You have no free will.
You will copy the behavior of your heroes.
You will do as they do.
You will want to dress like them and be like them.
And to be cool, you will smoke like them.

Or at least, that’s what the Motion Picture Association of America likes to think. The MPAA announced this week that depictions of smoking in movies would be a determining factor in film ratings. Organization representatives did not come right out and say that movies in which characters lit up would immediately warrant an “R” rating – consideration would be given to how pervasive it is or if smoking is glamorized.


The brilliant 2005 satire Thank You for Smoking explored the mad world of the tobacco lobby.

In a statement issued by the MPAA, the organization’s head-honcho Dan Glickman said, “The rating board will now consider smoking as a factor, among many other factors, including violence, sexual situations and language, in the rating of films. Clearly, smoking is increasingly an unacceptable behavior in our society. There is broad awareness of smoking as a unique public health concern due to nicotine’s highly addictive nature, and no parent wants their child to take up the habit. The appropriate response of the rating system is to give more information to parents on this issue.”

The MPAA pointed out that smoking in movies is on the decline anyway. Even brief glimpses of smoking in rated movies dropped from 60% to 52% compared to last summer, and 75% of those films were rated “R” for other reasons. That means that three out of four movies with smoking received an “R” rating based on other factors. (For all the details in the full release from the MPAA, click here.)

So, in addition to language, violence and nudity, perverse acts such as smoking will determine a film’s rating in the United States. Every country has their own rating movie system very similar to the one established by the MPAA in the U.S. where the ratings include G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17. In the United Kingdom, their ratings follow a similar pattern. The BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) rates films as U (Universal - suitable for all), PG (Parental Guidance), 12A (12 Accompanied/Advisory), 12 (Suitable for 12 years and over), 15 (Suitable only for 15 years and over) 18 (Only for adults, no one younger than 18) and R18 (Restricted 18 - contains sexually explicit, pornographic content).

However, in spite of the similarities in the ratings systems, the criteria from country to country, is vastly different. The MPAA already has a kind weird way of looking at the world of movies. Violence, or “action,” is viewed as relatively benign, whereas sex or nudity, is given careful scrutiny almost guaranteeing an “R” rating or the dreaded “NC-17.” In other countries, the reverse is true, violence is more carefully considered and nudity is not an issue. For example, films like The Empire Strikes Back are given a harsher rating based on violence in countries such as the U.K.

And now smoking will factor into the already confusing equation by which the MPAA rates movies.


John Waters infamous "No Smoking" trailer would get an "R" rating.

Personally, I think smoking in movies is just plain cool. I remember being particularly fascinated when characters in Ridley Scott’s Alien rolled tobacco and took a puff on a space ship. I’d never seen that before. It not only made these space jockeys more human as they inhaled doing their mundane jobs, they also seemed cool. I guess in space, no one can hear you scream, but you can light up and take a drag. I saw Alien at a very young and impressionable age, yet never had a desire to take up smoking to mimic my movie heroes.

I also have to admit being captivated by smoking rituals – pounding the pack, sticking the cig into one’s mouth, stashing it behind one’s ear or stuffing a pack into a t-shirt sleeve for easy access – everything about the process of smoking is cool. Unfortunately, it’s the smoke that bothers me. I’m very sensitive to it. No one in my family smokes. And I’ve never smoked. Well, that’s not entirely true. I did try smoking once to impress a girlfriend in college. But after two weeks, I just couldn’t take it – and I smoked menthols!

When I travel outside of California, say to Michigan, where everyone seems to smoke, there’s the smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants separated by, well, practically nothing. I can’t eat at those places, I get sick to my stomach. And when I return from the bar smelling of smoke, I take my clothes off, leave them outside and shower before going to bed. However, in spite of all of this, I don’t mind smoking in movies and I respect the rights of smokers as long as they respect mine. When I inhale second-hand smoke at a bar, it’s because I chose to go to there. My exposure to smoking is my choice, just as going to a film in which smoking is depicted is my choice.

The MPAA is clearly interested in influencing behavior, but they seem to ignore the fact that all moviegoers are empowered with their own free will. And, yes, that includes children. Recently, I’ve seen movies in which characters engaged in irresponsible sex, murder, and even smoking. I had no desire to engage in any of those activities. Well, maybe one, but the others, definitely not.

Where does personal responsibility begin and parenting by an organization like the MPAA end? Should filmmakers continue to water down their movies for mass consumption in order to leap through each obstacle to get their movies seen by a large audience? While this doesn’t seem to be a problem for the major studios, independent filmmakers are put under a microscope with a stricter set of guidelines, as exposed in Kirby Dick’s excellent documentary, This Film Is Not Yet Rated . Will a few puffs of smoke in an indie film instantly rate that movie an “R”?


Scarlett Johansson takes a drag in The Black Dahlia.

And how this might affect classic films, especially those from the 1940s in which actors like Humphrey Bogart almost always smoked, remains to be seen. Based on the public’s changing tastes, as interpreted and defined by the MPAA, should the organization take a fresh look at the classics? Will those movies have to be re-rated? It would seem to be an impossible task to look at thousands of films from the past to seek out behavior that has now been determined to be unsuitable for those under the age of 17.

Clearly, there are more questions than answers sparked by the MPAA’s announcement. One thing is certain, movie rating systems all over the world are just plain bizarre, in fact, many of them make for incredibly entertaining reading. If you don’t believe me, just check out Bulgaria.

Gore (*cough* *cough*) gone.

Chris_Gore is an author, a filmmaker and the creator of Film Threat. After being exposed to 1,000s of movies depicting smoking, he still chooses not to light up.