Popularity: 1%

Why I don’t smoke…

Mpaa-anti-tobacco-rating-box

So yesterday, I read an article about how the is now going .

Are you fuckin’ kidding me?

Actually, I’m fuckin’ GLAD the MPAA is taking it upon themselves to become THE MOVIE POLICE albeit because of the myriad of organizations PUSHING them to do so…

Why?

Because this is the kinda SHIT that makes some of US go “Hmmmm.”

And why do we go, “Hmmmm” —? Because it’s this kind of big brother bullshit that gets others out there thinking they can do things better and I for one LOVE THAT KIND OF THINKING. That’s the kind of thinking that makes things HAPPEN and I like people that make things happen.

A quick perusal of the :

No Smoking

Parents Rate the Movies
The ratings are decided by a full-time Rating Board located in Los Angeles. There are 10-13 members of the Board who serve for periods of varying length. They work for the Classification and Rating Administration, which is funded by fees charged to producers/distributors for the rating of their films. The MPAA Chairman chooses the Chairman of the Rating Board, thereby insulating the Board from industry or other group pressure. No one in the movie industry has the authority or power to push the Board in any direction or otherwise influence it. One of the highest accolades to be conferred on the rating system is that from its birth in 1968 to this day, there has never been even the slightest jot of evidence that the rating system has deliberately fudged a decision or bowed to pressure. The Rating Board has always conducted itself at the highest level of integrity. That is a large, honorable, and valuable asset. There are no special qualifications for Board membership, except that the members must have a shared parenthood experience, must be possessed of an intelligent maturity, and most of all, have the capacity to put themselves in the role of most American parents so they can view a film and apply a rating that most parents would find suitable and helpful in aiding their decisions about their children and what movies they see.

Holy shit! 10 to 13 members??? I’m CONVINCED! Fuck you, MPAA — I’ll take care of my own children, thank you very much. Let’s take a look at the rest of the above paragraph shall we?

No Smoking

There are 10-13 members of the Board who serve for periods of varying length. They work for the Classification and Rating Administration, which is funded by fees charged to producers/distributors for the rating of their films. The MPAA Chairman chooses the Chairman of the Rating Board, thereby insulating the Board from industry or other group pressure.

Hmmm. Hard for me to believe that this new factor in rating movies didn’t come as a result from OTHER GROUP PRESSURE but who am I to argue with the MPAA? Fuck yeah… Whatever they want to do is okay with me because I only write and produce “R” rated movies anyway.

No Smoking

No one in the movie industry has the authority or power to push the Board in any direction or otherwise influence it.

Whew… You almost had me worried, MPAA. I guess you just pulled this new rating factor right out of your ass… I applaud you for your diligence in keeping the children of America safe from not smoking! I’m relieved to know that NOBODY IN THE INDUSTRY has the authority to push the RATING BOARD in any direction or otherwise influence it. I will sleep easy tonight (maybe tomorrow night) from knowing that.

No Smoking

One of the highest accolades to be conferred on the rating system is that from its birth in 1968 to this day, there has never been even the slightest jot of evidence that the rating system has deliberately fudged a decision or bowed to pressure.

Hmmm. So YOU say, MPAA. How about we start some kind of investigation into this statement? Why then, do YOU, MPAA seem to be so motherfucking inconsistent when it comes to giving some movies a particular rating over others?

I’ll tell you why…

Because nobody gives enough of a shit to do anything about it. Movie theaters have been brow-beaten into believing that unless a movie has a fucking rating administered by the MPAA, nobody’s gonna come spend their demographic ticket buying money…

BULLSHIT.

But that’s okay, MPAA… It’s exactly these kinds of fucking IDIOTIC MOVES that makes SOME OF US lurking in the shadows want to come out and eat you alive… i.e., start our own ratings system. It wouldn’t be that hard either… Besides, there’s always room for one more hat to be thrown into the fire, right? Look for it to happen within the next ten years…

From a :

No Smoking

“That means there’s not a great amount of films in the unrestricted category as it stands,” said Joan Graves, who heads the ratings board. “We’re not saying we’re ignoring the issue. We’re trying the best way possible according to what we’ve learned from parents to give them information about what’s in a film.”

I assume Ms. Graves is talking about the parents on the ratings board she heads, right? Sure… That HAS TO BE “THE PARENTS” SHE’S TALKING ABOUT because the MPAA certainly wouldn’t CAVE IN to other kind of “group pressure,” right?

