MPAA adds smoking as film-rating factor

MPAA adds smoking as film-rating factor By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer
Thu May 10, 6:59 PM ET



Smoking will be a bigger factor in determining film ratings, the Motion Picture Association of America said Thursday, but critics said the move does not go far enough to discourage teens from taking up the habit.

MPAA Chairman Dan Glickman said his group's ratings board, which previously had considered underage smoking in assigning film ratings, now will take into account smoking by adults, as well.

That adds smoking to a list of such factors as sex, violence and language in determining the MPAA's G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 ratings.

Film raters will consider the pervasiveness of tobacco use, whether it glamorizes smoking and the context in which smoking appears, as in movies set in the past when smoking was more common.

Some critics of Hollywood's depictions of tobacco in films have urged that movies that show smoking be assigned an R rating, which would restrict those younger than 17 from seeing them.

"I'm glad it's finally an issue they're taking up, but what they're proposing does not go far enough and is not going to make a difference," said Kori Titus, spokeswoman for Breathe California, which opposes film images of tobacco use that might encourage young people to start smoking.

Glickman said a mandatory R rating for smoking would not "further the specific goal of providing information to parents on this issue."

Smoking in movies with a G, PG or PG-13 rating has been on the decline, and the "percentage of films that included even a fleeting glimpse of smoking" declined from 60 percent to 52 percent between July 2004 and July 2006," Glickman said.

Of those films, three-fourths received an R rating for other reasons, he said.

"That means there's not a great amount of films in the unrestricted category as it stands," said Joan Graves, who heads the ratings board. "We've not saying we're ignoring the issue. We're trying the best way possible according to what we've learned from parents to give them information about what's in a film."

Titus said smoking in films had declined in recent years but remains more prevalent than MPAA figures indicate.

Descriptions on sex, violence and language that accompany movie ratings now will include such phrases as "glamorized smoking" or "pervasive smoking," Glickman said.

If rated today, a film such as 2005's "Good Night, and Good Luck," about chain-smoking newsman Edward R. Murrow, would have carried a "pervasive smoking" tag but probably would have retained its PG rating because of its historical context in the 1950s, Graves said.

Titus said film raters should be as tough on smoking as they are on bad language to minimize the effects of on-screen smoking on children, including her own 5-year-old daughter.

"I don't want her using that language, but last time I checked, she's probably not going to die from that," Titus said. "If she starts smoking from these images she sees in movies, chances are she's probably going to die early from that."

While Titus' group wants tougher ratings restrictions, the MPAA released statements of support for its plan from John Seffrin, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society, U.S. Sen. Joe Biden and filmmaker Rob Reiner, among others.

"By placing smoking on a par with considerations of violence and sex, the rating board has acknowledged the public-health dangers to children associated with glamorized images of a toxic and lethal addiction to tobacco," Barry Bloom, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, said in a statement released by the MPAA.
*********************************************************

I am not a smoker but a little voice in my head finds this ridiculous. Perhaps a bit of a liberal streak is glaring through my scales here, but if I am getting the gist of this adult theme's in movies not intended for children are going to be subject to additional scrutiny because of the potential impact of smoking on children :dizzy2:

Any one else have thoughts on this?

I want tags for 'pervasive junk food' and 'desensitization towards obesity' next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

I want tags for 'pervasive junk food' and 'desensitization towards obesity' next.

---

Whats troubling to me as a movie fan is that adult content (not necessarily gratitous sex) is governed by this board. The example of "good night and good luck" is worthy of note due to its historical content.

Applied today under this film rating factor this might remove part of the ambiance of the movie. I dont need to see actors smoking, but in some cases its meritous of the condition.

I would just prefer another solution (which I dont have one handy) to remedy the ability of children to see adult content via movies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated

Censorship in America is one of those perception deals that is generally dominated by a group with an agenda. In this case, it is more about supporting the major film studios - than any noble under taking about protecting children from bad things (i.e. Cigs and sex are more dangerous for kids than their seeing brains and blood splattered across the screen.).

The film rating concept is a good idea being twisted to suit the dominating powers of the industry, and intended to limit the the introduction of films made by independants - its all about money. Nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This-Film-Not-Yet-Rated

Censorship in America is one of those perception deals that is generally dominated by a group with an agenda. In this case, it is more about supporting the major film studios - than any noble under taking about protecting children from bad things (i.e. Cigs and sex are more dangerous for kids than their seeing brains and blood splattered across the screen.).

The film rating concept is a good idea being twisted to suit the dominating powers of the industry, and intended to limit the the introduction of films made by independants - its all about money. Nothing more.

