As a firm anti-smoker I'm usually first to be up-in-arms on spotting a sneaky cigarette displayed anywhere in the mass media. The workplace smoking ban was brought into my home country in 2004 and since then most smokers and non-smokers alike in Ireland consider indoor smoking pretty unacceptable.
I have to admit however, when asked about the smoking scenes in Avatar it took me a moment to even remember any – perhaps more a reflection of the stunning visual and technical wizardry of the movie than anything else. When I did recall Weaver's chain-smoking character, I connected it with an effort to ease her anxiety and amplify a certain masculinity in her character, rather than endear her to viewers as sultry or cool. I don't believe the act of smoking symbolised aspects of Weaver's character that many female movie viewers would necessarily aspire to.
Is the botanist character considered an icon or sex symbol to the thousands of young impressionable Avatar fans? Are movie-goers racing out to light up their first cigarettes after seeing Dr Grace in action? I doubt it. To see princess Neytiri or the rugged Jake Sully lighting up on our screens – now that probably would have given me enough fuel to begin a rant at James Cameron about his social responsibility to his young Avatarian apostles.
Steve Turner, British, London
The film, Avatar, is a phenomenal success. The enormous production costs seem to be paying off, with the film already exceeding US$2billion in ticket sales in just the few weeks since its release.
But, within this modern science fiction film there is an old practise of product placement that one would associate with the technologies of the last century, and shows a practise that is now illegal in many of the countries where the film is being shown – smoking in the work-place. There are two scenes where the character played by Sigourney Weaver smokes nervously in the laboratory, during work, among her colleagues.
Tobacco and smoking in films is an old practise, started before there was a full understanding of the hazards of tobacco and at a time when it could be seen as a realistic reflection of the society or characters that were being portrayed in the films. But in the late 20th century and certainly the first ten years of the 21st, the health implications of smoking are well known. Also well known are the skilful ways in which tobacco companies, in many countries of the world denied the opportunity to advertise their product, are using opportunities such as product placement to maintain the profile of smoking in general and, if possible, to promote specific brands.
What makes a multi-billion dollar global company promote a product that is responsible for 5 million deaths per year? It remains to be asked of the film's director and producers, among the many questions about style, technology, ground-breaking effects, science-fiction story lines and exceptional make-up skills: how much money were they paid to place this ludicrous but deadly harmful event – harmful to real people, not fictional movie characters – in their film?
Abu Ebrahimsa, Malaysian, London
They promote a habit that has been scientifically proven to be detrimental to your health. Film-makers just try and portray smoking as a ‘hip', ‘cool', ‘fun' habit and forget the medical consequences of having such both a harmful and costly habit. Yes there is the corporate social responsibility on part of the film makers to actively downplay smoking but even though there is a financial incentive to promote certain brands, is it not for the audience and public to realise what is good/bad and downright wrong. What the Vietnamese Government doing is good but is merely a short-term solution to a long- term problem. What governments need to do is to educate their population, as with education comes knowledge and hence realisation what is good or bad.
Another issue, if you look at it from the government's point of view, is that they receive tax revenue by promoting this product which ‘developing' countries need so where would they get that extra income?
Even in the most sophisticated, educated rich countries like the UK and the US, people smoke and there were ads and TV ads, so really education and awareness is a key way to tackle this problem compared to censorship.
Peter Howick, Irish, Ha Noi
I have not seen Avatar yet, but I think the smoking scene is not a big problem.
Firstly, this is a fictitious movie, so smoking may not harm human's health in this world. The success of this 3D movie includes a lot of factors such as good film script, impressive characters, awesome scenes, etc. Therefore, that one character asked for cigarette is a normal thing. The audiences receive and remember this movie because of its whole content and meaning, as well as the messages of the film makers, not due to one small detail. Secondly, the smoking scene shouldn't worry the anti-smoking community because a lot of people in the world know the harmfulness of smoking. The character in Avatar is just a person like some one in this real world; sometimes he needs a cigarette to reduce his stress and he can't stop smoking immediately. Maybe this character will give up smoking someday. Hence, such scenes may not promote the habit of smoking.
To sum up, Avatar is a film, and the smoking scene is not likely to have much of an affect on people.
Nguyen Ngoc Dung, Vietnamese, Ha Noi
You raised an interesting point about Sigourney Weaver's smoking in the brilliant Avatar. The film is surely destined to be the most successful film ever shown in Viet Nam, and the entire world.
However, I don't think her filthy habit will offend non-smokers. And I wonder if the reason we notice her puffing is because there is actually less smoking in movies than there used to be.
If you look at movies from previous decades you can barely see the characters for the smoke. In Key Largo, Humprey Bogart made cigarettes look cool by lighting them two at a time so he could hand one to his screen flame Lauren Bacall.
In the case of Avatar, however, I feel the character Ms Weaver plays is just blowing off some stress.
What would be disturbing would have been if the film had featured a particular brand. That is often the case in Hollywood films but not in Avatar.
Secondly people do smoke. And while I laud the government anti-smoking policies you can no more stop Hollywood from showing people smoking than you can stop Hollywood showing people getting beaten up or shot.
Finally Avatar is set many years in the future. As to whether there will still be smoking bans in the workforce then I couldn't say!
Ryu Hashimoto, Japanese, Binh Duong
As a light smoker, I think that smoking scenes don't promote the habit of smoking. It depends on each person's situation.
Tobacco is a luxury good and indispensable for some kind of films such as action films, war films and so on.
I think it must involve the social responsibility of film-makers to enlighten smokers regarding the harmful influence of smoking to non-smokers, especially for babies and pregnant women. That means film-makers should not only prohibit smoking but also should enlighten smokers where to smoke. In my opinion, Vietnamese smokers don't follow the rule in public. They smoke everywhere, all the time... It's a big problem not only for non-smokers but also smokers.
The present policy of Viet Nam is suitable one. How about increasing the price of tobacco such as in the US, Singapore, Japan? In Japan, the number of smokers has decreased because of the price of tobacco and the decrease in the number of places where people can smoke in public. How about adding terrible photos of lung cancer, pharyngeal cancer caused by smoking on the package such as in Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia? I think that may decrease the number of smokers. — VNS
http://vietnamnews.vnanet.vn/Opinion/Your-Say/196631/Hollywood-continues-to-glamorise-smoking.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment