A study to be released next year claims that seeing celebrities smoke encourages young people to start smoking. The newspaper article http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,20622395-5006007,00.html from which I took this stops just short of suggesting smoking ought to be banned in movies, but others don't.

So, what would be left to watch on the movies? If you banned smoking, then presumably you'd have to ban drug taking and unsafe sex. What about gluttony? Should all our on-screen characters be thin, or at least have a BMI less than 25?

If the cinema and TV were reserved only for moral paradigms, how would Paris Hilton, Elizabeth Taylor, Madonna, Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson et al graft a living?

In fact, given that the acting class is so full of social misfits, who would there be left to make us laugh, cry, love and swear?

Absolutely. Not only should the above undesirable behaviours be banned from films, so also should depictions of illegal acts like murder, theft etc. Not to mention all the irresponsible driving portrayed in action films.

In fact, it's clear that films should really be banned altogether.

C.J. perhaps more to the point is that things which we pretty much know and agree are bad for us, if portrayed in films...should be definitely portrayed as having negative consequences.

Marital unfaithfulness= strife, misery and broken lives.
Smoking.. = all manner of diseases and debilitating health effects.
Drinking (if to the point of drunknessness)= often leads to violence, car accidents.
Drug Taking= various ill effects and the loss of freedom.

I think it would be ok to show many things as long as their real world outcomes are also shown consistently.

Dear BD, you haven't worked out yet that the devil's work is so much more attractive than your own. Why shouldn't he get the reward for this? Anyway, wouldn't it be a degradation of our own message if the only people to succeed in this life were good people? Doesn't the Bible show bad people doing well?

JD Morgan
Funny.
That takes first prize.
You wouldnt be dead for quits would you when you can get a smlie at 5.52 am.

Ok here is my two cents worth. I think people should take more responsibility for their own lives. I mean really if you are that simple minded that you can be encouraged to smoke because you see a celebrity smoke in a movie then really there is not a lot of hope for you is there. I agree with murder scenes and crimes as this only gives lunatics ideas on how to murder etc. You know copy cat stuff. Anyway that is my thoughts.

Boaz paints a pretty interesting picture of the world he would like to see, i.e. totally sin-free. Not only that (because smoking can hardly be regarded as a sin) but entirely pleasure-free to boot.

Smoking, drinking, sex, drugs... what about music, BD? All those people flaunting themselves on the dance floor?

Donald Phau wrote an article called "The Satanic Roots of Rock", in which he points out:

"Modern electronic-rock music, inaugurated in the early 1960s, is, and always has been, a joint enterprise of British military intelligence and Satanic cults. On the one side, the Satanists control the major rock groups through drugs, sex, threats of violence, and even murder. On the other side, publicity, tours, and recordings are financed by record companies connected to British military intelligence circles. Both sides are intimately entwined with the biggest business in the world, the international drug trade.

Have a quick Google at "Satan's music" if the above seems a little outre.

But seriously, when you say "things which we pretty much know and agree are bad for us, if portrayed in films...should be definitely portrayed as having negative consequences", you are simply advocating that films be used as propaganda.

There are many, many people who took drugs in the sixties and still manage to lead totally normal (and drug-free) lives. Bill Clinton?

There are many people who drank alcohol, do not go on rampages and can hold down a responsible job. George Bush?

There are a surprisingly large number of smokers who live on. And on.

"Gregorio Fuentes, who skippered Ernest Hemingway's fabled fishing boat, the Pilar, for more than 20 years died died of cancer at his home in Cojimar. Smoking until the end, Fuentes is sad proof that tobacco kills. He was 104."

There are also people who have had more than one spouse in their lives who live well, happily, and without damage to their families.

To insist that movies only depict a life without smoking, drinking, adultery, drugs and music would be dishonest.

And fiendishly boring.

Absolutely right Pericles, which is why hell would be more interesting than heaven.

On the topic of smoking, I'm trying to get the kids involved but they just don't seem to appreciate the difference between KFC or a take away barbecued chook, and one lovingly smoked at home over a rich, smokey mixture of Lapsang Souchong and cloves.

They don't mind catching the fish, but instantly lose interest in anything that involves hickory chips.

