Hollywood continues to glamorise smoking

Last week, we asked what our readers thought about the smoking scenes in the 3D Avatar and in movies in general.

Michelle Delaney, Irish, Bangkok

As a firm anti-smoker I'm usually first to be up-in-arms on spotting a sneaky cigarette displayed anywhere in the mass media.


The workplace smoking ban was brought into my home country in 2004 and since then most smokers and non-smokers alike in Ireland consider indoor smoking pretty unacceptable.

I have to admit however, when asked about the smoking scenes in Avatar it took me a moment to even remember any - perhaps more a reflection of the stunning visual and technical wizardry of the movie than anything else.

When I did recall Weaver's chain-smoking character, I connected it with an effort to ease her anxiety and amplify a certain masculinity in her character, rather than endear her to viewers as sultry or cool.

I don't believe the act of smoking symbolised aspects of Weaver's character that many female movie viewers would necessarily aspire to.

Is the botanist character considered an icon or sex symbol to the thousands of young impressionable Avatar fans?

Are movie-goers racing out to light up their first cigarettes after seeing Dr Grace in action?

I doubt it.

To see princess Neytiri or the rugged Jake Sully lighting up on our screens - now that probably would have given me enough fuel to begin a rant at James Cameron about his social responsibility to his young Avatarian apostles.

Steve Turner, British, London

The film, Avatar, is a phenomenal success.

The enormous production costs seem to be paying off, with the film already exceeding US$2billion in ticket sales in just the few weeks since its release.

But, within this modern science fiction film there is an old practise of product placement that one would associate with the technologies of the last century, and shows a practise that is now illegal in many of the countries where the film is being shown - smoking in the work-place.

There are two scenes where the character played by Sigourney Weaver smokes nervously in the laboratory, during work, among her colleagues.

Tobacco and smoking in films is an old practise, started before there was a full understanding of the hazards of tobacco and at a time when it could be seen as a realistic reflection of the society or characters that were being portrayed in the films.

But in the late 20th century and certainly the first ten years of the 21st, the health implications of smoking are well known.

Also well known are the skilful ways in which tobacco companies, in many countries of the world denied the opportunity to advertise their product, are using opportunities such as product placement to maintain the profile of smoking in general and, if possible, to promote specific brands.

What makes a multi-billion dollar global company promote a product that is responsible for 5 million deaths per year?

It remains to be asked of the film's director and producers, among the many questions about style, technology, ground-breaking effects, science-fiction story lines and exceptional make-up skills: how much money were they paid to place this ludicrous but deadly harmful event - harmful to real people, not fictional movie characters - in their film?

Abu Ebrahimsa, Malaysian, London

They promote a habit that has been scientifically proven to be detrimental to your health.

Film-makers just try and portray smoking as a 'hip', 'cool', 'fun' habit and forget the medical consequences of having such both a harmful and costly habit.

Yes there is the corporate social responsibility on part of the film makers to actively downplay smoking but even though there is a financial incentive to promote certain brands, is it not for the audience and public to realise what is good/bad and downright wrong.

What the Vietnamese Government doing is good but is merely a short-term solution to a long- term problem.

What governments need to do is to educate their population, as with education comes knowledge and hence realisation what is good or bad.

Another issue, if you look at it from the government's point of view, is that they receive tax revenue by promoting this product which 'developing' countries need so where would they get that extra income?

Even in the most sophisticated, educated rich countries like the UK and the US, people smoke and there were ads and TV ads, so really education and awareness is a key way to tackle this problem compared to censorship.