Smoking Scenes Banned in Indian Films
Afzal A. Khan
A report in the Indian Express claims that the Union Health
Ministry has issued an order banning all smoking scenes etc.
in Indian films. The fiat will also apply to reruns of old
films and also foreign films. Films that are still to be released
will have to show a message at the bottom denouncing cigarettes
and smoking. In the case of old/foreign films, such scenes can
be shown only with a blur.
Hopefully, Shahrukh will stop smoking in real life too.
Ashok Kumar (or his soul !) will be hugely amused. Around
1952 and for a few years thereafter, scenes/songs involving
alcohol received special attention from the censors. I wonder
why smoking escaped a ban during that time. The reason,
I suppose, was that the link between cancer/heart disease and
smoking was not so well-known at the time.
Afzal
Srinivas Ganti
support the move. Many youngesters take to smoking just to imitate
their
favorite hero.
Ashok Kumar's characters are synonymous with smoking, especially his
role in Qismat. There are so many movies where he plays the role of a
rich businessman, with a pipe.
The rings of smoke, have been used quite intelligently in movies. Nau
Do Gyarah comes readily to my mind, where it was used to indicate
Jeevan's presence.
Can't imagine seeing K.N Singh without a Cigar !
Surjit Singh
Srinivas Ganti wrote:
In Badi Behan, the audience was shown just the smoke rings. Everyone
knew that baddie will appear soon!
Name him.
asi...@my-deja.com
never be enforced. I don't think there are any studies to show that
youngsters have taken up smoking to imitate their hero. And so what if
it has? Every person should be left alone to make his or her decision
as long as it does not impinge on the rights of others.
And no, I don't smoke.
Cheers
Arun
Asif
Madhubala picks a cigarette from the center table and lights it to fool
and mislead the police inspector about Ashok Kumar's presence in the
house.
Asif
V
"Afzal A. Khan" <me_a...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:429ce...@x-privat.org...
I fully agree with such a ban, However, at the same time, we should ban any
movies where the heroines do not wear enough clothes. This will promote a
better culture in the society. We should ban any scenes that might encourage
youngsters to gamble and drink. Thus, gambling and drinking should be banned
from the movies too. Too much violence in the movies promotes violence in
the society. I suggest that we ban violent movies too, thus making just
gharelu, Kuch Kuch Hota Hai kind of movies. On second thoughts, such movies
promote love affairs in the society, which is not good, because a boy and a
girl should really not meet each other before marriage. May be we could
makes movies on sports such as cricket. That way, we might encourage the
youngsters to play. However, a baddie is needed in such a movie, and since
we are trying to promote good movies, these movies would not be approved by
the censor boards. We should encourage more religious movies, like Jai
Santoshi Ma, Har Har Mahadev ( not just Mahadev, which had Vinod khanna, and
a hot scene with meenaxi ) and Sampoorna ramayana.
Surjit Singh
Agree. They should just use a movie rating system.
>
> And no, I don't smoke.
>
> Cheers
> Arun
>
--
Surjit Singh, a diehard movie fan(atic), period.
http://hindi-movies-songs.com/index.html
Afzal A. Khan
And, dear Asif, do you remember another scene from the
same movie ? When Madhubala croons that evergreen number
"Aaiye mehr~baaN...", Ashol Kumar lights up. Madhubala
goes to his table, takes away the just lighted cigarette,
with obvious distaste and grinds it out in the ash-tray !
Afzal
Gafoor
> ..this is a fallacy. Art should never be censored and morality should
> never be enforced.
Yes. And even more important, such social engineering shouldn't
be done through movies.
Shouldn't they first ban murder, crime, rape, infidelity etc from
movies before banning smoking?
V S Rawat
Another off-topic thread initiated by professor sahab,
Why is he becoming such a troll.
--
Rawat
V S Rawat
> A report in the Indian Express claims that the Union Health
> Ministry has issued an order banning all smoking scenes etc.
> in Indian films. The fiat will also apply to reruns of old
> films and also foreign films. Films that are still to be released
> will have to show a message at the bottom denouncing cigarettes
> and smoking. In the case of old/foreign films, such scenes can
> be shown only with a blur.
This is going to come on effect on Aug 1, 2005.
Maybe, Sonia Gandhi is not pleased with Amitabh
hence she got it done to create problems for Bunty
and Bubli where he is shown chain-smoking.
>
> Afzal
--
Rawat
habshi
lt
"V S Rawat" <VSR...@invalid.none> wrote in message
news:429d4...@x-privat.org...
<snipped>
I suggest you look at the thread again to see who started it.
lt
Ketan
asi...@my-deja.com says...
