriptions, I can think of many people who go either way, many examples.

I know neat freaks who smoke, and who don't. Likewise, for slobs.

As others have pointed out, right now there is probably less smoking in the movies than ever. If it seems to go against "type," I think that might be partly because movies, especially Hollywood movies, almost never show you people who look like real people anymore, who live in ordinary homes. You almost never see movies anymore that feature characters from working-class, or lower-middle class.

and directors like the visual interest of smoke playing against light.

there is no huge conspiracy, just lazy filmmaking shortcuts.

that the reason I started smoking was because both of my Parents smoked when I was growing up. I didnt see anything wrong with it. Nothing bothers me more then when people begin blaming art for society's downfall. Video games, movie violence, rap lyrics, and smoking in films are all overrated when it comes to effecting youth. Parenting should be/will be/is the most important factor.

To say that art does not have an effect is ignoring part of the equation.

Kids start smoking for a lot of reasons. I'd agree that kids who live in households with smokers probably have a higher chance of becoming smokers (I'm sure there are studies), but peer pressure has been linked to teen smoking. Teens want to fit in and if their cast of friends are smokers, then they are likely to try it and start smoking. Part of fitting in for teens is looking at popular culture and mirroring what they see. Whether it be advertisements, movies, or music, kids will tend to emulate what they think is socially acceptable. So, add parents smoking, peers smoking, and favorite popular stars smoking, and you get a kid who will probably smoke. If parents don't smoke and peers don't, I'd wager that the effect of popular culture is minimized.

...just wanted to make sure everyone had their own ox!

on screen smoking.

1) the tobacco companies are paying the studios for product placement so somebody has to be using the product.
2) it's become, since smoking is know to be so bad for you, a kind of lazy shorthand for "this character is edgy and cool. He/she is a rebel badass who doesn't care what the square world thinks" and so on. It's lazy writing but since studios don't want to waste time on character development when they can have some explosions what can you expect?

many times they'll pay to have the main character of the movie smoke just to try and appeal to young movie goes that smoking is somehow glamourous.

I see no problem with banning cigerette smoke from movies or at least put into consideration into the ratings.

The last movie I remeber making a big deal about the brand was Pulp Fiction with the ficticious brand "Red Apples"

"I see no problem with banning cigerette smoke from movies or at least put into consideration into the ratings."

Let's add drug use, sex, fatty foods, etc. If the occasional smoking in movies causes kids to pick up that disgusting habit, what will happen next?

Think of the children!

For sure... Big Tobacco watches each other's back.... kind of like the "Thin Smoky Line." Just getting cigs shown/mentioned is enough.

And even without the brand name on the product many times the pack of smokes has the design of the brand.

You watch a movie and see such popular stars as Cameron Diaz or Matt Damon (these are just examples) puffing away on a smoke, young kids pick that up and think "Well <insert name here> smokes so I guess that's cool to do"

All I'm saying is there is no reason for most movie characters to be smoking in the film. There is overwhelming proof of the affects of smoking on the body (and please, don't insult me by arguing otherwise - I've watched close family members die of lung cancer).

"You watch a movie and see such popular stars as Cameron Diaz or Matt Damon (these are just examples) puffing away on a smoke, young kids pick that up and think "Well <insert name here> smokes so I guess that's cool to do"

This reminds me of statements of the WOD about "popularizing" drug use. The failure to show consequences etc. If an artist decides his character smokes, so be it. Consideirng many of the films where smoking is decryed are of the edgier type, you have a harder time making the case that they are corporate shills.

"There is overwhelming proof of the affects of smoking on the body (and please, don't insult me by arguing otherwise - I've watched close family members die of lung cancer"

Never assume you're the only one to face such tragedy, it's been 5 years now since I lost my grandfather and my uncle was diagnosed one year ago. But its does not somehow grant us moral authority to dictate what is acceptable behavior in a fictionalized environment. Otherwise we are saying those fundies who say teen sex comedies encourage such are correct.

I think in the bulk of most movies you'll find that the smoking serves no purpose other than commericial placement for the Tobacco Industry. They don't need a name on the brand just the association that a famous person is smoking.

For most movie there is no justification - so get rid of it

....that I do not seek justification for from the artist.

Why is smoking supposed to serve a purpose other than reflecting what is a "reality"?

Warmonger, controls much of TV and media, and is the world's biggest owner of tobacco stock.

Every time a teen or anyone else buys cigarettes you are putting money into his crooked pockets.

Are you sure you want to smoke???

Big tobacco overwhelmingly donates to republican candidates. Surely no one here wants to support them

And when people get sick from smoking, they go broke because of the lack of medical insurance coverage.

