Dimming the silver screen

Friday October 7, 2011

Attempts to restrict smoking in films sets an absurd precedent for artistic censorship, says Tom Miers

Watching ‘For Your Eyes Only’ as a young teenager I couldn’t work out which of James Bond’s vices I wanted to try out first. Grappling promiscuously with loose women was probably top of the list, with shooting people not far behind. Driving that deux-chevaux like a maniac was up there too, along with guzzling martini, gambling, eating forbidden fruit and smoking.

Smoking? Actually I’m not sure that Roger Moore used to light up much in his incarnations as Bond. Connery did, though, and Timothy Dalton took it up again in his slightly mannered way.

It’s entirely possible that cool people smoking in films and on TV encourages people to smoke. At the margins. I would suggest that it adds something to the glamour of smoking in the same way that people driving too fast and shooting people adds to the glamour of those activities too.

So, when with tedious regularity research ‘confirms’ this idea, there is no reason to be surprised. The latest effort by Bristol University ended with the usual plea by the researchers for a ‘precautionary’ approach, in this case upping the film classification when smoking is shown on the screen.

The obvious flaw in this kind of study is that those most likely to experiment with cigarettes are also more likely to watch these kind of films, so you have something of a self-selecting sample. It certainly seems implausible that watching people smoking in films would make it 32% more likely to make teenagers start the habit.

But the real problem with this kind of thinking is where it leads. If we say that stories and images encourage certain types of behaviour that may well be true. But does that mean we should ban or restrict stories or images that encourage unhealthy or illegal behaviour? Of course not.

Most stories rely on the baddy having some kind of appeal. That’s what makes him dangerous and convincing. Or else the goodie having a flaw which makes him real. Inevitably this highlights the seductive appeal of bad behaviour, which is one of the central features of the human condition. Trying to censor all this away is absurd.

The anti-smoking brigade will argue, as they always do, that smoking is a special case because it is so addictive and damaging. But the thing about principles is that you have to stick with them. If you allow mainstream exceptions, then the principle becomes undermined and people question it on grounds of precedent. The next step is “well, it’s perfectly normal to censor films, so why not books? We must change existing literature to erase references to smoking”. Or else “we did it with smoking in films, so clearly it’s right to do it with sunbathing, or sex, or burgers, or fizzy drinks.”

Sorry, Bond. No Walther PPK for this mission. But I do have a pack of condoms and some muesli bars. Oh, and here’s your new Ford Fiesta.