It’s nice to know that the 10 to 13 members of the MPAA RATING BOARD don’t give in to OTHER GROUP PRESSURE… Whew! I count on them to keep my children from smoking… Oops. Shit. I really can’t say that since my children are no longer children… They’re all growed up now but one has been smoking since age 15… Yeah… The residual effects of a broken home don’tcha know. Where was the MPAA back then? Oh, that’s right… They didn’t give a shit about smoking back then… They only give a shit about it now. Cool. Well, if I have anymore children, it’s nice to know they’ll be protected. Whew.

More from the Boston.com article:

No Smoking

While Titus’ group wants tougher ratings restrictions, the MPAA released statements of support for its plan from John Seffrin, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society, U.S. Sen. Joe Biden and filmmaker Rob Reiner, among others.

Hmmm. According to the article, Titus is in fact, Kori Titus, spokeswoman for Breathe California. Never heard of it and I’m from California. Hell of an impact you’re having, Ms. Titus. LOL. But back to the above quote… What’s it mean? Does it mean that the MPAA supports some plan created by the American Cancer Society? U.S. Senator, Joe Biden? Filmmaker, Rob Reiner? I don’t get it… Support? I guess support isn’t the same thing as being influenced… Whew.

Okay… A quick click on over to Cancer.org but no front page story of the MPAA’s decision… Hmmm. A little deeper look into their archives brings up the following article:

No Smoking

“Most parents think of violence when they think of movies, but lots of other behaviors we would not want our children to take up are depicted in a glamorous context within movies,” said lead author James D. Sargent, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire.

No Smoking

Rate Movies R for Violence, Sexual Content, and Smoking

The link between kids watching smoking in movies and actually trying it is so strong, Sargent said, that he would one day like to see the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which rates movies, consider smoking just as they do strong language.

Sargent said he worries much more about a young child or adolescent seeing smokers than hearing actors swear. “That’s not going to make him die before he turns 60,” Sargent said.

Movie ratings don’t list “smoking,” nor do film critics. But Sargent and his co-authors found that R-rated movies were more likely to show smoking.

Did I mention that this article was written back on January 8, 2002? I can only imagine how just a little more digging on my part would bring up quite a few more similar articles but it’s certainly NICE TO KNOW that the MPAA doesn’t CAVE IN from this kind of PASSIVE INFLUENCE. LOL. It’s nice to know that the 10 to 13 members of the MPAA rating board GOT MY BACK… I mean YOUR CHILDREN’S BACK.

So what they’re really saying here is that it’s okay for Mom and Dad to smoke in front of their children but God forbid we show anyone smoking in a fuckin’ movie… LOL. What they’re really saying here is that CHILDREN are influenced MORE by MOVIES than by their own parents and peers… Whew. I’m glad that’s clear to me now because all this fucking time, I blamed parents for letting their kids smoke. Whew! I am once again, left OFF THE HOOK by such solid organizations as the MPAA and the American Cancer Society. I no longer have to blame my inadequacies as an estranged parent as the reason one of my children has been smoking for the last six years… Whew! I am really glad to finally know that my ex-wife, who gave my then 15 year old son his first cigarette and proceeded to share the experience with him by of course lighting up WITH HIM has absolutely NOTHING to do with my son smoking his ass off now.

Thanks MPAA! Thanks AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY! My conscious is clear now. Maybe I will sleep better TONIGHT!

So a couple of more clicks based on this story, and I end up here:

An interesting site to be sure… Spawned once again by ACADEMIA… LOL. You gotta love them ACADEMICS… I love how they watch out for US, keeping US safe from all the boogymen out there.

So I dig around a little more on the SMOKE FREE MOVIES site and guess what I find? A from the following state’s attorney generals:

Arkansas – California – Colorado – Connecticut – Hawaii – Illinois – Maine – Maryland – Massachusetts – Minnesota – Mississippi – Northern Mariana Islands – New Hampshire – New Jersey – New Mexico – New York – Ohio – Oklahoma – Oregon – Pennsylvania – Tennessee – Utah – Vermont – Washington – West Virginia

The letter (in PDF format) is dated: August 26, 2003 — Again, it’s nice to know that those 10 to 13 members of the MPAA RATING BOARD have STOOD STRONG and TALL and NOT BOWED TO PRESSURE.

