More anti-smoking issues
in movies and TV
spots ran among previews in Florida movie theatres. The State
of Florida also ran effective anti-tobacco TV spots and billboard
ads, and they launched a huge tobacco education campaign
in schools, with special teachers and materials. The Truth logo
was used consistently in every division of the overall campaign.
2003, Florida's well funded tobacco education program had
helped bring about a phenomenal 50% reduction in middle school
smoking, and a 35% reduction in high school smoking!
Florida Tobacco Control Program, based in Tallahassee, hasbeen
an extrodinary success. Financed by the settlement of Florida's
lawsuit against the tobacco companies, the trailers they
ran in movie theaters were only part of the campaign.
Foundation for a Smokefree America would like to support
running more such trailers in other States.
Placing cigarette brands in films
a few years ago, some producers would take large payments
from the tobacco companies to place cigarette brands in films.
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.
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.
Stallone took a $500,000 payment from one tobacco company
to smoke their brand in three of his films.
Morris even placed its products in, astoundingly, Who
Framed Roger Rabbit? and The Muppet Movie.
are just the documented cases. There are doubtless many more
which will never come to light.
swears that it has stopped placing cigarette brands in films but
we 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, to the relief of anti-smoking advocates.
have been more recent reports of cigar companies paying to
promote cigars in films. Movie stars have done a great deal
to help popularize cigars, such as Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum
in Independence Day. Arnold Schwartzenegger, Bruce
Willis, Demi Moore, and Pierce Brosnan, all appeared on the
cover of Cigar Aficionado magazine. These stars' use
of cigars makes a powerful statement which is not lost on
teens as they browse through the nation's magazine racks.
Cigars cause mouth and throat cancer, as well as poisoning
the air with extraong second hand smoke.
A new foundation and website devoted
to smoking in films was launched in March, 2001.
It was funded by a $12 million initial grant from the Robert Wood Johnson
and is run by anti-smoking activist Stan Glantz. See http://www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/
December 27, 2001
Summary of article
in the San Francisco Chronicle
Author: Carla Meyer
Gene Hackman and Gwyneth Paltrow leave
a trail of butts in "The Royal Tenenbaums," Meg Ryan
gets cut off mid-drag in "Kate and Leopold," Cameron
Diaz shows her badness by lighting up in "Vanilla Sky" and
Sissy Spacek uses cigarettes to cope in "In the Bedroom."
Smoking onscreen is on the rise after tapering
off in the 1970s and 1980s, according to professor Stanton Glantz
and his UCSF colleagues, who studied movie smoking from the 1960s
through 2000. Their research, which they recently updated, found
that the rate of smoking in films, as compared with that of the
general population, has reached levels resembling those of the
early '60s, before the U.S. surgeon general's office issued its
landmark 1964 report linking tobacco to early death.
More specifically, movie leads these days
are four times more likely to smoke than their real-life counterparts.
Whereas the lead characters who smoke often are wealthy and successful,
says Glantz, "people who smoke in the ! real world tend
to be poor, poorly educated people."
The reasons for the increase are unclear.
"You hear this sort of film noir period-piece
argument, but in a lot of those ('40s noir movies), people were
being paid to smoke," he says. "People say, 'I need
the smoking in order to be accurate.' But they aren't making
documentaries. It's a cop-out." Though "The Majestic" takes
place in the early '50s, it features only trace amounts of tobacco
-- James Whitmore sucking on a pipe that seems more an accessory
than an addiction feeder.
Perhaps not coincidentally, "The Majestic" was
made by Rob Reiner's Castle Rock production company. Reiner,
a fierce anti-smoking activist, expressed dismay when an earlier
Castle Rock film, "Proof of Life," featured Meg Ryan
smoking. . .
While these portrayals are hardly glamorous,
Glantz says they do damage anyway.
"Any use of tobacco in the movies
promotes tobacco use among kids," says Glantz
Good Morning America
In a November, '97 segment of Good Morning
America, advocate Patrick Reynolds debated director Barry Sonnenfeld
(Men in Black) about smoking in films. The segment has
been sent to many schools, as an educational video. In it Reynolds
pointed out that John Travolta has smoked in every film he'd
appeared in recently. He 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.
In the same Good Morning America segment,
Reynolds said to Mr. Sonnenfeld, "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 1990's People magazine article, anti-smoking
advocates including Reynolds pointed out that Winona Rider and
Ethan Hawke had glamorized smoking in Reality Bytes and in other
films. Perhaps she will think twice before making smoking look
cool to millions of teens around the world in her future films.
Summary of article in The Lancet, Jan
IN CONTEMPORARY FILMS
AND CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL MARKETING OF CIGARETTES
Findings: More than 85% of films contained
Tobacco brands appeared in 70 (28%) films.
Brand appearances were as common in films suitable for adolescent
audiences as they were in films for adult audiences (32 vs 35%),
and were also present in 20% of those rated for children. Prevalence
of brand appearance did not change overall in relation to the
However, there was a striking increase
in the type of brand appearance depicted, with actor endorsement
increasing from 1% of films before the ban to 11% after. Four
US cigarette brands accounted for 80% of brand appearances. Revenues
outside the USA accounted for 49% of total revenues for these
films, indicating a large international audience.
Tobacco-brand appearances are common in
films and are becoming increasingly endorsed by actors. The most
highly advertised US cigarette brands account for most brand
appearances, which suggests an advertising motive to this practice.
Note: "Ban" refers to a self-
imposed film industry ban and also the 1998 tobacco industry
lawsuit settlements, which prohibit tobacco companies from
paying to have their products appear in films
The Lancet (Jan 4, 2001)
Full Text of article: http://tobacconews.org/index.cfm?StoryID=56447
by James D Sargent, Jennifer J Tickle. Michael L Beach, Madeline A Dalton,
M Bridget Ahrens, Todd F Heatherton , Category: Society: Movies
Summary of article in the Bloomberg News
(Jan 5, 2001):
MORE IN MOVIES
THAN BEFORE BAN, STUDY SAYS
Movie actors are smoking more often in
films -- with brand names prominent -- though a self- imposed
ban and industry lawsuit settlements prohibit tobacco companies
from paying to have their products appear in films, a new study
"I can't tell you as a scientist why
we are seeing more actor endorsements but we do know that having
a famous person endorse a product is effective,'' said M. Bridget
Ahrens, one of the researchers from Dartmouth's Norris Cotton
Efforts to restrict tobacco advertising
and the use of brand- name products in films aren't having a
significant impact, the study found. The researchers suggested
a complete ban on tobacco brand appearances in films and an investigation
into the increasing number of endorsements.
"We don't have any proof of how the
cigarettes got there -- be it clandestine payments, free samples
to a particular set designer, or an actor who just happens to
smoke that brand," Ahrens said. "But now that we see
it and we know what the effect is, we need to answer the question
of why it is there."
The study will appear in tomorrow's medical
journal Lancet. The most-advertised cigarettes in the U.S. also
appeared most frequently in actors' hands, the researchers said.
Philip Morris Inc.'s Marlboro brand was seen in 40 percent of
the movies; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc.'s Winston, in
17 percent; Camel, in 11 percent, and British American Tobacco
Plc's Lucky Strike, in 12 percent.
Bloomberg News (Jan 5, 2001)
Full Text: http://tobacconews.org/index.cfm?StoryID=56438
by Michelle Fay Cortez / (360) 293-4983, or firstname.lastname@example.org, Category:
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
"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
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.