No studies? FYI, Smoking DOES impinge on the rights of others. See research
conducted on dangers of second-hand smoke. We won't even go into the
social/medical costs of treating smokers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1708289.stm
http://www.no-smoking.org/dec01/12-17-01-2.html
and
from
THAILAND A study released in 1999 by Dr. Marvin E. Goldberg of Pennsylvania
State University investigated the smoking patterns of 1300 high school students
in Thailand and the factors, which influence these patterns. Goldberg's study
found that teenagers who smoke are more likely to have been exposed to Hollywood
movies in the cinema and on video. ''In many movies, cigarettes have become a
central character and helped to transit from scene to scene,'' said Goldberg,
pointing out that teenagers in developing countries tended to admire
Hollywood-made teenagers and to emulate what they see on the screen. Goldberg
points out, if teenagers believe their environment is full of smokers, they too
will start smoking and perceive smoking as nothing more than just normal
behavior.
“Bollywood” – The movie industry of India, also struggles with the issue of
smoking in the movies. As Bollywood is the largest movie industry in the world
(far outproducing Hollywood) this has also been a target of the tobacco
industry. INDIA – “Bollywood” Star Amir Khan "I have been approached many times
by tobacco companies with very attractive offers, so far I have refused all such
offers. If smoking is harmful to me, how can I recommend it to my fans? Story
demands it, is the common argument and that's where I can't refuse it. I thought
I will just smoke for my shots and will never touch a cigarette again. But soon
I developed that unstoppable craving. In these ten years I have tried to quit
many times with little success. That's the story of every smoker.”
Bollywood Blamed for Teenage Smoking By Guardian Newspapers, 2/16/2003 India's
lavish and gushingly romantic Bollywood movies may be the world's most watched
but they are also, it now appears, bad for your health. Three out of four films
produced by India's prolific film industry over the past decade show their stars
smoking, according to a new World Health Organization survey. Teenagers who
watch Bollywood characters smoke are three times as likely to do so themselves.
If young people see one of their idols light up on screen they are 16 times more
likely to think positively about smoking, the survey found. It is the first such
study of India's vast film industry and part of a new international campaign to
cut smoking deaths by targeting the world's film industries. The WHO's World
No-Tobacco Day later this year will focus on how the fashion and film industries
glamorize cigarettes. Similar warnings were issuedlast year about Hollywood
films. An estimated 3m people die every year from tobacco-related causes, a
third of them in India. Although several Indian states have officially banned
smoking in public places, enforcement has been difficult. As in most of the
developing world, cigarette companies are given a much freer rein to advertise
their products than in the west. The Indian government has said it will
legislate later this year to ban smoking in public, the sponsorship of sporting
events by tobacco companies and media advertisements of tobacco products. But
Ambika Srivastava, who conducted the WHO research, said the Bollywood film
industry had slipped under the proposed controls. "The WHO and countries across
the world are looking at bans on tobacco advertising but the [film] industry
finds ways of getting around it," she said. Bollywood produces 800 films a year
which are watched by 15 million people every day. A third of Indian television
programming is based on Bollywood movies, which are also widely watched in
Pakistan and Bangladesh. The WHO survey found that 76% of the most popular films
produced between 1991 and 2002 showedsome form of tobacco use. In 72% of cases
this was cigarette smoking. Ms Srivastava found that half of India's leading
stars, including Shahrukh Khan, Vivek Oberoi, Ajay Devgun and Jackie Shroff, had
smoked on screen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
"The youth thought it was a very cool thing to do. The implication of that is
huge," she said. "Earlier, only the villains were shown smoking but now there's
a very high percentage of the good guys who also smoke in their films." ( The
WHO report referenced here is “Bollywood”; Victim or Ally? – A WHO Study on the
portrayal of tobacco in Indian Cinema by Strategic Mediaworks 2/21/2003)
Finally we have
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3707073.stm
Ketan
>Cheers
>Arun
>
lt
"Ketan" <Ketan_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:d7k9c...@drn.newsguy.com...
Quoting Arun
"Every person should be left alone to make his or her decision
as long as it does not impinge on the rights of others."
<snipped all>
Arun did acknowledge that the decision is personal so long as it does not
imping on the rights of others.
If recent trends in Telugu movies is of any indication, smoking is almost as
if somebody was chewing gum. There are so many that I have seen wherein the
heros (17-20 yr olds as well as the much older 40-50 category) casually
remark that it is a cool trendy thing just like sitting on the katta and
having chai.
Hollywood has done an excellent job cleaning up the act with regards to
smoking. We are yet to see such a lobby in India.
BTW, I think there is a 10-15 yr lag between the trends "The West" accepts
and reject to the desi imitations. After fattening people with fast food,
there is suddenly this notion of a "disease called obesity". Considering the
rate at which children and adults are now taking into fast food, sodas and
cable television, we will soon get to a similar situation. Like I said, 10
yrs is how much we lag.
