With Arms Outstretched

What's next, Dunkin Donuts?

Read this in the NYTimes today and it just irked me.

Puffing Away That PG Rating

Ok, so they want to cut smoking out of the movies. Who “they” is I am not sure, even after several mentions of the different organizations that are anti-smokes, I couldn't figure it out. But whoever it is, they seem to have more clout with the MPAA than I feel comfortable with. I feel like Dr. Parton when I think that it all comes down to what media and art should do: should it show life as it is or life as we wish it to be?

I tend to fall on the “life as it is” side of things, even though “realistic” representations are often quite fanciful and whether one can truly portray life true to form is always debatable. If art is to always have a moral attached to it and serve a practical function in reinforcing good habits while showing the adverse effects of bad ones, then it is no longer what I would consider art. What we have here is in its mild form is a PSA and at it’s most extreme propaganda.

And just for arguments sake, let’s consider further how “they” wish to put smoking into the same box as sex and violence and why this is not appropriate. It is one thing for conservative focus on the family types to lump all things bad in one pile just because they consider it bad for children, but do they even begin to think about the things they censor and wish to eradicate? Violence has clear legal consequences, is harmful to all involved, and in many cases is outright against the law. Sex, however, falls on both sides, depending on the act and the age, but there’s no distinction when it comes to what’s okay in a PG13 film. These types aren’t just against sex with children or sex with animals, they’re not okay with sex in general, even the loving, monogamous, heterosexual kind of sex they are presumably find acceptable in life. Now, I’m not saying that 13 year olds should be able to see all the sex they want, though I don’t think it would be the end of world if they did, I’m just pointing out that when you don’t have a clear distinction between sexual acts that are illegal and possibly dangerous or harmful to the individuals involved and sexual acts that are legal and a positive expression for both parties, you are sending an incorrect message that all sex is overwhelmingly negative.

So where do cigarettes fall into this? There are clear laws about smoking and I don’t know of a single person who doesn’t know that smoking is both bad for your health and addictive. Yes, it would be unfortunate for a teen movie to have the beautiful, popular people smoking and looking sexy while doing it because it may make some stupid twelve year old think for five seconds, “wow, that looks cool.” But what about the real sexy people on the street with cigarettes, is someone going to start making them smoke only in “adult areas” for fear they may seduce a child into a harmful habit? Or rather, what about all of the gross people on the street smoking (sorry smoker friends out there), I think they are often enough of a PSA without even trying. And let’s not forget the group who loves to evade responsibility the most, parents! They can cut out all of the cigarettes and even digitally remove them from all of the classics, but if mom and/or dad smokes a pack a day, is it really going to help?

And to connect it with the sex and violence world of no-no’s, even as I hate to pair them together, if they were “pervasive” in a film the way smoking is “pervasive,” then is this really reflective of life? Let me try to make this clearer. People don’t walk down the street and witness couples going at it on every street corner, nor do the majority of people witness violent crime outside in their day to day routine, but cigarettes are everywhere. Violent films are given ratings and descriptions to ensure that it is understood that the viewer is about to enter an alternate universe where people are shot around every corner. And I do believe that films with pervasive sex are put on the top shelf for the same reasons. But cigarettes? It’s like asking filmmakers to stop allowing characters to drink sodas or eat anything unhealthy. It’s also like asking filmmakers to make their streets like the streets in the film Pleasantville where everyone is dressed perfectly, smiles and greets one another, never utters a curse word, always waits at the crosswalk, and every driver is a safe driver who obeys all traffic laws. Cigarettes are a part of public life and public life should not be subject to the same scrutiny as private matters and illegal activities. And now I’m having flashbacks of Dr. Frank’s com law class, good times.

In short, I’m pissed. I hate how our country assails art to conform to its ridiculous conservative “family values” bullshit agenda. I guess I could have saved all the time and energy and just said that, but it helps to get it all out sometimes.



But on another note, I won't lie, I've gotten into Boston Legal on ABC. I figured out its appeal last night: it's the closest thing to real life south park. They take on the most controversial subjects and no one is safe from ridicule, and through this they refuse to come down on life in black and white terms. They realize that issues are complex and answers aren't easy to come by, and most importantly they realize that both sides are wrong, often at the same time. Here's my fave quote from last night. James Spader's character is commenting on another lawyer after he brings up Vietnam in court:

"We like to ignore past mistakes in this country, it makes it easier to repeat them."

So true, so true....

posted by Alison @ 4:43 PM