Hollywood Reporter: The Motion Picture Association of America and the National Association of Theatre Owners have come out victorious in a lawsuit that insisted that tobacco imagery in films rated G, PG or PG-13 causes 200,000 children every year to become cigarette smokers and 64,000 people to die as a result. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed an attempt led by a California father of two to hold major film studios and theater owners legally responsible.
7 comments:
I find this rather ridiculous, bumping a PG-13 movie up to R because it contains smoking is all around ridiculous. An R movie is restricted because it contains content not safe for children, thing they may not see every day like sex or language not used in their environment. Smoking is something kids see on a daily basis, out side a mall or even inside their own home. To the extent they may or may not understand it's dangers but it is socially acceptable to smoke in a child's vision so why is it not acceptable to smoke in a cartoon. Watching Crewella with her pipe didn't make me want to smoke anymore than seeing an aunt or an uncle smoke. Smoking can be a huge character trait or an indication of evil, its essentially a key characteristic to be utalized in making a movie. Kids movies these days are so bubble-wrapped and kushy is a cigarette, a piece of reality, really so bad?
I’m genuinely surprised that this became a court case. Though glorifying smokings and other “socially unacceptable” activities does make kids more inclined to try them, I didn’t think that someone would go through legal channels. That being said, I think the idea of the ratings being options is extremely interesting. If the ratings are a value system, parents can assume that based on the rating, their child should see the movie, without evaluating the movie first. Then, the parent can get mad about the movie after the fact. However, if the ratings are opinions, then the parent has to have a proactive approach. Instead of getting mad after the fact, the parent will look at the movie with a closer lense before the child sees it. I hope that this pushes parents to pay more attention to what they are showing their kids. However, I think that the best option would be for the parents to evaluate the movie, decided to show their kids, and have a conversation outlining what they found “wrong” about the movie. This method would allow the children to create their own informed opinions about the world so they can grow up to be informed adults.
To be honest, I’m not surprised by this ruling. I definitely see the concern of the accusers, especially if there is evidence of the influence movies have on the younger generations. So having a good (or at least moderate) example being set for a younger audience is not so crazy for people to want, in specifics to the tobacco imagery. But at the same time, I feel like a large portion of that influence could be canceled out by parent’s guidance/how a parent chooses to expose their kids/how a parent chooses to discourage or educate their child about tobacco. Trying a smoke or two won’t hurt a person, it is a perpetual action and lack of full understanding which causes problems with health and other things later in life. I’m not saying it is completely out of the studio’s hands, but there is a level of responsibility a parent to watch their kid to make sure they don’t start bad behaviors and if they do help them through it, so it doesn’t go to the point of death. It is not as simple as black and white.
I remember commenting on an article about this court case when it first was brought up, and I'm really happy that it was dismissed. The judge was completely right in saying that the MPAA's ratings are just opinions, and not explicitly saying that children should watch these films. I think that the plaintiff in this case is also over-estimating the effect that these films have. When I was a kid I watched movies Pinocchio, Dumbo, and Peter Pan than all contained smoking and it they did not make me want to smoke. In fact, with the amount of anti-smoking advertising and education I was exposed to made me view it as something that I really should do. If someone's child is going to pick up smoking purely because they noticed it in a PG-13 movie then there is problem there that's larger than a movie. Instead of focusing on entertainment more attention and funding should be given to anti-smoking programs that will actually make a difference.
What a stupid lawsuit. Choosing to smoke cigarettes is just natural selection and if you can display the ads on billboards on the side of the road where anyone can see them then there is nothing wrong with displaying the content in movies. Sure, it's bad, but parents have the responsibility to teach their children and communicate that idea to their kids and it isn't an artist's fault if they best represent the art with realistic aspects, such as smoking. I can't imagine what goes through someone's head to make them want to file a lawsuit like this. "Oh you showed 24 seconds of a realistic scene with an Indian smoking a pipe and my kid will then choose to smoke and die as a result so screw you!!" Seriously?? Obviously this was thrown out as it's just more super sensitives complaining about something else that they feel entitled to restrict. Yawn.
I agree with john, this is a very silly argument. Smoking has appeared on screen since the advent of the motion picture. That we are making an argument against it now in 2016 seems a little silly to me. If you don't want your kids to be exposed to smoking then you might as well keep them inside for their entire lives. I think whats more important, is that you use these type of themes as teaching moments. If youre a parent and have issues with what is being presented to your children. COMMENT ON IT. Do not just allow your kids to do their own research. Have open discussions.
I don't see the merit in changing a film's rating due to smoking at all. Smoking happens in the real world, there's no need to hide it or make it a mystery to children. Instead, we should inform them of it, show them what it is, and then as adults, teach them that it is not healthy or cool. If we only ever let children see things that are strictly healthy and allowed, they will be in for quite the shock when they grow up. I personally do not ever believe that coddling people and keeping them from the truth is helpful, and I don't really believe that movies having tobacco in them creates 200,000 new smokers every year. How did they even get that statistic? People are going to do whatever they want. It's up to those who know better to make it clear what the risks are and let people make decisions for themselves on whether they are going to do it or not.
Post a Comment