While it seems easy to say the actors on screen are not responsible if some
kid takes to smoking watching them, I think there is that bit of
responsibility with the actors and appropriate authorities and if something
can be done to not let a kid take up smoking because his/her idol smokes,
then it should be done.
As to Surjit ji's ratings system suggestion, I think the rating system works
so long as that is enforced well. The general public is very apathetic to
these and in many cases, nobody cares. Further even if we have the PG, PG-13
etc, how is one going to enforce such a thing. Anybody who has been to a
theatre in India knows how well the crowds are managed, Ids checked (who
carries an Id ?) etc.
lt
Vinay
>
> While it seems easy to say the actors on screen are not responsible if some
> kid takes to smoking watching them, I think there is that bit of
> responsibility with the actors and appropriate authorities and if something
> can be done to not let a kid take up smoking because his/her idol smokes,
> then it should be done.
>
Come on, smoking is not even illegal. If the authorities are so
concerned about the harms of it, why not just ban selling it? But we
all know that it brings them too much money to do that. What about
showing people drinking alcohol in movies? Isn't that harmful? Is that
not killing people? If we extend the logic a little further, what about
banning all illegal activities that are performed by actors in movies.
What would we have in the name of cinema then. Heck, even Ramayan and
Mahabharat would be banned. Come to think of it, how does that make our
stance different than Talibans of the world. Basically, by applying
this ban, we are accepting the logic that "bad" things shown in movies
effect the society in such a manner that they should not be shown at
all.
If an actor thinks it is his/her responsibility to do something about
this issue, he/she is free to refuse such roles. Similarly
producers/directors having moral issues with certain things, may choose
to not make any film that deals with them. But this has to be on a
personal basis. IMO, an authority should not be telling a story-teller
what a character should do or not do. That beats the whole idea of
imagination and story-telling.
Also, one genuine question about this new ban. I will appreciate if
someone can enlighten me. What if I want to make a film on smoking
itself; just want to show a character who is a heavy chain-smoker, and
this habit later leads him to cancer or probably death. Would showing
such a character be allowed? OR should I have to remove all scenes that
shows him *actually* smoking? If latter, then how would it make a
positive difference for the viewer.
> As to Surjit ji's ratings system suggestion, I think the rating system works
> so long as that is enforced well. The general public is very apathetic to
> these and in many cases, nobody cares. Further even if we have the PG, PG-13
> etc, how is one going to enforce such a thing. Anybody who has been to a
> theatre in India knows how well the crowds are managed, Ids checked (who
> carries an Id ?) etc.
>
That's no justification. It is like putting a curfew in the whole city
just because my home is not properly secured. If they have to enforce
anything, why not do it at the right place.
Vinay
> lt
JR
Vinay wrote:
> lt wrote:
> >
> > While it seems easy to say the actors on screen are not responsible if some
> > kid takes to smoking watching them, I think there is that bit of
> > responsibility with the actors and appropriate authorities and if something
> > can be done to not let a kid take up smoking because his/her idol smokes,
> > then it should be done.
> >
>
> Come on, smoking is not even illegal. If the authorities are so
> concerned about the harms of it, why not just ban selling it? But we
> all know that it brings them too much money to do that. What about
> showing people drinking alcohol in movies? Isn't that harmful? Is that
---snip---
>
> That's no justification. It is like putting a curfew in the whole city
> just because my home is not properly secured. If they have to enforce
> anything, why not do it at the right place.
>
> Vinay
I agree with you 100%, for a change.
JR
rkusenet
"JR" <jro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117636253.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
JRob,
I have a hunch that you are confusing this Vinay with the Vinay
who posts in rec.sport.cricket and occasionally here too. The guy
who posts in rsc is Vinay Deolalikar and this chap is Vinay Jain.
VJ is the moderator/creator of yahoogroups for choRDBurman fans
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/pancham/ who refused to
give me membership to that group bcos uskee phat gayee :-)
yeskay
This is not so appalling for a country like India. Everybody
should be educated about the bad effects of smoking. US govt insists
the tobacco companies contribute to NGOs (truth.com, etc) that are
fighting smoking, esp among teens.
Without such a basic education system in place in India, it is difficult
to advertise the ill-effects of smoking to say, the downtrodden people.
Most people see movies in India, so it should either be propogated
in movies or atleast minimise the effect of showing of smoking in movies
has on young kids. If they see a Rajnikanth/SRK glorifying smoking in
movies, definitely they will pick up the habit.
> And no, I don't smoke.
>
I did, not anymore.
JR
thought that it may be the same guy because he's been posting here
recently.
