Friday, January 22, 2010
E-Cigarettes
Props: "In most venues by now, real cigarette smoking is viewed as the next plague. The fear is that lighting a single cigarette for a few seconds in a large, well-ventilated theater, is worse than the constant outpouring of pollution from 250 million cars, 600 coal power plants, and every other industrial process. But I digress."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
There were cigarettes introduced that created a puff of smoke using water vapor, of which the actor would inhale and then exhale, giving the appearance that it was a real cigarette. However the problem that was found with these cigarettes was that the actors were inhaling water vapor, and could theoretically drown themselves. As long as there are cigarettes, real or not, if they involve the actor inhaling something into her or her lungs, they will most likely eventually be banned.
I have heard about these cigarettes before. My friend, who has been trying to quit smoking, is using one to little by little lessen his addiction to nicotine. In fact, it had been recommended to him by a college counselor. It seems ridiculous that these products have gone untested when this a legal drug is involved. People assume that since we have such a safe country compared with most, that we can have blind faith in companies. This should not be the case apparently. What a shame that such a useful prop cannot be used because of the possiblity of faulty testing.
The issue with using the e-cigarettes as a prop is not necessarily the health issue for the actor (before cities banned indoor smoking, they smoked onstage all the time). The biggest issue is the expense. While large commercial productions would be able to afford lots and lots of e-cigarettes for a long run, they are also often the companies that get a 'waiver' on the smoking ban. An e-cigarette starter kit is about $90, and many smaller show budgets can't handle buying kits so several actors can be smoking onstage. It's unfortunate that the packaging hasn't been labeled properly, but if you're going to quit smoking, just quit. Inhaling nicotine-impregnated water vapor may not be as bad for you as smoking, but Monona would still NOT approve.
Having discussed this issue with John Ward, I think it is evident for theaters to follow suit as movies and CMU do and just essentially ban cigarettes. Get rid of them onstage, and/or rather write them out of a script. Unless they are essentially needed for a performance, reason or cause they arent necessary onstage. Some directors may argue it gives the actors something to do. If a director cant think of another action for the actors to do then they need to work on their directing skills. E-cigarettes are not the answer. They are dangerous, unregulated and need to be monitored, discontinued and unused.
I honestly don't think the appearance of smoke coming out of a cigarette really matters in a theatrical performance. I do think in some plays, the action of seeing someone smoke a cigarette makes plenty of sense and it really does define the character to the audience. If I were seeing a 50's cop drama I would feel weird if there was no cop with a cigarette.
Honestly, there's a difference between film and stage. That's obvious. We know the play is a play, and I really don't think in a play it matters if the cigarette actually has smoke. Its a minor detail I think most audiences could relate to the fact that what they are seeing is a play - therefore accurate realism isn't necessary. I don't think cigarettes should be cut out of plays, nor do i think these real/or electronic cigarettes are necessary on stage. I feel a prop cigarette works just fine.
I agree with Mary on this one... I don't think it is necessary for cigarettes to be written out of a script. If they are in the script, they are most likely there for a reason. The audience does not need to see real smoke coming out of the prop... I think everyone would rather see an actor pretending to smoke with a prop cigarette than endanger themselves by using these misrepresented e-cigarettes with unknown health hazards.
It seems rather odd that the FDA is not all over this and just trying to get it banned or actually testing it to see if it is safe. Having in this half state, where is is legal but unregulated, doesn't seem safe to me. As the article mentioned they have mislabeled some ingredients, so who knows what else is mislabeled?
As for stage worthiness, I have to agree with Chapel that these e-cigarettes are too expensive for small shows. Since we can't have real smoking on stage, why not just remove the cigarettes altogether? It may not make a lot of sense for the character at first, but that is why we have dramaturgs!
It's a shame that most products that resemble cigarettes and that are able to produce the same effect by an actor inhaling and exhaling some substance will most likely be banned. I completely understand the potential health risks, but it's unfortunate that the ability to create the effect of someone smoking onstage is now becoming so complicated and difficult to achieve. There are several different pieces of theatre that require smoking as a significant element for a character, and these will be much more difficult to do without that element being slightly destroyed. I hope that a safe, and realistic-appearing solution can be discovered to this problem in the future.
Like all new tech, the E-Cigarette seem to come with a lot of unknowns that many people are probably going to make a really big deal over in the time before real testing is done. The one really interesting point the article brings up is the overdose aspect that could be caused from an E-Cigarette. The last thing that people need is an actor on stage going into nicotine induced shock, but the fact that the "nicotine free" cartridges may actually include nicotine is the confusing part. I get that this gadget wasn't developed with the intent of prop usage, but the idea that something labeled nicotine free actually contain nicotine is just ridiculous. That's like advertising caffeine free tea that may actually contain enough caffeine to cause an overdose if you're already on a certain level of caffeine.
While I do believe that smoking is a harmful habit as well as being a fire hazard, there is no way that cigarettes can be completely written out of scripts. Since the invention of cigarettes, their use has been associated with certain types of people. For example, there is no way you could have a Film Noir Femme Fatale character not smoking a cigarette in the shadows. There is simply certain association with cigarettes that cannot be discounted when portraying them onstage.
On the other side, since the implementation of smoking bans in theatres, audiences have become much more accepting of theatrical smoking conventions. A character can hold a cigarette, put it up to their mouth, inhale, then exhale, and the fact that the cigarette is not lit will not matter to a large portion of the audience.
I think that it should just be an actors choice whether or not they are willing to smoke. I think that e-cigarettes seem like a really good way to deal with smoking on stage, since actual cigarettes are I'm sure much more harmful than e-cigs. I definitely agree with mrstein that an audience can just see an actor with a cigarette and get the idea though. Most people are pretty understanding that this is theatre and not the real world. About the fire hazard issue, there are so many other things we use in theatre that are way bigger fire hazards than smoking a cigarette, I think this is just another excuse that people are giving so that cigarettes are banned on stage.
I actually completely agree with the ban on real cigarettes in theaters. Actors or audience members with asthma might be sensitive enough that even being in a large, well ventilated room, that much cigarette smoke could be enough to send them to the hospital. That being said, I think the e-cigarettes don't sound like a great alternative, at least so far. As exposure to propylene glycol is increasing, it is become a more and more common allergen. Even aside from that, I don't understand why these companies include nicotine in their fake cigarettes. Say an actor on a long-run broadway show is smoking one of these e-cigs every night for a few years, the potential to still get addicted to cigarettes exists. Not to mention something the article completely glossed over--one of the kinds of e-cigarettes the FDA tested had ANTIFREEZE in it! Antifreeze is a toxic, lethal chemical when ingested--I can't imagine that inhaling it would be much better. Giving the actors something that is potentially lethal is just not okay on any level.
I think one of the biggest issue when considering using e-cigarettes in a production as opposed to real ones is the price. It costs significantly more to buy e-cigarettes than it would for a normal pack of actual cigarettes. I am of the opinion that most people who disapprove of smoking in a production are over-reacting. If a person is so deeply offended or feels that they cannot handle being in a room where there is smoking, even if that room does happen to be large or well-ventilated, it could just be that this is not a show for them. This seems like something that can be handled with warnings, such as shows that use a lot of fog or flashing lights.
Post a Comment