Goebbels would be proud
Sunday, June 21, 2009 Further to my post about antismoking activists in Liverpool wanting to give films that feature people smoking an 18 certificate, I have just done an interview on the subject for Five Live's Weekend Breakfast.
Earlier, the programme had featured an interview with American antismoking activist Stanton Glantz (referred to as a "professor of medicine"). I shared my slot with Andy Hull of Smokefree Liverpool. Presenter Phil Williams said he had seen most of the current top 10 box office films and only one featured a character smoking. Ah, said Hull, you've got to look out for it and go through each film "frame by frame". Seriously.
Williams must have heard me snort with derision because he referred to me as sounding "exasperated".
I said the idea was laughable and that if Liverpool went ahead with this policy it would bring the city into disrepute. It is generally agreed, I said, that teenagers are primarily influenced to smoke by their peers and by members of their family, not by seeing people smoke on film.
Films, I added, should be able to portray the real world and in the real world a quarter of the adult population smoke. As long as it's not gratuitous I couldn't see the problem. This was taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I mentioned the 'C' word (censorship) and pointed out that according to the BBC website "films ... which show a 'clear and unambiguous portrayal of the dangers of smoking' would be exempt".
"Goebbels," I concluded, "would be proud."
(OMG, did I really say that? I'm beginning to sound like some of the people who comment on this blog!)
Simon Clark
See BBC report HERE. Note the reasonable comments from the British Board of Film Classification including: "We don't make [smoking] a classification issue unless a film is actively promoting smoking to young people - and we've never seen a film which does that."
Reader Comments (11)
Stanton Glantz said that children start smoking because parents smoke in cars with their children. So children don't see their parents smoking at home?
Andy Hull said 'you've got to look out for it and go through each film "frame by frame".
Watch out for these smoking scenes being shown on 'You've been framed'.
The Nazi analogy works Simon!!
Good for you, Simon and the reference is entirely appropriate so no need to feel embarrassed!
BBFC spokesperson said: "But of course if parents still feel very strongly they can always avoid seeing them,".
Hmmm. Personal responsibility ... now there's an interesting concept.
I'm beginning to sound like some of the people who comment on this blog!
You're just beginning to see these people for what they are.
The Nazi analogy works Simon!!
Please open your eyes. It's not an analogy. These people are Nazis. Their healthist credo is a Nazi credo. The smoking ban is a Nazi smoking ban. The science that underpins it is a Nazi pseudoscience. The anti-smoking propaganda is Nazi propaganda that tells big Nazi lies.
I said earlier that Stanton Glantz spoke about smoking in cars. He was actually referring to smoking in films.
Listen to Stanton. Andy and Simon on http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/b00817x5/Sunday/console/
1.54.44 mins in
I would like to take issue with the point you made Simon "It is generally agreed, I said, that teenagers are primarily influenced to smoke by their peers and by members of their family, not by seeing people smoke on film."
I agree that smoking in films does not encourage youngsters to start smoking. However, I also have to say that I do not believe that parents smoking infront of their children means that their children will automatically become smokers and this comment, I believe, has played into the hands of the antis as they can pick up on it and the next thing is they will be shouting about stopping smoking in all homes, with or without children, as children might visit or might be the next occupants, and the 'deadly toxins from cigarettes can cause great harm, long after the smoking event' apparently!
I would also point out that both my parents smoked as did both sets of grandparents; I smoke but my brother does not and never has. My daughter grew up with both her father and I smoking and many friends of ours too, but she does not smoke, and never has.
In fact, many children of my age, growing up in the 60's had parents and relatives who smoked, it was less normal to have parents/relatives who didn't in those days, but a good number of those children did not go on to smoke! In fact, by the time I had started, my mother had given up and 2 of my grandparents had died, although their deaths had nothing to do with smoking! The other 2 grandparents went on to live for many more years, with my grandfather being 95 when the NHS killed him off!
I would urge caution about saying these all encompassing statements that the antis can grab onto, especially when they come from you, or other people in the pro-smoking arena, as that in itself would add even more 'credence' to all the other lies they tell.
I dont know what Smokefree Liverpool are going on about when they talk about banning films with smokers, when we all know that they are now brainwashing schoolchildren to take mummy and daddy to task over their dirty smoking habits by ruining their children's health and making mummy and daddy feel guilty.
Unless of course Andy Hull and Stanton Glantz are not achieving their sales bonus' and their job is under threat, or they owe their think tanks for conjuring this one up and have to cover their outlay.
and this is the city that can't mention their connection with John Lennen enough. I can just see him now wandering around (his) airport looking for the smoking area. He would never believe it.
http://tinyurl.com/nvk8ys