JR
lt
"Vinay" <v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117635341.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> lt wrote:
>>
>> While it seems easy to say the actors on screen are not responsible if
>> some
>> kid takes to smoking watching them, I think there is that bit of
>> responsibility with the actors and appropriate authorities and if
>> something
>> can be done to not let a kid take up smoking because his/her idol smokes,
>> then it should be done.
>
> this issue, he/she is free to refuse such roles. Similarly
> producers/directors having moral issues with certain things, may choose
> to not make any film that deals with them. But this has to be on a
> personal basis.
Well that's my point too and maybe it was not so clear in what I wrote.
Look at Hollywood. They havent banned smoking, but the number of mainstream
movies that show actors smoke on screen is minimal. There is an odd
character here and there but by and large there is a big cut down. Who
enforced that ? Well, there was no ban..it had to be public opinion,
personal choice/principle and lobbyists.
That medium of advertising for smoking (cigarettes) is completely out of
business now.
> IMO, an authority should not be telling a story-teller
> what a character should do or not do. That beats the whole idea of
> imagination and story-telling.
Sure thing.
>
> Also, one genuine question about this new ban. I will appreciate if
> someone can enlighten me. What if I want to make a film on smoking
> itself; just want to show a character who is a heavy chain-smoker, and
> this habit later leads him to cancer or probably death. Would showing
> such a character be allowed? OR should I have to remove all scenes that
> shows him *actually* smoking? If latter, then how would it make a
> positive difference for the viewer.
Well, these are the consequences of the blanket ban. How all this plays out
will be interesting to watch.
>> As to Surjit ji's ratings system suggestion, I think the rating system
>> works
>> so long as that is enforced well. The general public is very apathetic to
>> these and in many cases, nobody cares. Further even if we have the PG,
>> PG-13
>> etc, how is one going to enforce such a thing. Anybody who has been to a
>> theatre in India knows how well the crowds are managed, Ids checked (who
>> carries an Id ?) etc.
> That's no justification. It is like putting a curfew in the whole city
> just because my home is not properly secured. If they have to enforce
> anything, why not do it at the right place.
I am not justifying the ban.
I am doubtful though that the ratings system will work. It will be good to
have it succeed.
lt
>
> Vinay
>
>> lt
>
Shree
> We should encourage more religious movies, like Jai
> Santoshi Ma, Har Har Mahadev ( not just Mahadev, which had Vinod khanna, and
> a hot scene with meenaxi ) and Sampoorna ramayana.
Nope. Can't show films based on ramayana (or any of the other epics and
puranas). It has too much violence : the killing of Taataki,
mutilation of Shoorpanakha, killing of all the demons and enemies of
Rama, etc. Rama (or anyone else) cannot be shown carrying weapons, as
it may encourage the youth to imitate.
Mahabharata has more gruesome violence, sometimes depicting cannibalism
(e.g., Bhima drinking the blood of Dushyasana). What about stories of
Raktabeejasura, Hiranyakashyapa (this poor chap had his innards ripped
out), etc?
Nope. None of these are fit for public display.
--Shree
asi...@my-deja.com
==========================================================
Ketan wrote:
> In article <1117593904.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> asi...@my-deja.com says...
> >
> >..this is a fallacy. Art should never be censored and morality should
> >never be enforced. I don't think there are any studies to show that
> >youngsters have taken up smoking to imitate their hero. And so what if
> >it has? Every person should be left alone to make his or her decision
> >as long as it does not impinge on the rights of others.
>
> No studies? FYI, Smoking DOES impinge on the rights of others. See research
> conducted on dangers of second-hand smoke. We won't even go into the
> social/medical costs of treating smokers.
I referred to studies where it was proved that people take up smoking
by watching Hindi film stars on screen.
Re moral relativsim - Why not ban the Mahabharata and the Ramayana?
Draupadi gets disrobed, Sita gets abducted, there are acts of polygamy
and polyandry (both illegal per Indian law).
I did say that it should not impinge the rights of others. If the act
is done where someone else is not affected and the person making the
decision has full mental faculties, [Like smoking in private or smoking
in a party where everyone else smokes] I don't think there should be a
moral police doing a Taliban act in India.
First, it interferes with the freedom to decide for oneself. Second,
the ban brings back the draconian Congress patented License Raj days.
I'm sure a lot of money will pass hands to certify that a scene in
which smoking is being shown "meets some guideline" or the other. Third
and most important, it censors art.
Any censorship is bad, but the post-Rushdie era has seen some
particularly galling acts of censorship. Every Tom, Dick and Harry who
wants to have political clout finds one excuse or the other to claim
"hurt sentiments" and ask for bans. If the Indian govt wants to enforce
laws, they should put vandals into jail - people who burn books, close
theatres & vandalize greeting card stores.