No Smoking

One of the highest accolades to be conferred on the rating system is that from its birth in 1968 to this day, there has never been even the slightest jot of evidence that the rating system has deliberately fudged a decision or bowed to pressure.

I just wanna know one thing… Who conferred those ACCOLADES?

No Smoking

There are no special qualifications for Board membership, except that the members must have a shared parenthood experience, must be possessed of an intelligent maturity, and most of all, have the capacity to put themselves in the role of most American parents so they can view a film and apply a rating that most parents would find suitable and helpful in aiding their decisions about their children and what movies they see.

Whew… That just about says it all, doesn’t it?

Why don’t I smoke?

One day long, long ago, my brother and I were left at home by our parents and on this particular day, we found a half-empty (or half-full if you’re a smoker) pack of . Hmmm, we thought. Mom and Dad do it so it must be awesome, right?

Sure enough, said brother and I pulled out a couple of these non-filtered beauties and LIT THE FUCK UP. MMMM. Smooth. Just don’t fucking inhale… LOL. Did I mention that we were all of ages 11 and 12? So we huffed and we puffed and we inhaled. Fuck that. It sucked. We both thought so and we destroyed the evidence i.e., flushed the remains down the toilet. We were ever so careful to put the pack of Camels back where we got it but the one thing we just had no fucking clue about was that our Mom knew EXACTLY how many cigarettes were left in that pack. In fact, to this day, I think it was entrapment on her part… LOL.

She comes home, checks the pack — takes a whiff of me and my brother and commences to pull two more cigarettes out of the pack and hands us each a cigarette. My brother and I look at each other — knowing our Mom, we fuckin’ KNOW what’s about to happen…

No Smoking

You two like smoking so much, we can all three have a cigarette together…

Interesting concept since this is apparently how one of my sons started smoking… LOL. So my brother and I light up and we give it the old fake-smoking try… i.e., pull in some smoke and let it out… Hey, we’re smokin’! Unfortunately, Mom wasn’t buyin’ it.

No… She wanted us to experience the real pleasure of smoking so she made us inhale every bit of those cigarettes until nothing was left except the extra-small butt. LOL. This was the first and last time I had ever seen my brother turn GREEN and it wasn’t with envy…

Actually, I think my brother got the better deal… He went on to puke his guts out and seemed to feel a lot better after having done so. I on the other hand, suffered through the rest of the day feeling like SHIT. Not being able to sleep. Headaches. Woke up the next morning feeling dirty.

But neither one of us ever smoked again. EVER. And, we often talk about that particular day… Sometimes it’s with disdain for our Mom and sometimes it’s with praise. LOL. Was she right? I prefer to think that she was. It was a different time back then and a parent could get away with something like that. Try that today and your kid goes to school, tells his or her teacher, and that parent is going to jail.

Different times…

On the other hand, my 21 year old Son now smokes like a chimney and according to HIM, it’s because his Mom and his Grandma smoke and all his friends smoke and that alone was simply too much pressure on him so when that fateful day came when Mom pulled out one of her cigarettes and offered one to him, he took it.

The difference being that this time around, he was taught how to smoke properly… LOL. And shit… Now he’s a fuckin’ expert! Thanks Mom! Wow… And it’s close to being Mother’s Day!

Gonna have to get them both something nice… They both still smoke.

What’s this got to do with screenwriting?

GUESS.

Unk

Tags:




Friday: 11 May 2007|1709|Under Uncategorized

Print This Post Print This Post
 

Comments

32 Responses to “Why I don’t smoke…”

  1. Mike on Saturday: 12 May 2007|0459

    Jeeesh! What a can of worms. But why stop at smoking? Let’s rate movies ‘R’ if there’s:
    Drinking,
    Reckless driving,
    A character gets in a car and doesn’t BUCKLE UP,
    A charcter that wears animal fur,
    A joke or two that offends ANY group,

    Maybe I’m the kind of person that HATES SciFi flicks. Can I organize a bunch of like minded people and have ALL SciFi rated ‘R’?

    Will it ever end?
    Can’t we all just get along?

    Regards,
    Mike

  2. Joshua James on Saturday: 12 May 2007|0725

    I hate smoking as much, if not more, than anyone . . . I mean, I really fucking hate it - but this is such a bad idea, because it’s part of our fucking heritage . . . how can we do a movie set in the 40’s and not having smoking?

    Everyone smoked then! Because people were that stupid and tobacco companies told them it was actually GOOD for their circulation!

