Smoking on screen: old habits die hard

"These days, when someone smokes in the movies, they're either a psychopath...or European."

~Nick Naylor in 'Thank you for smoking'

After spending the past three weeks writing, editing and handing in over 15,000 words for my dissertation and other essays, I can finally put all my efforts into watching the films I would like to watch. So, I've recently become addicted to the TV series Mad Men. Even though its blatant misogyny is somewhat dispiriting from a woman's point-of-view, I still wish that every morning I had enough time to look as good as its characters:

 The show is steeped in nostalgia from an era of beautiful dresses, with a sophisticated script and composed cinematography. Men appear at the top and woman were 'dazed and confused' individuals only capable of being secretaries or housewives (yet, the woman are not as brainless as they appear.) What shocked me most, and it really shouldn't have considering the decade, was the amount of cigarettes smoked in an episode. The characters smoke in the office, in meetings, in bars, in restaurants, on planes, on trains, at home and while pregnant- 'its mandatory' says Peggy (Elisabeth Olsen) when lighting up in season one. They are not real cigarettes, but as one critic has said; "if anyone can make a cancer stick sexy, it's Jon Hamm, aka Don Draper." Mad Men mainly stays out of the firing line as it is categorised as a period drama but is it as acceptable to smoke as much in dramas set in modern times, like Gossip Girl etc? The issue of cigarettes in film and television is a subplot that arises in Jason Reitman's Thank you for smoking (2005). Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) is a lobbyist for a Tobacco company, promoting and arguing for cigarettes. The film adopts a humorous and witty take on the delicate issue of the use of cigarettes on screen and the effect seeing smoking has on the general public.

Nick Naylor has the job of keeping people 'alive and smoking' as he travels around the country representing cigarettes. The film is made up of a series of events that happen rather than a circular (beginning-middle-tie up all loose ends) plot; and the ending is hazy, but a positive one. At one point in the film Naylor is sent to Hollywood to try and persuade Hollywood executives to use more cigarettes in their films and in turn "put the sex back into cigarettes." Any viewer going in to see the film may ask why on earth would anyone choose to be a lobbyist for a Tobacco company? is it for money? Interestingly Naylor used to smoke himself but he backs up his career choice by simply stating that he is good at arguing and debating (a skill he tries to teach his 12 yr old son played by Cameron Bright).

One of the best scenes in the film is when Naylor is in hospital after being kidnapped and attacked with Nicotine patches. The doctor tells him :"no non-smoker could of survived the amount of nicotine in your bloodstream... cigarettes saved your life." This brought me back to the doctor in the Camel adverts that stated "more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette." Genius. A more sinister scene in the film is Naylor's mission to pay-off the original Marlboro man who is dying of lung cancer- the use of the Marlboro man in Philip Morris's campaign was the most effective advertising tool. At first glance the film appears to be about cigarettes, especially as the opening credits resemble cigarette packaging with Tex Williams famous tune 'smoke! smoke! smoke that cigarette,' but as this film develops the viewer discovers the film is not really about the issue of smoking at all- but the power of argument and how the public get fooled by all kinds of advertising (cigarettes included). But why do people get so offended by seeing smoking on the silver screen? and what do cigarettes add to a character?

Bette Davis with her signature cigarette and a bottle of whisky

Bette Davis' popular film 'Now, Voyager' (1942) can be seen as a cigarette film (see the final scene 'Don't let's ask for the moon'). Critics state that the film uses cigarettes instead of sex. Sex along with inducing sophistication and pleasure are what cigarettes add to the screen. The cigarette elongates the hand and makes doing absolutely nothing look compelling. In addition others claim that a cigarette titillates the lips- also increasing their sex appeal. Most importantly however; "movies create the expectation that smoking will turn out okay"- as figures such as Audrey Hepburn with her cigarette in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' (1961)  become eternalized, the health issues connected to smoking become eradicated and the film is described as 'Classy'. The cigarette (especially in the films of the 1940s) represents a 'Torch of Freedom', for women and men alike. They represented reality. In today's society people do not smoke as much and so it is considered unnecessary to add a cigarette as a prop on screen. In early cinema women did not smoke- if they lit a cigarette on screen the viewer automatically associated her with being a prostitute or another degrading character. Similarly, in modern cinema the women (and to some extent, the men) who smoke are usually corrupt, unattractive individuals. Or when one character lights up, another character feels the need to list all the health issues connected to the smoking stick and question why the other feels the need to smoke.

Suddenly the issue of lighting up in a film becomes increasingly difficult. The sex appeal of smoking is being slowly removed from modern films- someone said they were put off Keira Knightly as she smokes in several of her films (eg. 'Domino' (2005) and  'Last Night' (2010)). Period dramas, as already seen with 'Mad men' seem to get away with smoking as the industry cannot 'airbrush' historical reality.  The biggest issue today is whether or not seeing celebrities smoke on screen will influence the younger generation to start smoking.  In 2007, this issue caused the Motion Picture Association of America to take into consideration the amount of smoking in a particular film and give them a higher rating. However smoking can be seen everywhere, not just in the cinema, but on modern TV shows such as 'Jersey Shore' and 'Skins' and also in many video games. In which case, should the UK go as far as the Thai government and pixelate cigarettes on screens? I think the waving around of a pixelated cigarette is even more distracting than seeing the actual cigarette and thus it would bring more attention to the action (plus it costs a lot of money): so I think not. On top of this, there has been a lot of smoking in cartoons throughout the years- especially loved Disney classics, thus should all the cigarettes be deleted from these films as well? In my opinion, leave them be. The more fuss made, the more attention drawn to this 'problem'- just as long as no more adverts like one below are made, then cigarettes should take a back seat in children's minds:

 
Today, 'smokers in rich countries rely on films to portray their habit as somewhat more normal and prevalent than it actually is in the real world' (The Economist, 2011). In some ways seeing other people smoking does increase the normality of the cigarette in a world that marginalises smokers and throws them out of pubs, restaurants and offices and into the streets- but if we go on this mirror system of 'monkey see, monkey do' then wouldn't more members of the public drink excessively, drive fast cars, and overdose on drugs every time they watched a particular film, turned on the television, flicked through a magazine, or played a video game? What would James Bond do without his fast cars? And if his character continues to drive recklessly then should higher ratings be introduced on the Bond series due to his complete disregard for the speed limit? The more pressure people put on the removal of cigarettes the more they become seen as inaccessible and 'lawless' and in the end, wouldn't that make cigarettes all the more tempting to the younger generation that protesters are so anxious to protect?