Stars smoking in films and TV: a 1998 report on smoking in the movies

Smoking in Movies and TV

Recently there has been an upsurge in the amount of smoking in movies and TV. An incisive report on the recent increase of smoking in TV and films was issued in March, 1998; a summary of it appears at the bottom of this page.

This study and others as well have shown that a character in the movies is much more likely to smoke than a person in real life. In this way the movies have mislead many teens into thinking that smoking is more popular than it really is. In addition, stars have made smoking look cool to kids. The reality is that 3 out of 4 people in the US don't smoke -- but a much greater percentage of leading film roles are smokers.

I could not agree with the draconian 1930's policy of censoring the movies. Instead, these actions can be taken to counteract the glamorization of smoking in the movies:

A stronger ratings code for television might point out to what degree a particular TV show glamorizes tobacco. Tobaccofree.Org advocates a rating system which gives shows separate ratings for violence, sex and language, as well as the usual overall rating.

Adding a smoking rating might cause stars and producers to think twice about this important issue. They know that not all corporations would be willing to place commercials on shows which got a low grade in enough categories.

If a feature film got a low enough smoking rating, movie theaters could be required to run an anti-smoking spot before that film. Such trailers ran in theaters in Florida, as part of the Tobacco Pilot Project in Tallahassee. Their wider "Truth" campaign, which included TV and radio spots, speakers and school based educational materials, resulted in a 50% reduction in middle school smoking. Who says regulation and tobacco education programs don't work? It's a question of fine tuning -- that's the key.

Instead of censoring the movies, a more effective strategy is to shine the media spotlight on movie and TV stars who glamorize smoking in their films. Let's give a dose of healthy shame to producers, directors and stars who make smoking look cool to kids — and reward those don't glamorize tobacco with acknowledgments. That's what's called for.

I pointed out on Good Morning America in late Fall, '97 that John Travolta has smoked in every film he'd appeared in recently. He even smoked as an angel in Michael! I was also critical of Julia Roberts for her smoking in My Best Friend's Wedding, as well as the cute little alien creatures in Men In Black, who smoked and made it look funny, cute and cool.

During the Good Morning America taping, I also pointed out that movie stars have done a great deal to help popularize cigars. I singled out Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum in Independence Day, as well as Arnold Schwartzenegger, Bruce Willis, Demi Moore, and Pierce Brosnan, all for appearing on the cover of Cigar Aficionado magazine. Their use of cigars makes a powerful statement, which is not lost on teens as they browse through the nation's magazine racks.

On Good Morning America I stated, "It's hypocritical for stars to make lofty acceptance speeches at the Academy Awards, and then forget all those high ethics and moral standards when actually making films. That's what happens when they allow their screen characters to glamorize smoking. Stars need to be reminded how much youth look up to them, and that they are role models for millions of kids, and idolized by many." It's simple: if stars make responsible choices, young people will copy them.

In a People magazine article, we pointed out that Winona Rider and Ethan Hawke had glamorized smoking in Reality Bytes and in other films. This news got back to Winona, and it made her angry. But perhaps she will think twice before making smoking look cool to millions of teens around the world in her future films.

Pierce Brosnan's old ad, and his trailblazing later promise not to smoke in films

We uncovered this photo of an old ad for Lark cigarettes by Pierce Brosnan, seen in Japan. But Brosnan has since shown tremendous leadership in the Hollywood community, by forswearing smoking in his films. He has set a brilliant example for other stars.

Charlie Sheen's ad for Parliament ran in Japan. Shame on Mr. Sheen! He's setting a bad example here for youth who admire him.

A great website for finding out just how much smoking there is in films is www.screenit.com. The well-known movie critic Roger Ebert named ScreenIt as one of the Top Five Most Useful Movie Sites on the Internet. Go to a review of any film at the site, current or past, and check out the SMOKING rating for that movie.

Placing Cigarette Brands in Films

Just a few years ago, some producers would take large payments from the tobacco companies to place cigarette brands in films.

The producers of License to Kill took a $350,000 payment to have James Bond smoke Larks in the movie — and of course, James Bond is a role model for young boys.

In Superman II, woman reporter Lois Lane, a nonsmoker in the comics, chain-smoked Marlboros, and the Marlboro brand name appeared some 40 times in the film. Tobacco giant Phillip Morris paid a mere $40,000 to the producers for this. Of course, Lois Lane is a role model for young girls.

Sylvester Stallone took a $500,000 payment from one tobacco company to smoke their brand in three of his films.

Phillip Morris even placed its products in, astoundingly, Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and The Muppet Movie.