    It’s just fucking stupid . . . it’s like saying you can do a movie set in ancient Rome but if anyone wears a toga, you’re automatically an R rating . . . just fucking stupid.

    I hate smoking, but I hate this kind of censorship more.

    Aside from that, how the hell are ya, Unk?

  3. Moviequill on Saturday: 12 May 2007|0807

    oops, I better edit my 1960s era mafia script and have Tony Pallandino chewing a Wrigley’s Spearamint… and the plot about ripping off a truck of cigarette machines? well, I’ll just make it condoms (we can still fuck in movies right?)

  4. spatula on Saturday: 12 May 2007|0902

    I’m a smoker, and this makes me furious. I have a right to be stupid, and to display my stupidity in movies and screenplays for the world to see. But even aside from that, my characters are even stupider than me, and they all smoke too. They don’t wanna change, and fuck it, why should they?
    Don’t they know taboo is sexy? The more you fight against something, the more strength it gets. If they really don’t want kids seeing smoking in movies, we should be gouging their eyes out, or locking them in the basement!
    Why don’t we just sanitize all our characters in the movies, so they don’t have flaws, and are perfect examples of the great American dream?
    Honestly! McDonalds isn’t healthy- Ban the depiction of a cheeseburger while you’re at it!
    And from my understanding, America isn’t to hot on Cuba, so let’s ban them too!
    Such bullshit! Those 13 pricks.. didn’t that guy do a documentary where he tracked down the mysterious 10-13?

  5. emily blake on Saturday: 12 May 2007|1232

    I honestly don’t even look at what a movie’s rated when I go see it.

    In the classroom, however, it’s a different issue. We were just told last week that LAUSD has made a blanket order that we can no longer show R rated movies in the classroom, even with parental permission.

    So no Shakespeare in Love, American History X, Saving Private Ryan, The Joy Luck Club, Crash or anything else with too much sex or smoking. We can still read about it, we just can’t look at it.

  6. Unk on Saturday: 12 May 2007|1530

    Great comments all…

    I’ve read a lot more about this all over the web… What I was simply attempting to do in MY post was to point out that there MAY BE SOME REASONABLE DOUBT as to the MPAA GIVING IN TO PRESSURE. LOL.

    Some are yelling censorship and the MPAA is replying right back that this is not censorship… That ALL this is is a way for PARENTS to figure out what their children can and cannot see based on their ratings.

    No more - no less.

    However, I do see this as PASSIVE CENSORSHIP which to ME, clearly makes it fucking CENSORSHIP hiding behind the ruse of protecting our children.

    We continue to take the PARENTING away from PARENTS and apparently, PARENTS are fine with it. They LIKE being OFF THE HOOK and having someone to sue… LOL.

    But Mike, you are OH SO CORRECT… It’s just a matter of time till OTHER ORGANIZATIONS pressure the MPAA “WHICH CANNOT BE PRESSURED” into doing something similar with a fucking cheeseburger or some such bullshit.

    What’s amazing to me is that just about every “R” rated movie I ever go to anymore has way more underage kids in it (ages 13 to 16) than adults.

    At every theater I go to, I have inquired about this and I am constantly told that even though the rating system says that if the child is under age 17, they must be accompanied by a parent or guardian, they do in fact allow underage children into the film as long as SOMEONE age 17 or older buys them a ticket. They do not have to actually accompany them into the film.

    So what the fuck good is it then? It almost seems no different than hitting some poor schmuck up to buy you some beer… LOL. Except in this instance, apparently, nobody would even go to jail.

    Where will it STOP?

    That’s my point.

    And Josh… I’m good.

    Unk

  7. Laura Reyna on Saturday: 12 May 2007|1535

    I’m a social libertarian (i think everything should be decriminalized) but I also think it’s a good idea to label things so people know what they’re buying. Same goes for movies. I have nothing against a labeling or warning system of some kind.

    But the MPAA system has always been a little fucked up.
    1. it TELLS parents what is appropriate for a certain age group (instead of letting the parents decide what’s best for their kid), 2. the rating label is then used by others as the basis for de facto censorship (not showing or advertising NC-17 movies)
    3. the rating (& consequent censorship) is biased against sex & biased FOR violence.
    4. everything is done in secret, there is no accountablity for the idividual board members

    The system has been in need of a revamp for yrs. Hopefully now that Valenti is gone they’ll be some changes.