That, as someone suggested, "we have to do it for our downtrodden
people" indicates astounding arrogance and not to mention, a
patronizing socialistic attitude.
People are more smart that we 'elites' give them credit for.
Nani Palkhivala once quoted - I think it was George Santayana: "The
govt should guard the frontiers, deliver the mail and get the hell out
of people's lives."
Cheers
Arun
Ketan
asi...@my-deja.com says...
>First, it interferes with the freedom to decide for oneself. Second,
>the ban brings back the draconian Congress patented License Raj days.
>I'm sure a lot of money will pass hands to certify that a scene in
>which smoking is being shown "meets some guideline" or the other. Third
>and most important, it censors art.
< etc etc deleted >
IMO, everyone is going a bit overboard on here with this "smoking ban" and
rushing to claim freedom of this and freedom of that etc. If you are so much for
freedom, why is there so much discussion on this very newsgroup of banning
remixes, and banning girls in scantily clad clothes in those very remix videos.
Where did a producers/directors "artistic freedom" go in those cases?
The reason that the US govt wanted Hollywood to minimize smoking scenes in
movies was a result of those surveys I posted a link to. Another reason was that
lighting a cigarette was supposed to make a person look cool and any smart
person knows that one doesn't need to light up to look cool, unless you are
Rajnikant and have to use such props in lieu of acting skills. What was said to
Hollywood was that if smoking was a part of the character's persona in the
script, fine, show it but don't show a person lighting up simply for the sake of
showing it. It is possible to show a person look cool without a cigarette in
their hands, just as it was possible to show a horrific murder without once
showing the actual violence as Hitchcock did in the shower scene in Psycho.
I am sure if one did a survey of Hindi Films, one would find that 99% of actors
light up not because the script demands it but simply because they are misguided
enough to think it adds glamour to the scene. Me, I would prefer scantily clad
women in that case.
To make this RMIM related, the Kaifi Azmi "Faasla" song --zi.ndagii
##cigarette## kaa dhuaa.N and the Dev Kohli "Kaante" song "##Collar## ko tho.Daa
saa uupar cha.Dhaa ke, ##cigarette## ke dhu_e.N kaa chhallaa banaa ke
are the only two I know that employs these words. Any others?
And to think, Vinay's vociferous response had me thinking that there must
definitely be a Gulzar song with the words "cigarette kaa dhuaa.N" in it and
banning smoking in movies would rob Gulzar of his key lines :)
Ketan
>Arun
>
asi...@my-deja.com
--
Well, if the remixes violate any copyright laws, these should be
enforced. If the owners of the copyright are fine with it, kya karega
kazi?
--
Mind you, I'm not making any judgment on whether film actors should be
shown smoking. I'm merely stating that they should have the freedom to
do so, if they want to.
--
I thought you would quote Sahir. :-)
har fikr ko dhu.Ne.n me.n u.Daataa chalaa gayaa
Cheers
Arun
Vinay
> In article <1117639617.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> And to think, Vinay's vociferous response had me thinking that there must
> definitely be a Gulzar song with the words "cigarette kaa dhuaa.N" in it and
> banning smoking in movies would rob Gulzar of his key lines :)
>
hamaarii genuine-sii raay ko is tarah motive ke dhu.Ne.N me.n to mat
u.Daao yaar :).
ye lo Sahir saahab:
mai.n zi.ndagii kaa saath nibhaataa chalaa gayaa
har fikra ko dhue.Ne.n me.n u.Daataa chalaa gayaa
Neeraj:
zindagii hai ik sigaar
ho terii zindagii hai ik sigaar
kaun tujhe samajhaa_e
zor se jitanaa kash khii.nche tuu
utanii jalatii jaa_e
And last but not the least, your favorite Bakshi:
jab sataate hai.n Gam aish karate hai.n ham
bii.Dii piite hai.n aur paan khaate hai.n
saarii duniyaa kaa bojh ham uThaate hai.n
:)
Vinay
>
> Ketan
>
Surjit Singh
Vinay wrote:
From the first song by Usha M for Hindi movies:
'paan bii.Dii sigareT chaay garam'
>
> Vinay
>
>
>>Ketan
>>
>
>
Arjun Pandit
> If recent trends in Telugu movies is of any indication, smoking is almost as
> if somebody was chewing gum.
I recently saw Chandramukhi. Though I have seen very few films of
Rajni, I always remember him doing his cigarette stunt (tossing it into
the air and lighting it wierdly). In Chandramukhi, he doesn't smoke and
in one scene he actually tosses a bubble gum (wrapped one I think) in
the air (similar style as his tossing the cigarette) and takes it into
his mouth :). Liked that scene, it was intentionally very funny.
habshi
This is a RAMLI topic, that somehow overflowed into RMIM. OT Warning.
