|
 |
next page... |
 |
|---|
FLIP breaks its own rule with this article, not written by an animation industry professional, because the subject is highly relevant to the industry today. Dr. Barry is no stranger to animation. Being a personal friend, he has met many animation industry professionals, and is well aware of how we work. He presents some interesting medical perspective to chew on, or to put in your pipe and smoke. In July 2007, the Walt Disney Company pledged to ban smoking in its future family films, including its animated features. This policy shift came shortly after the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) agreed to consider smoking , especially under-age smoking, as it issues film ratings in the future. Both of these moves came in response to pressure by advocacy groups (such as Smoke Free Movies) to have the MPAA issue mandatory R ratings to films that include any scenes of smoking. You may ask yourself: why all the fuss? And as fans of animation, you may also ask yourself: Is Cruella DeVille at risk of losing here trademark cigarette holder? Will Peter Pan no longer pass the peace pipe to Wendy and John? Some historical perspective might explain the importance of onscreen smoking. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports over 400,000 tobacco related deaths each year. In order to remain profitable, the Tobacco Industry must replace those dead smokers, and the most vulnerable group is children between 12 and 17 years of age; in fact 1.3 million children in that age range start smoking each year, which represents 88% of new smokers. This makes children the targets of the predatory marketing practices of the tobacco industry. This has not changed for decades. Previously, Big Tobacco aired television commercials during family-friendly shows, many of which featured the cast . When television advertising was banned in the early 1970's, the marketing machine turned to magazine and billboard ads featuring cartoon characters such as Joe Camel. This created such an enormous uproar that the Tobacco Industry bowed to pressure and signed an agreement in 1998 in which they agreed to several restrictions on marketing their products to children. Since that time, they have used every loophole in that agreement to continue to persuade children to try tobacco products. The marketing money has not dried up; in fact, all 11 billion dollars of Big Tobacco's marketing budget is simply being spent differently.
The first is a large increase in the amount of Point-of-Purchase advertising in stores where tobacco products are sold. This is not limited to signage; many products are sold at discount prices (such as But 1, Get 1 Free packaging) to make smoking more affordable to teenagers. Finally, in the years following the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, there has been an alarming increase in the amount of smoking in G Rated, PG Rated, and PG-13 Rated films. A thorough review of the literature published in the journal Pediatrics in 2005 noted the following disturbing trends:
|
Is the Tobacco Industry paying for product placement in movies? Certainly. You can bet that money has changed hands when an identifiable brand appears in a scene. However, the money trail is less clear when trying to establish why there has been such a dramatic increase in smoking behavior in films over the last 15 years... especially after a steady, four-decade decline.
We also asked: Where do you see most adults smoke? This seemed to highlight an interesting disconnect between the small percentage of students who recalled on-screen smoking, and other published data reporting that a large percentage of teen smokers cite on-screen smoking as the primary reason they lit their first cigarette. This disconnect suggests smoking in films and on television function as subliminal messages - that smoking is a cool, harmless, and normal adult behavior. It is cool to smoke because young, handsome actors and beautiful actresses are shown smoking. It is harmless because films rarely show the harmful effects of long-term tobacco use. And, most importantly, it is must be normal because adults do NOT talk about it! In May 2007, as a result of the growing evidence that on-screen smoking persuades teenagers to start using tobacco, the MPAA agreed to "consider smoking as a factor... in the rating of films", refusing to issue automatic R Ratings. Parents cringe when an actor uses foul language, or flashes a breast. In fact, many parents use the existing MPAA ratings system to avoid these uncomfortable moments. Yet, the character of Wolverine can light up a cigar (as he has done in all three X-Men films) with little, if any, parental discussion as to the dangers of smoking. These are odd priorities, given that the CDC consistently reports over 400,000 tobacco-related deaths each year while reporting, as a result of nudity or foul language, zero deaths. We cannot, and should not, turn a blind-eye to the depiction of tobacco use in films. As parents, our silence speaks volumes. Kids take their cues from their parents. When Gepetto lights up his pipe to smoke in bed, and we let it pass, our kids will simply assume it must be okay. We cannot say to ourselves, "What's the fuss? It's just smoking!" It is not "just smoking" - tobacco use is the single biggest public health problem in the United States. Parents need to treat it with the seriousness it deserves. Instead of pressing for mandatory R ratings, our group has decided to try a different approach. We have created a school outreach program called SmokeScreeners. The program has two components. The first component is a classroom presentation that discusses the importance of tobacco prevention, including materials on the health consequences of tobacco use, and the hidden, subliminal impact that onscreen smoking has on early youth tobacco use. The second component is to provide children and families the materials to review movies on their own for smoking content, and to submit their reviews to a large internet database. This component is critical, because it is proactive; it gives children and adults the tools to make them aware of the amount of smoking that takes place in movies, and it stimulates discussion among family members regarding on-screen smoking. For more information on exactly how this program works, visit www.smokescreeners.org. The impact of on-screen smoking on the initiation of youth tobacco use seems to be the result of a few distinct problems: It may be very difficult to convince the MPAA to issue a mandatory R rating to films that show scenes of smoking. R ratings cost the film industry too much box office revenue. To a certain degree, they have a point - it is up to parents to discuss any and all relevant topics with their children that might come up as a result of viewing films and television shows. Smokescreeners thinks that there is a better solution. We hope to change the attitudes of parents and educators regarding on-screen smoking. We hope to prove that the discussion of this topic among adults and children will change the perception that smoking is cool, harmless, and normal. We also hope that our expanding database of film reviews gives interested parents an alternate rating system that focuses on the amount of on-screen smoking in individual films and television shows. The MPAA, with its current vague system, has demanded nothing less.
