Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Thespians tackling smoking ban
DenverPost.com: "The theater company, backed by two other troupes, is seeking an exemption for live performances, citing the First Amendment right to free expression, and what it terms vague wording in the new law. In the meantime, the suit will ask for an immediate injunction that would prevent law enforcement from issuing any fines for smoking during live performances until the matter is heard by a judge."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I wonder if a lawsuit will cost more than a fire marsahl and a pack of cigarettes...I mean, I know designers and actors feel like its important to the look of a play, but honestly, cancer is not worth it. I guess if I was a smoker, I would be up in arms as well...but a theater? I mean, it just seems like a waste of funds and energy fighting a state-wide ban. Why not spend that money on the season budget or paychecks?
While it is regrettable that these theatres are being asked to censor their art, and are in a sense being asked to be less than truthful to the playwright, it seems that if the audience can be asked to believe that they are watching a story unfold before them in the center of a country town, or in a bar, or somone else's living room, can't then they also be asked to believe that a fake cigarette is real? It's not the same effect, but for a world that is clearly fabricated, it should be close enough.
-Samantha Englender
This is a tricky area to focus on. Obviously the theatre wants to create the most realistic telling of a story. Is it tht more effective to have someone actually smoking on the stage? Obviously at CMU we have had several productions where a fake cigarette was lit and though many can obviously tell the difference, if a cigarette actually being smoked is an audience's biggest gripe, then the production mustbe a failure in itself.
This is an interesting issue to tackle. On the one hand, as a smoker, it is horrible to me to watch people "pretend" to smoke onstage. It really does throw me out of the world of the play, and screams "this is fake". At the same time, there are a number of people who have allergies that are aggrivated by smoke. In Miss Julie, for example, one of the actors who has to smoke has asthma, which brought up a number of concerns. There is always the issue of finding a balance on such issues. I think herbal or other non-tobacco smoking materials may provide a good alternative to regular cigarettes. Unfortunately there is a difference in the price tag, and that could be an issue for smaller theatre companies.
I wonder what Equity would have to say about this. I believe they have restrictions on what atmospheric effects can be used because they can effect an actor's health. What would they have to say about smoking? We all know it has been proven to be incredibly unhealthy, but still so many people in the industry smoke. I don't think limiting smoking actual cigarettes is out of line because smoke is an atmospheric also.
-Aaron Siebert
House of Blue Leaves was written that Artie smokes a cigarette when Bunny enters at the top of the play. Karen felt that a student actor smoking in a theatre in todays world takes the audience out of the play, along with dating the play to decades past where smoking was no so regulated.
And about Equity actors... I worked with equity actors this summer who had to smoke in Night of The Iguana. They got to pick out what brand they wanted. For one of the actors it was very difficult as she just recently gave up smoking. But she went through with it because it was helpful in establishing the mood of the scene.
This is definetely a case where the law should be read in spirit rather than letter. The smoking that is problematic to air quality and fire control in buildings is for personal gratification. The actor is smoking a limited amount of cigarettes over a limited time frame. While it violates the letter of the law I expect that the judge will uphold their right and duty to follow the script as the writer intended
-Branigan
It is also interesting because there are fake cigarettes on the market. And while they might not be effective in a very intimate theater, in a larger audience it would be perfectly valid to use a substitute.
Also, it seems that smoking is especially prevalent within the theatre industry so it could also be a reaction against a ban that could be against a lifestyle.
I don't think finances is the issue in this case (at least not for the theaters as they are being represented for free). If a director feels that smoking will improve a scene then they should be permitted to have it on stage. A house does have the responsibility to its audience to advertise if there is smoking or other substances that can affect the health or comfort of the audience. So if an audience member is extremely bothered by smoking they have the right to not attend. I think the exemption should be granted for artistic purposes. Actors generally accept that when they audition for a show that has smoking parts they may get one. It is their responsibility to list on their resume or voice in advance if they are unable to smoke or cannot be in the presence of smoking. - Maddie Regan
I recieved an email last semester about smoking in the studios as well as smoking onstage. I can understand about not smoking in the studios because of the enclosed enviroment, but I think if a show calls for smoking, then there should be smoking. The interesting thing about this email was it said this "there will be no more smoking in CMU productions either; you are actors, that's what you do, act." I thought that this was extremely selfish in the sense that if it is written into the play by the author, or if the director wants the look of a lit cigarette onstage, then he/she should get that. Actors are there to act, yes, but they are also there to be true to the work.
Post a Comment