If you ask me, smoking on film doesn't have enough influence. If someone comes up with a murder/drugs/porno flick where the worst characters all sit around campfires killing/injecting/sexing while simultaneously smoking trout I'd be the first to advocate a PS2 game based on the movie.

I'll pick up Pericles point about 'Propoganda'..yep :) thats what I'd like to see, but not so much forced, more from socially responsible movie makers. Arn't Nursery rhymes 'propoganda' ? I know its a difficult area to come down hard and fast on. Make no mistake, creating a sinless society is a pipe dream.
But I'd rather see a trend towards my position in movies than the other direction, glorifying adultery, premarital sex/promiscuity and smoking, drug taking/dependency and drunkenness.

Oh.. I am not against drinking.. the Bible only criticizes drunkenness.

Graham... I don't see many bad people shown to be successful in the long run in the Bible. But I'm sure you can come up with a few having said it already.. Please do :).... Bear in mind, the Bible does tell things warts and all. David was an adulterer and conspired to murder the womans husband.... but he did get punished for it.. the child conceived in adultery died, and he had terrible guilt (Psalm 51) and remorse.

The books of kings and Chronicles are a litany of "And king so and so did evil in the sight of the Lord" and then it shows how his life became a total train wreck because of his evil.

I have to wonder why the NSW Health department thinks that anything useful can be learned by asking teenagers what they think is the effect on young people of seeing celebrities smoking. The significant issue is whether it has an effect, not whether teenagers think it does.

In any case, I would be reluctant to see governments dictating the content of films, if only because of the 'slippery slope' argument.

That said, I have to wonder why smoking in dramatic productions remains prevalent, certainly for drama set in the present. There are so many places that one cannot smoke, and so many people who do not smoke, that one should not expect to see that many people smoking in a movie.

Even for productions set in the past, I find the extent of smoking intrusive, even if it is historically accurate. If it's OK for Romans to speak English in "Gladiator" then surely we can leave out the smoking without overly compromising our artistic principles.

Sylvia.

Boaz, David did some dreadful things, yet he is the king most honoured in the Christian, Jewish, and maybe even the Islamic, religions. You can say he was punished, but I guess if he had died of lung cancer you would say the same thing. But would that be a reason for us not to show him enjoying the cigar, or Bathsheba?

Good point Graham... but the complete story of David and Bathsheba includes his remorse and regret.... clearly, he realized his actions were wrong. To leave that out of such a story would be to promote such behavior...and to include it is to discourage it... hence my point.

I would be happy even for the incest of Amnon with his half sister Tamar to be portrayed.

Beginning: II Samuel 13:1

1 In the course of time, Amnon son of David fell in love with Tamar, the beautiful sister of Absalom son of David.

(So he orchestrated an opportunity to ravish her, she refused to be used, but...)

The end:

14 But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her.

15 Then Amnon hated her with intense hatred. In fact, he hated her more than he had loved her. Amnon said to her, "Get up and get out!"

16 "No!" she said to him. "Sending me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me."

So, there we have balance... bad action + negative consequences... the full story.

I would find movies boring as well without all the 'goodies'.

The (bad) habits of a character are a way of showing certain aspects of that character.
Replacing James Bond's martini glass with a packet of condoms might not be everyone's cup of tea.

Why don't we just lengthen the 'warning' section on the dvd or movie rating.
The list will get longer and longer, but at least we can leave the bad stuff and decide if we want to watch the smoking etc if we're being warned beforehand.

From the top of my head:
Very frequent violence
High/medium level violence
Coarse language
Sexual references
Nudity
High/medium level sex
Drug use
High/medium level gambling

To this list, we can always add:
Drunkeness
Smoking
Bad eating habits
Obesity

Celivia
Pericles made a point about my post.. where I suggested the negative consequences of bad habits/behaviors should be shown in the movie.
He said "Thats propoganda"... to which I respond, 'To NOT show the real world negative consequences of bad behavior is ALSO propoganda, and more dangerous because it promotes bad behavior by not showing the pitfalls'.....

I think there should be limits on what is shown. Simulated real sex.... I don't agree with it. Even nudity.... bare brests... why are they 'really' there ? :) we all know if we are honest.. TO SELL MOVIES. The drivel that some come out with that it 'adds to the artistic reality' is a load of codswallap in my view. Strangely enough, I have yet to casually come across a private detective or businessman in bed with some female and having sex with her in my daily routine. Perhaps I lead a sheltered life :)

I've never been naked having sex in front of a million people and don't intend to. Its private.. intimate..not a SHOW....

