Anti-Smoking Ads in Theaters Light Up Readers’ Interest

Denise Gellene’s “Anti-Smoke Screen� [Dec. 11] raises substantial questions beyond the efforts of Los Angeles County to counteract the appeal of smoking in films.

In the old days of Hollywood, the cigarette industry supplied cigarettes by the case for use in films as a form of advertising. Who could forget Paul Henreid’s lighting two cigarettes and passing one to Bette Davis in “Now, Voyager�? The moguls controlled content, and the stars, in films back then.

Now the tables have turned, and the stars dictate much of what you see on the screen, creatively and otherwise. Some of these stars as smoking advocates have their own agenda. They play on rebellion and antisocial behavior to sustain their popularity with the young audience.

Actors can be self-indulgent, and if actors like Robert Downey Jr. are any case in point, why would these actors worry about turning kids on to smoking when stronger stuff is available?

The real question, though, is do cigarette companies still look to films as a form of advertising since they can’t get at kids close to school? Several films in which characters smoke incessantly would suggest that they’ve been financed (in part) by cigarette companies, promoting their product in an insidious, subliminal way.

Getting a film financed today is difficult at best, and cigarette companies blocked from so many advertising avenues could be channeling funds into less obvious outlets, “influencing� directors to get actors to smoke on screen.

An investigative report on the subject, if it unearthed a connection, could lead to measures of substance, far more effective than a few anti-smoking films in Los Angeles theaters, to block so invidious a campaign, if it indeed does exist.

GEORGE MANET

Laguna Hills

*

I don’t smoke--I never have. I think it is a nasty habit. Yet I enjoy watching actors smoke on-screen, as there is something inherently cool about seeing one take a drag. It’s almost as if through smoking you can feel his mood--nervousness, excitement, relaxation, satisfaction--it definitely adds to the atmosphere of a movie.

Movies are not intended to be propaganda tools for or against smoking. They are just intended to be a “slice of life.�

First, anti-smoking ads prior to the movie. Next, smoking will be banned from movies themselves. It may be great to see people not smoke in real life, but to remove it from the movies would destroy the mood of many movies. Humphrey Bogart taking a bite out of a licorice stick instead of a satisfying drag out of a cigarette just doesn’t cut it in my book.

KENNETH L. ZIMMERMAN

Huntington Beach

*

I applaud Denise Gellene for her article and The Times for giving it prominence. I hope Los Angeles County presses on with its anti-smoking commercials, which are a real beginning of a change in public awareness of the influence of on-screen smoking.

What will really make this terrible example for teens go away will be the stars’ own self-awareness and moderation. If young movie stars don’t control themselves even on screen, why should high school kids exercise control in life?

The saddest part of the article to me is the sentence which reads, “The Motion Picture Assn. of America, which represents studios, had no comment.� Jack Valenti, the president and only visible member of the association, has plenty of speechifying ready when the studio chiefs want him to come out of his appliance garage. This is usually when some campaigning politician attacks movie industry morals, which I think they do just to see how many hypocritical speeches they can shake loose. With a real issue at hand, Valenti is silent.

The excesses of screen smoking will of course go on unchecked if left to the producers, who don’t want to ruffle feathers and maybe lose their jobs by asking the big moneymakers to tone down their puffing.

JOHN DAVID

Valley Village

*

Shame on Hollywood and the movie producers who glamorize smoking tobacco products on the silver screen. Instead of accepting money from the tobacco industry for using their products in films, they need to take responsibility and be accountable for promoting the use of tobacco, which kills 420,000 people each year.

The Clinton Administration and Vice President Al Gore have taken a firm stand against the tobacco industry. United Artists and Edwards movie theaters should be a positive force in improving public health, since currently more than 5 million children under age 18 alive today will die from smoking-related disease.

Movies help to shape our culture and smoking impacts our environment. Movie producers should provide positive role models for children and teens who look up to actors and actresses in movies. United Artists and Edwards movie theaters should show stronger counter advertisements and have a voluntary policy not to glamorize smoking.

Come on, Hollywood, you can do better!

MEGAN THOMERSON

Fullerton