    Kirby Dick’s THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED covers this in an entertaining way. I recommend.

  8. Unk on Saturday: 12 May 2007|1553

    Laura,

    I right there with you. I have no problem with a RATING SYSTEM of some kind that is fair to all but time and time again, the MPAA has proven itself NOT to be fair.

    I happen to know about certain films where specific producers were brought on board JUST to assist with the eventual rating of that film.

    What’s that tell you?

    Unfortunately, nobody will spill the beans… Nobody has any balls anymore. Nobody will just say, FUCK YOU!

    Here’s some other interesting tidbits about this story…

    The MPAA has been under increasing fire to revamp its ratings criteria, particularly involving smoking. The San Francisco-based center Smoke Free Movies claims that movies are responsible for 5,000 smoking-related deaths a month that might have been prevented by an R rating. The group also says movies are responsible half of the 800,000 children a year who start smoking.

    Come on… Giving these movies an “R” might stop 5,000 deaths a month? WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU KIDDING?

    Unk

  9. Unk on Saturday: 12 May 2007|1606

    Ah… Things are becoming a little more clear now… LOL.

    Hot on the heels of Jack Valenti’s death, the MPAA caves into the PRESSURE they say they don’t cave in to whereas, apparently, Valenti himself was against the decision which makes it a little more clear now as to why this wasn’t implemented sooner:

    “It’s a big step forward on the issue generally,” Glantz said. He recalled sitting next to former MPAA chairman Jack Valenti at a hearing in 2004. Valenti, he said, refused to shake his hand, saying, “You’re trying to kill my industry.”

    And at the END of the same article:

    It could also help the adults who are trying to stay away from cigarettes. “There will be a kind of spillover education effect,” Glantz said.

    Anyone who has ever driven home too fast after seeing a James Bond film (guilty) or gone home hungry after a film featuring food (watch out for this week’s pie fantasy, “Waitress”) knows how influential, at least in the moment, a film can be.”

    Who the fuck does that? Methinks Glantz wishes he was 007…

    Unk

  10. Unk on Saturday: 12 May 2007|1611

    Cool… More proof that the MPAA doesn’t cave in to PRESSURE from ANYONE:

    MUMBAI: The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) have joined Hollywood Unfiltered, an entertainment industry-led initiative to raise awareness of the public health consequences of depicting smoking in movies and television.

    Hollywood Unfiltered is a voluntary effort aimed at educating members of the entertainment industry about how on-screen smoking impacts young people, while encouraging the industry to take action to reduce the glamorisation of smoking in their creative work.

    “When we look back 10 years from now, this will be a defining moment,” said Lisa Paulsen, who as president and CEO of the Entertainment Industry Foundation, spearheaded the creation of the coalition, which also includes Picture Quitting, an EIF smoking cessation clinical program created in partnership with the Motion Picture and Television Fund with support from the Motion Picture Industry Pension and Health Plan, the nation’s first industry-led comprehensive smoking cessation program.

    Unk

  11. Unk on Saturday: 12 May 2007|1620

    And last but NOT LEAST:

    But the ratings board would not say if tobacco use would be considered as seriously as sex, violence or drug use.

    ‘It’s an art, not a science,’ said board chairman Joan Graves, of the actual weight to be placed on smoking in assigning a rating. ‘It all depends on how impactful the smoking is.’

    Films are rated by a panel of about a dozen parents known as the Classification and Ratings Administration, which is overseen by the MPAA and the National Association of Theatre Owners.

    The National Association of Theatre Owners? Is that on the MPAA’s web site? The name of the organization throws me off a little because it SOUNDS like they are IN the INDUSTRY but that simply cannot be since the MPAA states on its web site that “The MPAA Chairman chooses the Chairman of the Rating Board, thereby insulating the Board from industry or other group pressure. No one in the movie industry has the authority or power to push the Board in any direction or otherwise influence it.”

    I want to CONFER MORE ACCOLADES!!!!!

