Up Front: No Smoke
177 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
I think the problem (that is to say, I made this mistake) is confusing `morally acceptable to show' and `morally acceptable to show at a given time'.
Two and a Half Men plays alcoholism for laughs at 7:30. Why are realistic portrayals of smoking relatively unacceptable at that time?
Is it reasonable to portray that rape (even disapprovingly) and expect to show at 7.30 on a Saturday?
Rape is a violent crime perpetrated against another. I don't think it's very comparable to smoking. If you want an analogy perhaps suicide would be better. Do you think it's morally unacceptable to show suicide at 7:30?
-
Even suicide is a bit over the top as an analogy, it seems to me. Showing somebody having a cigarette is really much closer to showing somebody having a glass of wine.
-
@Emma - baking bread? You, madam, are a goddess.
-
You, madam, are a goddess.
Pff, it's a necessity, you can't buy bread. And at least we have the power to cook it. We have been so, so lucky. It's still hitting me, what's happened to my city.
-
Oh darling - the biggest hugs ever.
-
Lucy TB - sorry for remark. The evening just felt wrong and *I* wound up getting snide.
I will insist tho' that smoking in rural areas of the West Coast isnt a huge problem, but drinking alcohol is (with consquent avoidable vehicle accidents...)
Re Jackie & Emma's remarks above -
love to all in The City (scones are an option to bread)-
-
But the pertinent thing, that rape was socially acceptable in certain circumstances and here and now isn't, and that that has very similar implications for historic depictions as any other change in social acceptability is, I think, sound.
-
Except it's self-referential: we censor smoking in films because some people have decided it's socially unacceptable, as opposed to mildly annoying. Whereas when it comes to rape the stigma is just a little bit more justified.
I think people will look back on these decades of anti-smoking obsession in the same way that we look back on alcohol prohibition, that is to say as something fundamentally stupid and misguided. And hopefully they'll restore the smoking in the old reels, in the same way that we removed the fig leaves pasted on the genitalia of Adam and Eve in those old frescoes.
-
Ah! That is precisely the image I was looking for - while flailing around in these wailful woeful times-
fig leaves!
If you - blot out?Make the shots smoke& dissolve? Turn ciggies into daffodils? Re-shoot entire films???
How actually do you remove the tobacco-smoking from reallly seminal films?Fig-leaving is not an option in this day and extremely-active networking age.
-
Oh, I have a stupider reason for starting smoking. I did it to get my lungs used to smoke so I could smoke joints without choking and looking like a total loser.
I don't remember how I started smoking, but I remember why -- it was fucking wonderful, like being a full-tilt alcoholic and having incredibly unsafe sex with strangers. On the list of things I regret, "tobacco usage" comes well down the league table.
-
But the pertinent thing, that rape was socially acceptable in certain circumstances and here and now isn't, and that that has very similar implications for historic depictions as any other change in social acceptability is, I think, sound.
So you're saying that there is a parallel between the change in society attitudes towards both rape and smoking, and since it's not morally acceptable to show rape at 7:30 (or in a G movie) we therefore shouldn't show smoking? I don't buy it. The reason rape is restricted in timeslot (or can result in an R rating) is because graphic portrayals are violent and disturbing, not because rape is not socially acceptable. I don't think that whatever parallel exists in terms of the change in social acceptability is very relevant to censorship/rating.
-
So you're saying that there is a parallel between the change in society attitudes towards both rape and smoking, and since it's not morally acceptable to show rape at 7:30 (or in a G movie) we therefore shouldn't show smoking?
No. That's not what I am saying. I am saying that, if you believe that for reasons of social acceptability* you shouldn't show say, rape, even when entirely historically justified, in certain kinds of film, then I don't think you can object to a similar refusal to show smoking, except on the grounds you don't think smoking's that bad, which is entirely fair and something I quite agree with, but rather different from any concern about rewriting history.
* Where `social acceptable' means the whole set of restrictions we have on showing things on television/film.
-
I honestly don't think an R rating is reasonable. That is, as you say, for graphic sex and violence. A PG13, or a warning before a program plays that it contains smoking wouldn't bother me too much.
It would feel strange to me that on the way to the theatre your kid could see half a dozen people puffing away on cigarettes, but then not see an actor do it in the movie. That's not a parallel with sex and violence - which society is all in favour of kids not seeing on the way to the theatre.
