"What's this all about?  Are you the morality police?"

It's about science and human health, not morality. It's about educating families and investors about new scientific evidence linking viewing of movies with tobacco to smoking initiation by teenagers.This allows parents to decide what, if any, action to take to protect their children. The research has only a circulated for a little more than a year and many people still aren't yet aware of it.

We're also about protecting teenagers, especially those not old enough to make critical, independent judgments. They are vulnerable to conscious and subconscious manipulation as they view movie stars they idolize and whose behavior they often seek to emulate.  The most effective way to reduce exposure is to rid future G, PG and PG-13 rated movies of smoking and other tobacco promotions — using the existing voluntary age classification system. An R rating for movies with smoking creates a strong economic disincentive against including tobacco in future films that would otherwise be rated G, PG or PG-13. That's because R-rated films sell half as many tickets. Faced with an R rating, the producers would probably just as soon leave the tobacco out as they now leave out the "F" word to avoid triggering an R. The result will be more smoke free youth-rated movies.

Ultimately it's about educating parents and providing them with sufficient information to help make smart choices for their children.

"Aren't you going after the wrong people? You should focus on directors, screenwriters, actors and theater owners."

The fact is that the studios control what goes on screen. Except for the handful of directors and actors with their own production companies — but who still depend on the studios for financing, promotion and distribution — Hollywood talent performs work-for-hire with little to no profit participation or rights in the finished project.

Studio involvement in casting, rewrites and editing is routine (such as monitoring use of offensive language). Directors will remain absolutely free to include smoking in any movie he or she wants. The movie will simply be rated appropriately.

"Aren't you advocating a form of censorship?"

No. We are not asking anyone to specifically alter content. As noted above, studios routinely "censor" themselves by limiting offensive language, explicit sexuality and excessive violence to avoid an R rating.

We are asking studios to refrain from showing specific tobacco brands in films but that is akin to asking them to not turn the movie into a commercial.

And if it is a form of censorship, perhaps it's a blow for creativity. David O. Russell, director of "Three Kings" has commented, "I've just always found smoking boring, and an old cheap way to achieve some aura for a character that can be achieved in fifty other ways most of the time."   We couldn't agree more.

"What about just adding tobacco to the list of items rated PG-13?"

PG-13 won't halt a single teen from seeing a movie, whereas the R-rating stops about half. PG-13 won't in the least affect the most vulnerable age group of 13-17. Nor would it create any economic disincentive to smoking on screen.

"Smoking is justified as a character expression or sign of the times, a reflection of reality."

Empirical evidence shows that this statement is simply not correct. Smoking in the real world has fallen by half since 1950, yet the amount of smoking in movies registered an 80% increase in the share of estimated tobacco impressions delivered to theater audiences by youth-rated as opposed to R-rated movies between 1999 and 2003 (UCSF, March 2004). Images of smoking in the movies today look more like cigarette advertising than reality.

Frankly, nobody misses smoking when it's not there, but all too many kids notice when it is. Research also shows it doesn't matter if the "good guy" or "bad guy" smokes. Positive or negative, on-screen portrayals of smoking echo tobacco-marketing messages that range from "join the in-group" to "you're a rebel."

"Would you allow any exceptions to the R rating for movies with smoking?"

Yes, two exceptions. First, the "Winston Churchill" exception — if a real historical character smoked, then there's no problem portraying that on screen. The second exception is if a movie seeks to realistically depict the suffering and impact on human health of tobacco-related illness. But these are rarely depicted; the standard depiction is that smoking is glamorous and cool.

"What are the relevant concerns for investors?"

First, a big part of investing is controlling risk. For many years, big tobacco eluded legal prosecution for addicting people to tobacco. Then the dam broke. It's not clear what risks studio might have as credible scientific evidence piles up linking movies to initiation of smoking. A prudent investor should engage management to look into the matter and control any potential risks. For instance, why would Walt Disney Co. want to jeopardize decades of profits from family-friendly movies by being associated with hooking kids on cigarettes?

Move to top