If you're a long time smokers who would like to quit once and for all, Quit Doc may be your best bet. Seriously.
|
FLIP: Are you suggesting that the tobacco companies have somehow colluded with animation studios to undermine the youth of America? Dr. Barry: Of course not. The issue of product placement is a problem in live action films and television shows. The unique issue in animation is that tobacco smoke, as with any otherwise inanimate object, can take on a life of its own. It may be the smoke-ring blown by a character in Pinocchio that is subsequently dunked in a beer and eaten, the smoke-letters blown by the caterpillar in "Alice in Wonderland", or the smoke-triangle blown by Peter Pan. This is not exactly a Marlboro ad, but it sure does look cool!
FLIP: I watched Popeye as a kid and never wanted to smoke a pipe OR eat spinach. Don't kids know the difference between a cartoon prop and the real nasty thing that Uncle Cletis smokes? Dr. Barry: I certainly believe that kids can make this distinction. For example, kids do not walk around dropping anvils on their peers as a result of watching Road Runner cartoons. The subtle issue with tobacco use is that animators frequently include pipes or cigars as props, and use the emanating smoke as a sight gag, without ever showing the harmful effects of tobacco use. Kids inherently know how much damage can be caused by a heavy metal object dropped from a cliff, even if they have never seen a real anvil. However, they may not understand the full health consequences of using tobacco over many years, whether it is Popeye or their Uncle Cletis they see smoking. It is clearly the job of parents, educators, and health care professionals - not animators - to explain those health consequences. However, the more normal the use of tobacco appears to be in films, the harder that job is for parents. FLIP: More often than not in animated films, if a character smokes it is the villain. Does this not send the message to kids that only bad people smoke? Isn't this a more potent message than omitting smoking altogether and pretending it doesn't exist? Dr. Barry: First, let me say that it is not always the villian that is seen smoking. For example, everyone cites Cruella De Ville from 101 Dalmations, and her hideous trail of green smoke. However, Roger smokes much more frequently in that film than does Cruella De Ville. In fact, he smokes a pipe in virtually every scene in which he appears, and his smoke is white and puffy, not nearly as nasty as Cruella's cigarette smoke. In fact, if you view the clip reel that I compiled entitled Walt's Ashes (column one) , you will see that protagonists actually smoke more frequently than villains. Again, I do not advocate the elimination of smoking from movies, especially old films. I don't think you can airbrush the problem away. Just be aware that tobacco use is a drug addiction with horrible health consequences. So is heroin use, with the subtle distinction that 93% fewer people die each year as a result of heroin than as a result of tobacco. Maybe that is because we do not treat heroin use as "normal". If Cruella De Ville stuck a needle in her arm to get high, we would certainly talk about that with our kids. Tobacco, however, gets a pass that it does not deserve, even though it is equally addictive as heroin. FLIP: For an animator, a cigarette, pipe, or cigar is a prop - and there's lots of fun graphics to explore with the smoke. Kids see smokers in the real world, are animators supposed to be the PC police? Dr. Barry: You said it best... there are lots of fun graphics to explore with smoke! Yet that "fun" image of the caterpillar blowing so much smoke at Alice that she coughs up a smoke ring does not explain the 50 cancer-causing agents in that passive smoke, or the increase in asthma, sinusitis, bronchitis, and pneumonia in the children of smokers. Consider the impact, and maybe it won't be as fun.
How Kools are made. Cool! Dr.Barry: When Peter Pan was produced, the United States wasn't on the best of terms with Native Americans. Yet, who among us doesn't cringe during "What Makes a Red Man Red"? Haven't we all discussed racial issues with our children as a result? Would you include that sequence if you were making that film today? Similarly, when Pinocchio was produced, no one truly understood the health problems associated with tobacco use. But consider the current shelf life of a typical movie then and now. Those fleeting images of Lampwick and Pinocchio smoking on Pleasure Island, seen one time in a theater in 1940, are burned into the brains of children today with repeated viewing on DVD, frequently without adult supervision. Have we all discussed the dangers of smoking as a result of Pinocchio's smoking? Not Likely. Are we better off because the scene was included? Not likely. Would we include that sequence if we were remaking the film? Probably. Yet scientific data suggests that such scenes have an impact on youth tobacco use. Animators are among the most creative filmmakers and storytellers. When telling those stories, you should use every tool at your disposal. If tobacco use by one of your characters is the only way to advance that story, then by all means use it. My guess is that the most creative filmmakers will find a better way to deliver the same message. c.2008 Moore Studios, Inc |