<
using your arguement why not allow scenes of snorting cocaine
in movies , in every movie ? we know the drug smugglers would pay
handsomely for such product placement ,
habshi
>What about
showing people drinking alcohol in movies? Isn't that harmful?<
No it isnt . Two drinks a day help prevent diabetes . Of
course even food in excess can kill
Arunabha
>>In article <1117639617.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>And to think, Vinay's vociferous response had me thinking that there must
>>definitely be a Gulzar song with the words "cigarette kaa dhuaa.N" in it and
>>banning smoking in movies would rob Gulzar of his key lines :)
Maybe he's thinking of:
itanaa lambaa kash lo yaaro dam nikal jaaye
zi.ndagii sulagaao yaaro Gam nikal jaaye
- Arunabha
Ritu
Vinay wrote:
>
> Also, one genuine question about this new ban. I will appreciate if
> someone can enlighten me. What if I want to make a film on smoking
> itself; just want to show a character who is a heavy chain-smoker, and
> this habit later leads him to cancer or probably death. Would showing
> such a character be allowed? OR should I have to remove all scenes that
> shows him *actually* smoking? If latter, then how would it make a
> positive difference for the viewer.
>
Vinay, your argument in support of depicting smoking in a film leads me
to another thought. First, let me dwell on the main thread and say I
agree with you to a great degree. I feel the era when films drove the
choices people made is long over or so I would like to believe (at
least by seeing people around me). And then there is a fine-print that
says that there is a difference between 'depicting' and 'glorifying'.
There might be a small point that smoking that is depicted as 'cool' in
films might send wrong signals. But in today's world with the degree of
exposure and information any youngster has, films cease to be *the*
singular trend setter. They don't have that kind of an impact on
people's choices as they did in the past. That is more or less apparent
from the fact that post-Amitabh no other star has really ever generated
that kind of hysteria. Will the Shahrukh's and Amir's of the world ever
whip up the frenzy that Rajesh Khanna did? They can't. Not because
Rajesh Khanna was better than them but simply because the era of larger
than life heroes that one looked up to and emulated(which was a
byproduct of independence and the idealism of the era that followed it)
are long over.
Television and satellite TV, (to use the cliché), has brought the
world into people's drawing rooms. And now films, is just one medium
that influences the mindset of the general populace. This is the era of
information explosion. In such a scenario, banning anything seems
futile. You can have campaigns against smoking that drive home the
point but you can't ban it. That reminds me there was a very good
campaign on TV against smoking 'With a cigarette in my hand I felt like
man'. That's what they need to have more of.
And then there is also the larger issue of restricting art to be mere
tool for social propaganda. What about it being a medium to explore the
intricacies of existence? Do we want to tie it down to moralities
collectively imposed by society in a particular era? As Sahir said 'Har
yug mein badalte dharmo ko kaise adarsh banaoge'. What about creating
art that is timeless? Today it's smoking tomorrow it will be something
else. Of course, somewhere down the line we also need to distinguish
between popcorn moments (which might do well with some censorship) and
serious films which might have a genuine need to show characters
smoking as in the example above. Banning is never a solution to
anything. When you ban something it exists underground. But it still
exists.
Now, coming to the point that prompted me to write the post in the
first place... I confess at the outset that my opinion on this issue
might be influenced by 'The DaVinci Code'. When the expression of a
thought or practice(in this case smoking) is suppressed for whatever
reasons it tends to manifest in more oblique forms. And sometimes this
oblique reference brings an enigmatic quality to that work of art. What
might not have been very appealing when depicted straight becomes very
attractive because of the things 'not said'. A good example from a
cinematic point of view would be the limited depiction of sexuality in
the Hollywood of the 40s and 50s and Indian cinema all the way down to
the 90s. I saw a re-run of 'To Catch a Thief' the other day and
fireworks are used symbolically to depict a union between Cary Grant
and Grace Kelly. The fireworks however leave a lot to interpretation.
They could also mean that something big is about to happen in the plot
(which does happen). So the point is that sometimes these oblique and
symbolic references turn a fact into a thought that is open to
interpretation whereby giving it more depth and more layers.
How much of this applies to smoking in particular is a subject of
debate. As Surjitji and others pointed out, the cigarette smoke has
been used as a metaphor memorably in Hindi films down the ages. A lot
of them like 'har fiqr ko dhuen mein udaata chalaa gayaa' are great
cinematic moments. We would certainly be poorer without these...
however, could we also say that censorship at times is beneficial too
in more ways than obvious?
Regards,
Ritu
Abhay Jain
"habshi" <hab...@anony.com> wrote in message
news:429e1f56...@news.clara.net...
