The UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies has called for all movies featuring smoking to be rated for adults only in Great Britain unless there’s a good reason for the characters to be lighting up. But UK film censor David Cooke tells me there’s no public support. The disagreement comes on the heels of a just-published Bristol University study that questioned 5,000 UK 15-year-olds and analyzed some of the top U.S. movies released here from 2001-05 that depict smoking. Researchers say that half of those movies are rated UK15 or below, exposing children and teenagers to tobacco addiction. “Smoking in films remains a major and persistent driver of smoking uptake among children and young people, which the actions of irresponsible filmmakers, incompetent regulators and insouciant politicians are abjectly failing to control,” study co-authors John Britton and Alison Lyons write. The report highlighted Avatar and the Robert Pattinson romance Remember Me, both rated 12A in the UK, as particularly striking examples of characters smoking for no reason. Avatar, set 143 years in the future, shows Sigourney Weaver emerging from her sleep pod on another planet and barking, “Who’s got my goddamned cigarette?” while Pattinson smokes pretty much throughout a movie aimed at teenage girls.
According to medical journal Thorax, teenagers who watch movies showing actors smoking are much more likely to take it up. But pro-smoking lobby Forest says reclassifying films in order to create a smoke-free world for older children is “patronizing.” Bruce Willis is one Hollywood star who has accepted the link between smoking and the movies, though. He stopped his John McClane character from smoking in Die Hard 4 because “I didn’t want to feel responsible for any kid smoking to try to look cool because he thought I looked cool doing it.”


Nanny state at its finest…
That’s good, because smoking is bad for you.
Ah yes. We can show gratuitous violence and mindless sex. Just don’t show anyone smoking. This is beyond asinine yet typical. It’s okay to do this because smoking is bad for you? So is excessive drinking and unprotected sex with strangers, but we show that. If a kid can watch film characters engage in violence or other acts without doing them, why does that logic not extend to characters who smoke?? A nation of meddlers, I tell you…
So no more 101 Dalmatians, Alice In Wonderland, Pirates of The Caribbean?
Since “gratuitous violence and mindless sex” attract an 18 rating in the UK it would be just putting smoking on the same level .
Characters smoke in movies because people smoke in real life.
Jesus…
It IS a PC nanny state. I love what England WAS, hate what she’s becoming.
Perhaps the majority of the English population that have bad teeth should come with a warning in case they smile too…
The world is going mad or at least the UK is because saying that smoking in movies encourages children to smoke will also mean that any movie about rebelious teens, bullying, teen violence, getting drunk and a whole list of other things which get shown in widely accessible movies will also need to be resricted to 18 certificates. Yes making smoking look cool is not good in a movie accessible to younger audiences but then smoking is part of everyday life and rather wasting money doing surveys such as this that money should be used for educating people about the risks of smoking.
I guess movie characters shouldn’t do anything morally wrong or behave any other way than the PC police dictate.
Does that include weed? Probably not, to listen to mushroom heads over in the UK, weed isn’t dangerous or addictive but why stop at smoking – what about drinking alcohol in movies… Imagine a movie like ‘The King’s Speech’ – full of smoking, under what these nazi want it would’ve been given a 18 certificate in the UK and made a fraction of money at the B.O.
Good ol’ Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the Labour Party, set and accomplished what they wanted.. a nanny state that rivals anything on main land Europe. The UK is a now a wuss country it’s down there with Spain.
They’re kidding right? So next films that show people drinking alcohol will get an 18, what about films that show excessive eating, will they be under the spotlight as well?
it looks cool… Is that a good enough reason?
Don’t forget Pinocchio, Dumbo, Oliver & Company…
I hate smoking intensely. But this is stupid, not just on principle, but also because *everybody* besides these people thinks it’s stupid.
People start smoking when they’re kids, and by the time they’re adults they’re addicts. Tobacco companies love the outrage at the “nanny state.” It’s money in their pockets. Nobody objects to smoking in movies, the objection is smoking in movies FOR KIDS where it serves no purpose — other than to influence the kids to start smoking. Talk to your parents and their friends who have lung cancer or emphysema or heart disease. NOBODY starts smoking as an adult — it’s the 15-year-olds who are the targets. Nanny-state and First Amendment arguments are smokescreens for the tobacco companies. In the US you can’t say “fuck” in a film without an R but you can hook a young kid to tobacco with a PG or PG-13. That’s insane.
I remember when I was teenager and I was in a building taken over by terrorists. I thought, “what would John McClane do?” After executing each wrong-doer in a glib and original fashion, I followed my mentor in having a cigarette cause there was no point to it if I didn’t look cool. Now I know better. Thank you, Bruce Willis.
I know I am indestructible…just not in the way that I thought?
It’s just a think tank thing. This stuff happens all the time but never gets implemented.
The BBFC guy pointedly said there’s no public support. So it won’t happen until the public want it to happen.
However the study is probably true, and I would like to see films which are family orientated or 12A and under lose casual smoking with a few exceptions. An obvious historical film shouldn’t but for contemporary films etc I think it is wise. That of course would leave out “gritty” dramas etc which tend to be 15′s and 18s due to language anyway.