The simple fact that todays MA15+ Movies contain as much nudity and 'action' as many 'blue movies' of the early 60s, tells us volumes about where 'artistic freedom' will 'be' in another 30 yrs.

Personally, I'd prefer a different travelling companion on the journey of life. This is one reason I rejoice in my own Christian stream of history. We are not locked into all this following of trends and going with the flow. We know the 'end' from the beginning and will not subject ourselves to a train headed for a deep ravine where the bridge is washed out.

Art which degrades and dehumanizes is unworthy of its name. Its also unworthy of any social merit. If we think that a more pure set of values is 'boring' then I can only say this is evidence of how far we have fallen and of our need for a Saviour.

BOAZ
"Pericles made a point about my post.. where I suggested the negative consequences of bad habits/behaviors should be shown in the movie."

I agree with what you say up to a certain point.
It would be getting a bit tedious for the audience to have to watch moralising consequences *every* time a bad habit is shown.

Sometimes people already know that a certain habit can have terrible consequences, such as smoking. Not every actor who lits a ciggie needs to end up in hospital with lung cancer.

I agree that there should be limits on what is shown. I also find sex in movies unnecessary most of the time. It seems to have no other purpose than to sell more movie tickets or DVDs. For me, a movie does not have to include nudity, only when this would occur naturally (and adds to the storyline). And even then, not so explicit.

I actually think that unnecessary sex and nudity can be distractive and even embarrassing (but then again, I may be a prude).
If people want to hire a porn movie I have no problem with that.
But to include too much sex unnecessarily in a standard movie- I would like to see limits.

I also wonder…
If a government thinks that smoking is so bad that it even has to be totally banned in movies, then why not ban the product itself?
Is money the only reason for not banning the product? There, I believe, have been products that were used legally and later banned by the government- why is that not happening with tobacco?
This is not necessarily my opinion, but something to think about.

Cilia..'is money the only reason for not banning the product?'....

That would be..yes,yes and of course yes!. You say that as if there were another reason?..
If so could you expand on that for me ?

No I can't expand on that, Wayfarer. Wish I could. It might be very interesting to know of alternative reasons.
It was a simple question, to see if other people know something I don't know.

Normally I don't ask others questions of which I already know the answer;)

I've never smoked. My father and elder sister both died of lung cancer caused by smoking. Smoking contributed to my father-in-law's death. I hate the smell. I hate the way it's pushed at children, in the knowledge that they will become addicted. And I see those who knowingly sell cigarettes to under age people as like paedophiles, taking advantage of young people for their own benefit. But I am not in favour of banning tobacco.

It's been legally available for hundreds of years. Millions of Australians are addicted, many hopelessly so. I think it's neither fair, nor feasible to ban it for adult users.

I see the ban on advertising as a very good thing. Smoking has recently been banned in pubs and clubs in WA and not before time. But the ban on advertising is being deliberately circumvented by tobacco logos on racing cars and drivers' clothing. And I believe that smoking is more prevalent in films than in real life for exactly the same reason, to circumvent the advertising ban and recruit more kids and teenagers and replace those tobacco addicts who are dying off.

So yes, I would be in favour of banning smoking in films except for where it's both relevant and necessary to the story line. This allowable exception would be ruthlessly taken advantage of anyway, but at least it wouldn't be open slather as it is now.

Thank you celivia for your reply..

Yes , it is very perplexing why cigerettes havent been banned by the goverment up to this point, and Id rather thought it was because of the massive amounts of revenue raised by tobacco sales.

That said it is well known that a good deal of the health dollar goes toward the burden placed on it by tobacco related disease.

It is obvious then that sales far outweigh costs incurred to the health system.

Cigerette smoking in films I agree is a concern but I think if children have sound parental guidelines and indeed have sound parental guidance by way of example, then we need not worry too much.

I dont smoke and none of my children smoke..and I do have adult children, one did ,she gave up.

But I think the assertion that if cinema were too sanitised, I for one would lose interest.And we cant shelter our children away from the realities of the world they live in on a daily basis..too many contradictions..