The Movies, Cigarettes, and Our Children

The death of Marlon Brando reminds us of the power of the movies to create a lasting image. Half a century after Brando wowed audiences with his torn undershirt, it is still that image that we remember - not the overweight, aging Brando of recent decades.

Much has changed in 50 years, and the smoldering Brando seems almost quaint by today's movie standards. But one thing hasn't changed: a cigarette hanging from his lips is still part of the bad-boy image. And smoking is still part of a sexy and strong image of women in movies, too.

The latest surgeon general's report on smoking tells us that cigarettes are killing us in more ways than we ever imagined. And, research shows that in addition to killing us, it is making us blind, anxious and very sick.

So, it is worth noting that at the same time that the surgeon-general is warning us to stop smoking, Hollywood continues to be a persuasive voice urging our children to start. A few weeks ago in an elegant room in the U.S. Senate, I was reminded that we could easily prevent thousands of children from smoking, but don't. The scene was straight out of central casting.

The silver-haired and silver-tongued Jack Valenti testified for the Motion Pictures Association of America and the cool and articulate LeVar Burton testified for the Directors Guild of America. Two university researchers provided most of the ammunition. They reminded the senators - and the audience that packed the room - that more than 400,000 Americans die of smoking-related diseases every year.

Movies depict more smoking than ever before — even though the percentage of Americans who smoke is half what it was in the 1950s. If a child doesn’t start smoking regularly by the age of 16, he or she probably never will. And children who watch more smokers in movies are more likely to smoke — regardless of other influences in their lives, such as how affluent they are and whether their parents smoke.

The bottom line: if there was less smoking in movies, fewer kids would start smoking, and lives would be saved.

Valenti and Burton each made an eloquent case for the importance of artistic freedom. Valenti passionately explained how smoking can be used to tell the audience important information about a character in just a brief period of time. He spoke poetically about conveying a time and place accurately through characters that smoke.

The senators were respectful, but they did not roll over and play dead. They asked the moviemakers to consider two proposals to voluntarily help prevent kids from smoking. That's when the Hollywood defense started to unravel.

The first proposal would voluntarily change the voluntary movie rating system, so that any movies depicting smoking would be rated R. An R rating would reduce the number of children under 16 seeing the movie - probably in half, at least. It would also create an incentive for directors to eliminate smoking from many movies.

Valenti was opposed. Adding smoking would clutter "his" rating system, he insisted. Parents care about cussing, violence and sexual content - they don't care about smoking, he claimed. The rating system had stood the test of time, and changing it to include smoking would open a Pandora's box. The animal rights people would want to change the rating system to include animal rights issues. And guns and car crashes also kill people - maybe those would also need an R rating. Heaven forbid! I guess there would be nothing left to make movies about.

But for every point, either the senators or other panel members had a clear and convincing response. (This almost never happens in a congressional hearing except the movies.) This is what they said:

Parents may not know they want smoking eliminated in PG and PG-13 movies, but if you explain that exposure to smokers in movies can cause their children to take up the habits, parents will embrace the idea of an R rating.

Animal rights activists already have been heard loud and clear in Hollywood. Every movie with animals has a disclaimer at the end explaining that no animal was hurt in the making of the movie. I couldn't help but wonder: why does Hollywood care more about not harming animals than they care about harming children?

The second proposal was that there be anti-smoking public service announcements as part of the coming attractions whenever the feature presentation included characters that smoke. Valenti passed the buck, saying that movie theaters would make that decision, not the motion picture industry. But LeVar Burton offered to direct an anti-smoking PSA for free and said he was sure other directors would too. They would work with theater owners to make this happen.

What will happen next? LeVar Burton was the star of ``Roots,'' the good guy on ``Reading Rainbow,'' and the hero of a Senate hearing. Will he continue that tradition to save our children? Stay tuned.

ABOUT THE WRITER
Diana Zuckerman is president of the National Center for Policy Research for Women & Families, a Washington research center.