    Unk

  12. suburban screenwriter on Saturday: 12 May 2007|2024

    At least you don’t have much to say about the subject Unk LOL…

  13. suburban screenwriter on Saturday: 12 May 2007|2033

    wanted to add but it sent my comment early damn laptop arrgh…I’ve never cared one iota about the rating system like I am going to make all my decisions based on movies… and once again just like our wonderful gov’t sticking their ugly nose up our asses trying to find the stink the MPAA thinks they can do some good…but they are thinking if the general public could think for themselves we would have to make up their minds for them..whatever I just go to movies cause I like ‘em NUFF SAID

  14. Unk on Saturday: 12 May 2007|2034

    SS,

    I hear ya… Can’t help it. Already received some email from some of the idiots MENTIONED trying to explain to me WHAT THEY ARE REALLY DOING!

    I don’t fucking care about that.

    What I care about is how the MPAA has always TOUTED that they are not influenced or pressured by anyone or any organization so that THEY… The SELF-APPOINTED FUCKING MOVIE POLICE can keep our kids safe from blah blah blah.

    Fuck that.

    I think there is enough speculation HERE alone to give one reasonable doubt that the MPAA is full of SHIT when it comes to their statement of not being influenced by GROUP PRESSURE.

    Mission accomplished.

    Unk

  15. Cate on Saturday: 12 May 2007|2112

    I found this entry & discussion particularly interesting. I’m not from the States, I’m Canadian and after reading this I am quite curious as to how we go about rating films (over here it’s much more slack - movies that are rated R in the States are usually only 14a here - in Quebec make that pg :-P).

  16. Poke on Saturday: 12 May 2007|2359

    As a child I saw an R rated film called “Porky’s.” It did not result in me ever having a sexual romp through adolescence. That is unless you consider a hand, some baby oil, an abundant sense of paranoia, and a worn VHS copy of “Porky’s” a sexual romp through adolescence.

    So as far as I’m concerned this whole “if kids see it, they’ll end up doing it” is false advertising. Can I sue the MPAA for my lack of rompiness?

    Poke

  17. suburban screenwriter on Sunday: 13 May 2007|0542

    Porkys was a rite of passages for young guys maybe a class action suit Poke LOL

  18. Joshua James on Sunday: 13 May 2007|0714

    Not to start a fight or anything, but . . . Social libertarian is an oxymoron, just like compassionate conservative, freezerburn, same difference, positively cynical or zero deficit . . .

    Okay, maybe I’m being a bit feisty . . . but all crime decriminalized? Hardly social.

  19. Joshua James on Sunday: 13 May 2007|0715

    But I’m with ya, Unk . . . fuck the MPAA . . .

    Jeff Lypsky, who co-founded October Films, used to have the license plates on his car personalized to read MPAA-NOT!

  20. Clive on Sunday: 13 May 2007|0738

    Hell, I love smoking — in fact, even though I touch type with all of the fingers of my left hand, my right hand still types as though I’ve got a Malboro stuffed between fore finger and 2nd (even though I haven’t smoked in the house for years). This is going back my old manual typewriter days.

    The truth is though, one of the reasons I smoke is because as a kid I grew up on old 1940’s movies and Humphrey Bogart was my hero, I really did absorb the idea that the sexist thing a guy could do was drink bourbon and smoke cigarettes. So I can kind of see where they’re coming from. On the other hand there is no way in the world that Hollywood is responsible what I did with that information, I am ultimately responsible.

    The truth is this rating change is following the trend rather than pushing it. The vast majority of Hollywood and TV heroes don’t smoke on screen these days. Smoking just isn’t seen as acceptable behaviour anymore, (damn it!) whether that’s a good thing or not I don’t know. This rating change is going to change very little, except in those cases where we as screenwriters decide a particular character should smoke and the producer decides that a 15 rating is more important than our desire to stay true to that particular character.

    Now, from a director’s POV, smoking scenes are a nightmare, simply because you’re constantly chasing continuity between shots with regards to the length of the cigarette, so from a pragmatic POV it’s actually better not to write smoking scenes.

    Personally, the screenplay I’m writing at the moment has a lot of characters who smoke and taking that away would have a major impact on integrity the screenplay. Now if this means getting an R rating, that’s not something I’m going to loose sleep about.

    I could write more about this, but heck, I’ve just remembered I’ve a half pack of Malboro’s and a pair of sunglasses in the car.

  21. Ann Wesley Hardin on Sunday: 13 May 2007|1009

    Maybe the MPAA ought to adopt a ratings system more similar to Samhain Publishing:

    Warning, this title contains the following: explicit sex, graphic language, mad seduction schemes, and the hard fall of a drop dead sexy hunk.