> On 1 Jun 2005 07:15:41 -0700, "Vinay" <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>What about
> showing people drinking alcohol in movies? Isn't that harmful?<
>
> No it isnt . Two drinks a day help prevent diabetes .
Drink in moderation is also suppose to help heart.
But that has not motivated me yet.
AJ
Abhay Jain
"V" <vr...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:daSdnVlavKb...@comcast.com...
>
> "Afzal A. Khan" <me_a...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:429ce...@x-privat.org...
>>
>>
>> A report in the Indian Express claims that the Union Health
>> Ministry has issued an order banning all smoking scenes etc.
>> in Indian films. The fiat will also apply to reruns of old
>> films and also foreign films. Films that are still to be released
>> will have to show a message at the bottom denouncing cigarettes
>> and smoking. In the case of old/foreign films, such scenes can
>> be shown only with a blur.
>>
>> Ashok Kumar (or his soul !) will be hugely amused. Around
>> 1952 and for a few years thereafter, scenes/songs involving
>> alcohol received special attention from the censors. I wonder
>> why smoking escaped a ban during that time. The reason,
>> I suppose, was that the link between cancer/heart disease and
>> smoking was not so well-known at the time.
>
> I fully agree with such a ban, However, at the same time, we should ban
> any movies where the heroines do not wear enough clothes. This will
> promote a better culture in the society. We should ban any scenes that
> might encourage youngsters to gamble and drink. Thus, gambling and
> drinking should be banned from the movies too. Too much violence in the
> movies promotes violence in the society. I suggest that we ban violent
> movies too, thus making just gharelu, Kuch Kuch Hota Hai kind of movies.
> On second thoughts, such movies promote love affairs in the society, which
> is not good, because a boy and a girl should really not meet each other
> before marriage. May be we could makes movies on sports such as cricket.
> That way, we might encourage the youngsters to play. However, a baddie is
> needed in such a movie, and since we are trying to promote good movies,
> these movies would not be approved by the censor boards. We should
> not just Mahadev, which had Vinod khanna, and a hot scene with meenaxi )
> and Sampoorna ramayana.
>
For these religious movies, shoes would have to be banned
inside the theater.
AJ
lt
"Abhay Jain" <aba...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Vrsne.2022$_Q2....@fe11.lga...
>
> For these religious movies, shoes would have to be banned
> inside the theater.
Lol...good one.
>
> AJ
>
>
Gafoor
> While it seems easy to say the actors on screen are not responsible
> if some kid takes to smoking watching them, I think there is that bit
> of responsibility with the actors and appropriate authorities and if
> something can be done to not let a kid take up smoking because
> his/her idol smokes, then it should be done.
You are getting into dangerous territory here.
What next - cutting off crime in movies, cutting off adultery in
movies, cutting off prostitutes in movies, drinking in movies etc
We will all be watching only Tom & Jerry cartoons in a
few years from now - and then "People for Ethical Treatment
to Rats" will cut that show off also.
Either smoking in public is legal or illegal - if it's legal, it
should be legal to advertise cigarettes, it should be legal to
show people smoking in movies.
Even if smoking is illegal, it should be legal to show it in
movies.
Social Engineering shouldn't be the business of Movies.
Actually, even the Governments shouldn't be in the
business of social engineering.
Gafoor
Excellent post.
Gafoor
> Well that's my point too and maybe it was not so clear in what I
> wrote. Look at Hollywood. They havent banned smoking, but the number
> of mainstream movies that show actors smoke on screen is minimal.
> There is an odd character here and there but by and large there is a
> big cut down. Who enforced that ? Well, there was no ban..it had to
> be public opinion
There was no public opinion - it was forced down the throat of
the public by a handful of loonies in California.
California is a stupid state - it's a place where people want smoking
to be illegal & marijuana to be legal.
> , personal choice/principle and lobbyists.
> That medium of advertising for smoking (cigarettes) is completely out
> of business now.
If BMW can do product placement, why shouldn't RJR be allowed?
(even forgetting the fact that all smoking in movies isn't advertising,
just like all driving in movies isn't).
There are 5 to 10 million automobile accidents happening in the
USA every year. There are 2-3 million injuries & there are
around 50000 deaths. Many of these injuries & deaths are of
people who may not have been driving themselves or may not
have been at fault.
Gafoor
> That, as someone suggested, "we have to do it for our downtrodden
> people" indicates astounding arrogance and not to mention, a
> patronizing socialistic attitude.
