I read in the news that the new president of the Motion Picture Association of America, Dan Glickman, is considering giving movies an "R" rating if they portray cigarette use. There has been a call for this for some time from anti-smoking groups and others who claim smoking in movies contributes to kids picking up the habit. To read the rest of the article, click here.
At first I wasn't that sure about it: It seemed a little too cautious. But then I thought more about it...
PG-13 movies are viewed more and make more money than R-rated movies in theaters. It's in cigarette companies' best interest to hook smokers young (1/3 of smokers had their first cigarette before the age of 14). Even though it's against the Federal Trade Commission for cigarette companies to pay for movie advertising, it's suspected that they continue doing so. (Read here, here, or here).
I discussed the issue with a friend and he didn't like the idea because he doesn't agree with government censorship. The thing is, the MPAA is a non-profit organization--not the government--and it doesn't actually censor. Producers aren't forced to have their film rated through the MPAA. They choose to because they worship the almighty dollar and if a movie is Non-rated it won't be picked up by theaters. Even if it's R-rated it will lose money, unless it's a blockbuster. That's why producers often push the envelope of an R-rating but will cut out just enough language, violence, and sexuality to garner a PG-13 rating.
When it comes down to it, the MPAA has every right to deem what standards it requires from a movie to "award" a certain rating. And it has the responsibility to decide what is appropriate for people of different ages. If the MPAA decides to ban cigarettes from PG-13 movies they have every right to. And if this cuts down on the 
proportion of smokers in the US, then they've accomplished something.
8 years ago
4 comments:
I agree that it's not censorship--I don't have a whole lot of respect for the "artistic integrity" of Hollywood movies; as you say, too many movies cut material just to garner a PG-13 rating to make me think they're doing it for art's sake.
At the same time, the automatic R for smoking strikes me as silly, arbitrary, and reactionary.
"Movies featuring smoking should get an automatic R!"
"What if they feature a historical figure who was known to smoke?"
"Um .. that's all right, I guess. Also, if the movie has smokers die some sort of horrible, violent death as a direct result of their smoking, that's okay, too."
Any time a proposed rule has to be couched with silly exceptions, I have to wonder about the worth of the rule in the first place. What happens when a scenario isn't covered by the "allowed" exceptions to the no-smoking rule? What about drinking? Should that get automatic R ratings, too? Why not?
People want to place the burden of parenting on movies and television.
Yeah, I agree it’s somewhat drastic. My compromise would be to put it on the rating label: e.g. the following movie is rated PG-13 for disturbing thematic elements, violence, mild language, alcohol and tobacco use. I’d be fine with that--at least we’re pointing out that it’s a negative influence. And, hopefully, it would give parents who care what their children watch a quick reference point. And maybe it would have a formative effect on the kids who go to movies all the time and see alcohol/tobacco labeled “bad” by the MPAA banner. Kind of the same thing as slapping a Surgeon General’s warning on a cigarette pack when you know the only person reading it is already a smoker, 99% of the time. I think it has a subliminal effect.
I dig your idea. I thought the image at the top of your blog was simply amusing and apropos, but it makes sense; concerned parents can use the extra information. Good thinking--hopefully the folks running the show have the same idea.
I concur.
Post a Comment