So with (unhealthy) drinking and violence in film, you get to see the adverse consequences. With smoking (always unhealthy), you don't.
That's an interesting point Lucy.
OK, that was a fair come back to the snark. But that's where I start getting nervous -- to be very literal about it, there is no "realistic" violence in movies or television.
I think the word 'realistic' still carries useful information to the potential viewer though. There's Rambo blowing up 80 guys in short sequence, and then there's Jake the Muss in Once were Warriors. I'd imagine there's a lot of people who could watch the former without blinking, but would be very traumatised by the latter because of the nature of the violence and the likelihood that they would have had that sort of experience personally.
-
I understand that censorship around rape depictions is more nuanced too. You aren't allowed to depict it such that the women appears to be enjoying it, if there's any clear intimation that it is an actual rape rather than, say, a strange fantasy that consenting adults are getting into. Not allowed under any rating, along with a few other sex acts. Fairly sure scat and golden showers aren't allowed in NZ technically either, even though they are things that people are allowed to do if it's their bag to each other.
Just thinking today on smoking: I bet there's a lot of fags lighting up in Christchurch. There are times when it is an actual good, if it helps shattered nerves. I believe soldiers in WW2 had this attitude - there was a good chance they were going to die anyway, and anything that helped them get through the next 5 years was good.
Having said that, my Grandad took up smoking during the war and died of lung cancer at 60, and her wife smoked all during the same period, and is alive and well at 85. Weeeell, when I say well, she is actually very unwell, but probably not going to die in the next few weeks. If her lungs were better her quality of life might be a lot better - these days she can walk about 50 meters before she gets puffed.
-
No. That's not what I am saying. I am saying that, if you believe that for reasons of social acceptability* you shouldn't show say, rape, even when entirely historically justified, in certain kinds of film, then I don't think you can object to a similar refusal to show smoking,
Is it really that black and white? 'A' is not socially acceptable for some reasons, 'B' is not socially acceptable for other reasons, but we should treat 'A' and 'B' in the same way in the media?
except on the grounds you don't think smoking's that bad, which is entirely fair and something I quite agree with, but rather different from any concern about rewriting history.
Going back to your example of the WW2 film portraying rape - have such portrayals been edited out of historic media? I think there is a difference between an artist deciding not to include something that's no longer socially acceptable (though I don't think they should be pressured to do so), and other people going back and editing an artist's work to remove something they find objectionable.
-
I expect there is pretty much nothing in Spartacus that would be considered 'acceptable' in terms of modeling behavior. But at least they weren't smoking.
-
But politicians around the world are calling foul on the proliferation of unrealistic images, particularly in fashion and celebrity media. UK Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone wants a health warning on airbrushed photographs, telling viewers they are not real. French MP Valerie Boyer is advocating the same move in France.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10671260
This show contains fake breasts:
http://www.aboardcertifiedplasticsurgeonresource.com/breast_implants/dangers.html
[Failure to flap limbs sufficiently while submerged may lead to drowning]
[Warning this show contains drowning. Parental guidance is recommended]
[Tobacco smoke was inhaled during the editing (not the initial writing) of this post.]
[Viewers are warned that prolonged exposure to television screens and computer monitors may cause eye damage]
[This show depicts artifical intelligence defying Asimov's laws of robotics]
[Surgeon General's warning: This show depicts characters consuming more than the recommended daily dosage of sugar]
-
Finally all media is nothing more than a series of computer generated warnings, humanity* finally taking heed is paralyzed by fear.
*Excluding the select few, whose job it is to remove anything resembling life from all art forms.
[Warning this post contains American English, questionable grammar and unprovoked punctuation]
[Apologies: the humour in these posts was of unforgivably poor quality]
[Coming up next: A better joke]
-
Warning: this warning may cause anxiety.
-
Warning - crud lowers credibility
-
For my part, I'm sorry Sacha.
-
-
I remember it got a lot more interesting riding or driving through the Auckland university district after the place was fully iPodestrianised.
-
It makes shared cycle-pedestrian areas quite a lot more hazardous. Even if you politely tinkle your non-threatening bell as loud as you can, you can't warn some people that you're behind them because they have noise-cancelling insulation from the outside world.
-
Better hope you don't hit any of them Stephen.
Warning:Your DNA are belong to us
Warning:Ur Txts also r belong to us
A search of stuff.co.nz (with default safe search on) reveals 698 articles with the word 'warning' compared to 629 articles with the name 'New Zealand'.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.