These are just the documented cases. There are doubtless many more which will never come to light.

Hollywood swears that it has stopped placing cigarette brands in films — but I know of one instance in which a tobacco company helped finance a film, and then put its products prominently in it. U.S. Tobacco, which makes most of the chewing tobacco, had a movie production division which made a movie, Pure Country, in which handsome, good-old-boy cowboys chew. Fortunately, it bombed. There have been more recent reports of cigar companies paying to promote cigars in films.

Also see our press release, Pierce Brosnan's old Lark cigarette ad -- and his new promise not to smoke in films

NEW STUDY SAYS
SMOKING IN MOVIES IS INCREASING,
IN CONTRAST TO REAL SMOKING RATES

Press release of March 2, 1998

From: Professor Stan Glantz, University of California at San Francisco, Press office

Advocates can call to request an e-mailed copy of the study.

Contact: Jeffrey Norris or Alice Trinkl, News Director
Tel: (415) 476-2557

The incidence of smoking in top-grossing movies has increased during the 1990s, and dramatically exceeds real smoking rates, according to a new study led by a prominent tobacco researcher from the University of California San Francisco.

After declining over three decades, smoking in movies has returned to levels comparable to those observed in the 1960s before the issuance of the first Surgeon General's report on smoking and health in 1964, according to Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D., a professor of medicine at UCSF with the Institute for Health Policy Studies and the Division of Cardiology.

The report by Glantz and Theresa F. Stockwell, who conducted the research as part of a master's degree project, appears in the new issue of Tobacco Control, a scientific journal published by the British Medical Association. The presentation of smoking in films remains pro-tobacco, according to Stockwell and Glantz, with only 14 percent of tobacco screen-time presenting adverse social or health effects of tobacco use.

The researchers found that in movies from the 1960s, tobacco was used about once for every five minutes of film time. In films from the 1970s and 1980s, tobacco was used about once every 10 to 15 minutes, but in movies from the 1990s, tobacco was used an average of every three to five minutes, according to the researchers.

"The use of tobacco in films is increasing and is reinforcing misleading images that present smoking as a widespread and socially desirable activity," according to Glantz and Stockwell. "These portrayals may encourage teenagers -- the major movie audience -- to smoke. "Films continue to present the smoker as one who is typically white, male, middle class, successful and attractive, a movie hero who takes smoking for granted," the researchers report. "As in tobacco advertising, tobacco use in the movies is associated with youthful vigor, good health, good looks, and personal and professional acceptance.

"Portrayals of tobacco use, whether in a positive or negative context, lead to changes in attitudes that predispose children to smoking. In an era in which the tobacco industry is finding traditional advertising media increasingly restricted, the appearance of tobacco use in motion pictures is an important mechanism to promote and reinforce tobacco use, particularly among young people," they report.

To conduct the study, Glantz and Stockwell randomly selected for analysis five films from among the 20 leading moneymakers for each year from 1990 to 1996. In the movies sampled, 57 percent of leading characters smoked, compared to just 14 percent of similar people in the general population. In the films from 1991 through 1996, 80 percent of the male leads smoked.

In an earlier study Glantz analyzed two films from among the 20 most popular films every year for the years 1960 through 1990. After comparing the two studies the researchers concluded that the socioeconomic status of smokers in movies has increased dramatically during the 1990s compared to earlier decades, despite the fact that smoking in real life is more common among lower social classes.

Among characters who smoked, 55 percent were from a lower socioeconomic class in the randomly selected movies from the 1960s, compared to 54 percent in the 1970s, 58 percent in the 1980s, and just 21 percent in the 1990s. The percentage of movie smokers who were middle class was 19 percent in 1960s movies, 25 percent in 1970s movies, 25 percent in 1980 movies, but jumped to 49 percent in 1990s movies. The percentage of upper class smokers in the sampled movies was 26 percent in the 1960s, 21 percent in the 1970s, 17 percent in the 1980s, and rose to 30 percent in the 1990s.

The reason for the increasing incidence of smoking in films is not clear, Glantz says.

During the 1980s, the tobacco industry was paying substantial fees for product placement, Glantz and Stockwell point out, but the Tobacco Institute claims that payment for specific brand placement in films has ended. Glantz and Stockwell found that brand identification decreased during the 1990s.

Glantz and Stockwell argue that strong anti-tobacco advertisements should be aired by movie theaters prior to the screening of any film that portrays smoking, and that movie producers should require everyone connected to the making of a film to certify that they are not receiving money or gifts for the use of tobacco in films.