People die while the wealthy elitists rub their sinful hands in glee. Damn them all.

It is hard to believe that anyone is stupid enough to ever start smoking. However, it is also hard to believe that anyone would be stupid enough to drive a hummer or vote for bush either.

Should all be banned in movies for the same reason.

I'm all in favor of preventing teen smoking, but quite frankly in many movies smoking(along with other perceived sins) is integral to the plot or character development.

buying into these studies of media causing bad habits encourages censorship.

It's a lazy shorthand to show how edgy a character is - After Pulp Fiction it was if there was a cloud of smoke in the movies again.

And I can't remember too many times in movies when smoking has been presented as a negative character trait - there was the movie Constantine where the main character was dying of lung cancer. He would cough blood but he kept on smoking (granted in the film it was too late for quiting to do any good) when he smoked it was out comes the zippo and the classic film noir ignite. It still looked cool.

Drugs and drinking have been seen as both negative and positive in movies. it's another cliche for the hero when something goes wrong say in a romantic comedy for him to get really really drunk. And the comic pot head saying "dude" all the time and having trouble thinking (another cliche) is hardly a positive image.

Having quit smoking (an experience I never want to go through again - I wouldn't wish the first 72 hours on my worst enemy) I find the continued use of smoking in movies as a sign of glamor or toughness troubling. All the more so since in general it's done out of laziness these days.

Think Pesci in JFK, how would his character so aptly played out the kind of stress he was under, smacking chewing gum?

Or what about portryaing pure evil? Many many characters have used smoking to get the point across.

And how many volitile fluids have been blown up with a cigarette. What are you going to do if no characters smoke?

Sorry, but I think that the element of smoking is still a valid one that drives plot and characters. Besides, I have a huge aversion to censorship in any form, and when you boil it all down, that is what this effort is, an attempt at censorship.

I personally could do without looking at another person smoking ever again (in real life or on the screen) and think that we should do whatever we can to stop the young from starting to smoke - it's those that start at a young age that have the hardest time quitting.

HOWEVER...

Where are the parents?? Why doesn't anyone ever ask that question? What happened to parental interaction? Punishment for bad behavior? Being grounded for misbehaving? Boundaries and rules that are enforced? I see so many people I know who don't want to be bothered to ground their kids because then they'd have to stay home too. It's just easier to give in. They don't want to hassle with a fight. I'm sorry, but if you don't want that responsibility then you have no right having children in the first place.

Bad influences are all around us - they see people smoking, for example, in the movies, on tv, in the mall and at school (and I'm talking about the teachers, not the students). But if parents just took a few minutes to discuss the ramifications of actions and show that you have to pay the price for what you do, then a lot less kids would start smoking, do drugs, drop out of school....you can apply this logic to a lot of issues.

Well, and the stellar example set by my smoking mother. Luckily, I was able to get out in time to save my lungs. The kids starting now, now that cigarettes have been made so much more addictive? Will have a much harder time.

said movies were a factor in their smoking.

According to the article, the researchers

1) Gathered 6,522 kids, ages 10 to 14.

2) Showed them a list of 50 hit movies from a 3-year period (1998-2000).

3) Had the kids say which movies they had seen.

4) Decided that of the 10% of the kids in the study who had tried smoking, it was because they had seen movies where characters smoked.


I wonder what other factors were "considered", and how much "consideration" they got.



THE REPORT says that nearly 40% of adolescents who give smoking a try do so because they saw it in the movies. What did the kids say?
Why doesn't the report include data such as a percentage of kids who actually SAY that they thought smoking was cool because of certain movies or characters they saw? Or those that tried their first cigarette directly because of a movie?

My take on this report is that the researchers (who had a predetermined result in mind) used sketchy, circumstantial evidence to reach a conclusion that is not necessarily supported by fact.
Then this article trumpets that "conclusion" as THE fact pertaining to the entire United States population of underage smokers!

I'm not in favor kids smoking, but I don't give this particular "study" much weight.

I quit smoking last year. I smoked for 37 years. I started because in 1967 I was the only kid in my neighborhood that didn't smoke and I felt like odd man out, plus my mom smoked.

But MOVIES???

Give me a break.

What a scenario.
"Hey Johnnie, wanna go to the movies today?"
"Sure Billie, but my mom said we can't see anything where the actors smoke."
"No biggie, we can see "Death Watch"(fake), they don't smoke in that movie, but boy do they blow shit up."
"Cool, let me ask mom."
"Hey Billie, she said I can go."
"Great, there's this one scene where an RPG rips a guy's head right off, it shows the blood spouting and everything........"