    Warning: This title contains the following: lots of explicit sex, going strong long after the cows come home, graphic language that’d make your mama blush, light bondage with bullropes, ménage a trois, and – yee-haw! – hot nekkid cowboy man-love.

    Oh, and smoking *gg*

  22. Laura Reyna on Sunday: 13 May 2007|1132

    Joshua James:
    “Not to start a fight or anything, but . . . Social libertarian is an oxymoron, just like compassionate conservative, freezerburn, same difference, positively cynical or zero deficit . . . ”

    Don’t want to start a fight, huh?

    Well you’ve just started one! Prepare to be torn a new one, buddy!

    LOL! kidding…

    I was referring to decriminalizing DRUGS, not ALL crimes. Unkie’s post was about cigerettes which are a highly addictive, potentially lethal, drug. That’s all.

    ———–

    Something else re: this subject…

    I’m not a smoker & i don’t particularly like people smoking around me. It’s vile & disgusting. But it’s not my body so if someone wants to risk their health in this particular way, that’s their business. Other people climb mountains & fall to their deaths.

    But every time people complain about the health/social Nazis cracking down on cig advertising & kids being influenced & whatnot, i can’t help but think that if cigerettes were to be invented today, they wouldn’t let them on the market. They would be classified as a cancer causing poison & kept out of the stores. The FDA would ban them b/c they’re so freaking addictive & poisonous.

    I just think it’s incredibly hypocritical that alcohol & cigerettes, 2 of the most harmful & addictive drugs on the planet are legal, while others aren’t.

    Sorry, just rambling… :-) Carry on.

  23. Joshua James on Sunday: 13 May 2007|1150

    I’m in favor of decriminalizing many of the drugs now against the law, primarily because having many of them against the law doesn’t effectively serve the public interest . . . but I don’t believe that’s necessarily makes one a libertarian . . . there’s a lot more involved in that particular groupthink . . .

    But when it comes to drugs, I’m all for Amsterdam . . .

  24. Ann Wesley Hardin on Sunday: 13 May 2007|1443

    I don’t believe all drugs should be legalized. Some are dangerous to not only the individual, but to society as well. But when it comes to sex, I’m all for Amsterdam *gg*.

    It’s ridiculous that a woman should be imprisoned for selling her body. It’s hers to do with as she wishes. The same for the men (or women) who want to pay for it.

    I will say this about drugs though, it’s utterly absurd and inhumane to not allow a dying person any and all substances they wish, for fear they’ll become addicted. I’d definitely like to see an end to that stupid policy.

  25. Unk on Sunday: 13 May 2007|1626

    Hmmm. Sundays are special aren’t they? LOL.

    Gotta tell ya…

    FUCK ALL THAT.

    I don’t give ONE SHIT about ANY OF THE SMOKING, THE “R” RATING, ETC. I think Laura’s correct… If cigarettes were invented TODAY, they’d probably be illegal and that in and of itself brings up something that Clive said that again, I just plain do not give a shit about but I will address it…

    Cigarettes WERE FUCKIN’ SEXY in Bogie’s day… Everyone smoked back then. In fact, in my travels, I fuckin’ MARVEL at the places I cruise through where it seems that people are not aware of the health risks (or more likely, they don’t give a shit), and smoke like chimneys… Cheyenne Wyoming for instance. The Village Inn there has an enclosed glass cage (small) for the non-smokers… LOL. Everybody else in the place… Even waitresses… SMOKE ‘EM IF THEY GOT ‘EM.

    What I refuse to fucking believe is that in THIS DAY AND AGE, we have that many children watching movies and deciding to fuckin’ smoke. Most of the kids I knew growing up that smoked had PROBLEMS. Lots and lots of problems. Not huge problems to ME, but they were certainly problems to THEM.

    Today, there’s just so much IN YOUR FACE talk and coverage of not smoking being the healthy way to go that I refuse to believe movies are the root of the cause.

    But again… I DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THAT.

    What I do give a shit about is a self-appointed organization that touts itself of being our children’s gatekeeper to health and saftey. What I do give a shit about is an organization that purports that it does not give in to pressure and those 10 to 13 people of mature intelligence with parenting background perform all the rating decisions on their own with absolutely ZERO outside influence.

    That infuriates me… The ratings mean NOTHING to me. Fuck ‘em. The organization behind the ratings is what’s got me pissed.

    Carry on… LOL. I like fighting.

    Unk

  26. Ann Wesley Hardin on Sunday: 13 May 2007|1709

    Unk, I’m there with ya, only I have a different take on it.

