In what can only be called a symbolic gesture in this day and age, Walt Disney Pictures has issued a ban on any onscreen images of smoking in its films. Considering that the bulk of this studio's output is such G-rated fare as Ratatouille, I don't think this will be very hard. (As for Disney's more "adult"-orientated films put out under their Touchstone and Miramax labels, smoking onscreen will be "strongly discouraged". Whatever.)But what does this mean for the images (created in a less "Oh, but we have to protect the children" time) from such classics as Pinocchio (lost boys puffing on stogies on Pleasure Island), The Three Caballeros (Jose Carioca and his ever-present cigar) and 101 Dalmatians (Cruella de Vil is never without her green smoke-spewing cigarette holder)? Disney already got the scissors out for the DVD release of the lesser-known Melody Time, snipping out every last trace of cowboy Pecos Bill's tobaccy habit. Will the same be done to forthcoming new DVD editions of Pinocchio and Dalmatians?
Well, it is doubtful that even Disney would go that far. For one thing, I cannot imagine the expense such self-censorship would entail, and the public outcry from animation purists and film historians would be deafening if these two certified masterpieces were tampered with in any way. Also, in both cases, smoking is shown as bad - Pinocchio turns green, Cruella is the villain. So I think it is safe to say that both films will be re-released unharmed - or at least with a "smoking is bad for you" disclaimer tacked on the beginning ... for now.
However, how much longer will it be until that isn't enough? In the excellent satire Thank You for Smoking, William H. Macy's senator announces a plan to edit out all images of smoking from old movies. He illustrates this by showing a photograph of Gary Cooper with a candy cane sticking out of his mouth in place of a cigarette. Sure, it is a ludicrous idea (if not down right impossible - watch any day of Turner Classic Movies and you will see that everyone in every old movie smoked - constantly), but there is a sense that it could happen - that is what makes the scene funny in the first place.
There are certainly dangers the Hollywood studios would face if they allow Washington to control too much of what you see. The MPAA has already hinted at automatically rating a movie an "R" if there was any smoking in it (can you imagine, an "R"-rated 101 Dalmatians), and studios in England have already instituted a ban on any smoking on its sound stages. Are such blanket policies really necessary? Or is this just more political conservatism run amuck?
You may ask, well, it is just smoking, that's bad for you, so they shouldn't show it any way, right? OK, fine, what about alcohol? Alcohol is bad for you, so no drinking onscreen. Guns? Guns kill people, so no guns either. Cars - cars cause accidents, no cars. Food! Someone can choke on a chicken bone and die, nobody can eat in a movie ever again ...!
Absurd, yes, but you can see how slippery the slope is; the politicians should do their jobs and leave the movie making to the moviemakers (free of any government-sanctioned restraints on content) and let parents give little Johnny the anti-smoking talk. After all, isn't the government busy enough without worrying if a cartoon character lights one up?
Which reminds me: Hey Cruella, got a match?
4 comments:
"[W]atch any day of Turner Classic
Movies and you will see that everyone
in every old movie smoked -
constantly".
Just means that much more time in the
ol' editing bay. The smokiness of the
scenes will, of course, be blamed on
the total lack of environmental
awareness in those days.
As for editing out guns: "_E.T._"
I might just be in the minority here by stating that I don't mind the ban on films that are marketed to directly children. These films tend not to be based firmly in reality, but in a kid-friendly fantasy (I believe the same should apply to drinking). Adult films (or those rated PG-13 or above, not marketed to children) that are steeped in reality, should portray life as it is.
I also don't believe in editing out smoking from older films, since it was a prominent "past-time" [can’t think of a better term] for so long. If the studios wish to add disclaimers for children who may or may not see these films, then so be it. (Again, for example, Casablanca is not a children’s film, and should not be seen by impressionable youth without some explanation as to the context / circumstances.)
Like much of the “won’t somebody think of the children” craziness, it takes education instead of censorship (and sheltering ) to deter youth from the “evils of film” (a quick explanation that the action in the new Die Hard or the events in Transformers are made up fantasy, and are not to be copied, should do it).
Edit: sorry for the long post.
I agree with Rachel - disallowing smoking in future children's movies is perfectly acceptable. I don't think they should (or will) edit the old movies, mainly for the fact that the original author was right - smoking was portrayed as evil or bad anyway.
Considering the world as a whole is grossly over-populated, and that we are fast running out of natural resources people should be allowed to smoke themselves to an early grave if they want to.
And what kind of insane logic dictates making a movie with smoking automatically R rated? That means only those over 17 can see the movie without an adult because people are smoking...I don't know about you, but I can't remember ever making it all the way from my house to the theater without seeing somebody along the way smoking
Post a Comment