|
Dear
Readers,
Last week, I reported on a study reported on March
12th by the Associated Press which showed that "The
tobacco industry understood the value of placing and
encouraging tobacco use in films and how to do it."
In
a paper published this year (Mekemson,C.,Glantz,S A,
"How the tobacco industry built its relationship
with Hollywood," BMJ; 323:1378-1379,12/15/01),
the author's report that smoking in movies increased
throughout the 1990s, adding that "A previous Dartmouth
Medical School study found that tobacco use was featured
in 85 percent of the 25 highest-grossing movies released
each year from 1988 through 1997."
In
order to study, the "how," the authors reviewed
previously secret tobacco industry documents available
on the internet in order to describe the development
of the relationship between the tobacco and the entertainment
industries.
An
abstract of the study shows clearly that "Both
the entertainment and tobacco industries recognised
the high value of promotion of tobacco through entertainment
media." During the 80s, four tobaccocompanies,
Philip Morris,RJ
Reynolds (RJR), American Tobacco Company, and Brown
and Williamson took action to place their products in
movies. RJR and Philip Morris also worked to place products
on television at the beginning of the decade. "Each
company hired aggressive product placement firms to
represent its interests in Hollywood. They placed products
and tobacco signage in positive situations that would
encourage viewers to use tobacco and kept brands from
being used in negative situations. At least one of the
companies, RJR, undertook an extensive campaign to hook
Hollywood on tobacco by providing free cigarettes to
actors on a monthly basis. Efforts were also made to
place favourable articles relating to product use by
actors in national print media and to encourage professional
photographers to take pictures of actors smoking specific
brands. The cigar industry started developing connections
with the entertainment industry beginning in the 1980s
and paid product placements were made in both movies
and on television." The authors added that this
"did not always require money payments from the
tobacco industry to the entertainment industry, suggesting
that simply looking for cash payoffs may miss other
important ties between the tobacco and entertainment
industries."
"The
use of specific brands by high profile actors on screen
has increased dramatically, with Philip Morris's Marlboro
dominating. Smoking by is associated with favorable
attitudes towards smoking and actual smoking among teenagers.
Like its friends in the tobacco industry, Hollywood
has dealt with expressions of concern by spouting rhetoric
about "free expression"while shamelessly editing
films to maximize revenues and denying that smoking
in films actually contributes to smoking."
"Why?,"
Dr. Glantz asks, "does Hollywood continue to serve
those multinational corporations that have buried so
many of its most gifted members and that carry on killing
3 million people worldwide each year?" Why?....Just
think of money.
Referring
to Dr. Glantz's article in the same issue, the
British Medical Journal lead editorial suggests some
specific steps
that Hollywood can take:
1) Certify in the credits that nobody involved in the
production received anything of value,cash, loans, smokes,
publicity, etcin exchange for using or displaying tobacco.
2) Require strong anti-tobacco advertisements before
any film that contains scenes showing smoking (including
on television, video and digital videodiscs releases)
to immunise audiences from the pro-tobacco influences
in the film.
3) Stop identifying brands.
4) Rate "R" (children under 17 not admitted
without a parent) any film with smoking to reduce box
office receipts. This will make producers think twice
about the need to include smoking in their films for
"dramatic reasons."
|