    An association that shall remain nameless, but goes by the initials R.W.A. (*gg*) would love to keep trashy hoes like me out of the romance biz altogether. God forbid women find out they should not only get, but LIKE, hot sex with their love relationships. We just can’t have that sort of sin going on in the world.

    But they can’t stop it.

    There’ll always be the small rabid groups trying to force their vision of life on others. Luckily, they’re almost always ignored by the majority of the thinking population.

    I say almost because, occasionally, they do amass significant, hurtful power. But really, it’s rare, and is a whole ‘nother post altogether.

    I say let ‘em put the warning on the movies if it makes them feel better and holier than thou. If that’s their definition of righting the wrongs in this world, let them continue on, happy in their pure, clean, transparent bubbles. The better to see them through.

    We wouldn’t want them working on the serious stuff, would we? Would you want to fight beside them and depend on them in the trenches? I know I wouldn’t.

    Let them have their fluffy causes. It keeps them out of our hair and away from important issues.

    One more thing though: Momma always told me no one looks under the bed unless they’ve been there. If these freaks think so many people are being influenced badly by movies, it’s because they themselves have.

    Personally, I know FAR more people who’ve been smart enough to be influenced by the GOOD movies. Myself included.

  27. MaryAn on Sunday: 13 May 2007|1811

    I don’t like fighting. Wait. Why is David Hasselhoff still on t.v.?

  28. Unk on Sunday: 13 May 2007|2333

    Ann,

    Again, I agree. Fuckin’ let’em do whatever they want. Who gives a shit? Apparently grammar school teachers don’t:

    Brokeback blowback

    Okay… Well at least ONE grammar school teacher… LOL.

    My point being that the MPAA does cave in to pressure. My point being that the MPAA is influenced by more than sex, violence, and smoking in films.

    MaryAn,

    David who?

    Unk

  29. Clive on Monday: 14 May 2007|0658

    I’ve got to agree with you about the difference you see when you travel.
    I go to Croatia a lot and they still smoke like there was no health risk at all, the same in France.
    I also agree that the it’s highly unlikely that kids are starting smoking these days because of what they see in the movies. But, I also believe that’s because Hollywood has already self-regulated in this matter. They don’t make movies where smoking is sexy anymore, instead they’ve taken your view that smoking is a signal of dysfunction. All in all that’s probably no bad thing.

    However, like you say, this isn’t really about smoking or even about ratings, it’s about whether the organisation that purports to act as the industry’s moral guardian is acting in people’s best interests or whether they’re just reacting to external pressure groups.

    Personally I’ve always felt that any group who lobby for specific forms of censorship in order to “protect the children” ultimately have a moral adgenda which has nothing at all to do with protecting children and everything to do with forcing their narrow moral worldview on other people.

    I don’t think anyone in their right mind would ever claim that smoking was a good idea — me included. I also think the issue here is more complicated than it appears to be. It all comes down to whether movies/music/computer games actually have a specific influence on behaviour and if they do, what other factors are involved.

    Personally I think even if I’d never seen Bogie light two cigarettes and pass one of them to Lauren Bacall I would still have ended up smoking. But, how will I ever know? All I can do is guess. It’s as subjective an opinion for me to believe I smoked because I had problems, as it is to believe Boggie is to blame, it coukd also be that I smoke because I’m genetically inclined to addictive behaviour - and at this point it’s academic why I started.

    The real problem I have with all of this, is I think behind anti-smoking, diet fads, food fads and a million other “health” related issues is a real attempt in contemporary culture to deny our own mortality. I really think people believe that if the eat right, exercise right, avoid any form of smoke, including passive and if they read enough self help books, then somehow they’ll not only be happy, they’ll also live forever.

  30. Unk on Monday: 14 May 2007|1632

    Clive,

    You mean we’re not going to live forever? LOL.

    Great comment. Seriously. It shoulda been a post it’s so good.

    Again, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

    Unk

  31. Poke on Monday: 14 May 2007|1839

    I’m still waiting on my sexual romp through adolescence, DAMMIT!

    On a serious note, I wonder if any of those kids that watched “Brokeback Mountain” in that classroom started smoking the bone.

    Poke

  32. Unk on Monday: 14 May 2007|1933

    Poke,

    Politically INCORRECT as usual…

    Cool.

    Unk

Leave a Reply