---

I'm glad you replied.

The wiki link didnt go anywhere just "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" I looked at the sublinks as well.

That said i concur that censorship is often based on single group (given a specific issue). I tend to agree that its fluff (If i am getting your sentiment correct), cigs are an easy target to censor and might get some PR brownie points (how many video games do the gun weilding shooters have butts hanging out of thier mouths?).

It might be about money KC, there are few issues that dont have that angle anyway, but the MPAA is an independent body, and thats a little unnerving for me. Its a special intrest group (so it appears anyway) and I would much rather have something more concrete via adult content.

Might level the playing field for the indy film makers too, If michael moore does a documentary with a few people smoking does this new "tag" give someone the ability to change his movie rating and thus make his feature non viable for the mainstream?

I personally prefer something more of a adult theme theatre (not XXX mind you) but something where I can go see "Babel" uncut and see what the director wanted me to see via his original cut. Of course that might screw up his DVD release later and negate additional revenue which the movie studios wouldnt like, but I digress....

Are they suggesting that what is portrayed in films may alter the behavior of impressionable youths?


Such is sacrilege in Hollywood.

when aimed at sex or violence, not any cause they wish to undertake or quasi PC campaign which are only masked money grabs

Proles back! :medievalcheers:

I find the movie ratings concerning violence rather silly. The "happyslapping" movies where violence is portrayed as fun and entertaining is suitable for children. However, depictions showing the hard and scary reality of violence is banned.

What do we want? Do we want our children to grow up thinking violence is fun or serious? Which movie is most likely to get a 5-year old to copy it: donald duck happyslapping, or Saw?

Is smoking even shown in movies any more? Certainly you'd be hard pressed to find it ever portrayed as "cool" anymore. The PC train left the station on that one long ago and the MPAA is getting there kind of late methinks. :shrug:

Quote:

---

s smoking even shown in movies any more? Certainly you'd be hard pressed to find it ever portrayed as "cool" anymore. The PC train left the station on that one long ago and the MPAA is getting there kind of late methinks.

---

Basically movies about criminals there's smoking. Snatch, Lock Stock, Sin City, and Lucky Number Slevin are the only ones I can think of. But I really don't see people wanting to become Turkish or Dwight at any point.

But at least they're not outright banning it, like Chicago is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

I want tags for 'pervasive junk food' and 'desensitization towards obesity' next.

---

Burp!

Shut up and pass the booze, fatso. ~:pimp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Is smoking even shown in movies any more? Certainly you'd be hard pressed to find it ever portrayed as "cool" anymore. The PC train left the station on that one long ago and the MPAA is getting there kind of late methinks. :shrug:

---

I'd be hard pressed to think of any "cool" genre movie that didn't have smoking in it. Quentin made his career on the back of blackened lungs.

As a former smoker and as many would attest, try watching a movie with smoking of any form and not feel the urge...can't be done.

{edit} of course the damn coca-cola placements are still a struggle..thank god for caffeine free diet coke...

There are rules against smoking on stage here already, possibly against smoking in (domestic) movies too.

I think it's pretty ridicoulous.

I apologize for posting the link incorrectly, it ought to work now - for those interested.

Odin, you read me correctly. We are pretty much on the same wave length with this.

The documentary "This film is not yet rated" uses some comparrisons between scenes from independent films and the main line corporates to demonstrate how the MPAA abuses its method of rating films. At times it (the doc.) is outrageous, and even humorous - or so it would be if it weren't so scarey that a group of people without any real credentials or responsability to anyone (supposedly - though the main liners do finacne them) or any oversight other than their own, has the power to give an NC-17 (death to a film, limits attendance) on any whim of any of their members.

Cigarettes are bad, but if by viewing a person holding one convinces someone to smoke? Then we really need to stop all the snuff (pretend of course) films being produced - SAW (I, II, III), The Ring (I, II, III coming out soon), etc.

The really big issue for MPAA is SEX - with independents, they really don't have to big a problen with Universal and such. They went absolutely balistic over a scene in "Team America" that depicted two puppets doing a `69', so the guys changed it (and they made the scene 3X as outrageous).

I agree with the idea of a rating system. My concern is that when only one group has that power, and when they are selected to be like minded people - then it ceases to be a protective system and becomes one with a specific agenda - one of censorship.

I can see smoking being a factor between G and PG or even PG and PG-13 if they glorify it. But for R? There is something wrong with the system when you can kill people and make the movie PG but if you add a chain smoker to the film it turns it to R. It's the Same case with the F word say it twice and it carrys an atoumatic R.