"Do it to protect us from terrorists" & "Do it for the kids" are
probably the 2 most used arguments (or non-arguments).
dp
> To make this RMIM related, the Kaifi Azmi "Faasla" song --zi.ndagii
> ##cigarette## kaa dhuaa.N and the Dev Kohli "Kaante" song "##Collar## ko tho.Daa
> saa uupar cha.Dhaa ke, ##cigarette## ke dhu_e.N kaa chhallaa banaa ke
> are the only two I know that employs these words. Any others?
paan, bidi, cigarette, tambaku na sharaab
hamko to nasha hai, muhabbat ka janaab
dp
kcp
Kudos Vinay :-)
rkusenet
"kcp" <kcpi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117705090.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Tere jaise ko to kutton ke forum mein bhi khada nahin karenge !!
>
> Kudos Vinay :-)
aapko kutton-ke-forum mein aasanee se khada kar diya gaya kya?
kaafi gamand hain aapko us baat par.
Afzal A. Khan
> lt wrote:
>
>>While it seems easy to say the actors on screen are not responsible
>>if some kid takes to smoking watching them, I think there is that bit
>>of responsibility with the actors and appropriate authorities and if
>>something can be done to not let a kid take up smoking because
>>his/her idol smokes, then it should be done.
> We will all be watching only Tom & Jerry cartoons in a
> few years from now - and then "People for Ethical Treatment
> to Rats" will cut that show off also.
I think that should be "Cats" instead of "Rats" !!
> Social Engineering shouldn't be the business of Movies.
> Actually, even the Governments shouldn't be in the
> business of social engineering.
Maybe the Governments in India (I am thinking of State
Governments too) are in much greater need of
Social Engineering !!
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
There have been some 40 posts so far in this thread,
some quite serious in their content and a few in a
lighter vein.
But while quoting Sahir in "Hum Dono", one should also
remember that the time-frame of the film was the forties,
the period of the Second World War. And smoking was very
very common in those days. Also, in war-torn Europe,
cigarettes were hard to come by. People were keen to offer
quantities of food and other stuff in exchange for some
cigarettes.
Afzal
asi...@my-deja.com
> however, could we also say that censorship at times is beneficial too
>in more ways than obvious?
Probably not. I don't trust an anonymous bureaucrat to be a better
judge than you or me. Let the people decide. Watch it or don't.
Cheers
Arun
asi...@my-deja.com
==
You wrote:
"But while quoting Sahir in "Hum Dono", one should also
remember that the time-frame of the film was the forties,
the period of the Second World War. And smoking was very
very common in those days."
I think smoking/drinking was/is not common among middle-classes. At
least in my home, a moral judgment on a person was made if he smoked.
>From pure anecdotal evidence and not on scientific fact, I've seen
construction workers (women and men) smoke beedis and drink
"tadi"[toddy], in the 1970s when I was growing up. I rarely saw people
in the middle classes doing either - if they did, they did it in
private. The post 1990s years have shown a different trend.
[Another anecdote: One of my Iranian friends told me that his
grandmother used to smoke a hookah in her village in Iran. It was not
considered morally repugnant. ]
Many creative artists have never bothered with socially enforced norms.
So even if it was not common, I would like to think Sahir would have
still written those words. i.e. he probably would not care two hoots,
whether it was considered "good" or "bad." :
..and that is what precisely worries me about censorship.
Cheers
Arun
habshi
in movies unless we ban all other evils - drinking , overeating , sex
etc. is just plain silly,
Life is a series of compromises . Society tries to minimise
harm compatible with common sense . Drinking is of benefit in
moderation , eating is essential , without sex the human race would
end .
However drug taking and smoking serve no benefit but can cause
great harm , so its right to ban them outright . film makers are
getting outrageous . Kaal was a chain smoking movie , so are many
recent ones . Let cig companies sponsor movies out of their good heart
, but no product placement and no glamorising of a killer habit .
The odd smoking or drug taking scene might have been tolerated
but Bollywood has exceeded all decent limits .The same arguement was
heard in the west when cigs were banned from tv , radio and mags but
now everybody accepts its a good thing .
The Bollywood move will soon be copied by Hollywood
Afzal A. Khan
> Arun
I disagree (about smoking not being common amongst the
middle-class people). I have seen these things at close
quarters even during the British days (i.e. pre-independence
India). Smoking may not have been all that common in the
early part of the 20th century --- and that due to cigarettes
not being introduced/available in most parts of India. But
the practice really flourished thereafter, so much so that,
in the twenties/thirties, people even used to smoke "imported"
cigarettes, one of the most popular brands being Pall Mall.
Hookah-smoking has been popular in India for a couple of hundred
years. The correct spelling/pronunciation is "huqqa(h)".
"Huqqa~paani baNd karna" was a form of social ostracism
practised in India for a long long time. In the rural areas, it
could be a "lowly" chillum that used to be (and maybe still is)
passed around. Amongst the "elite", ornate huqqas were commonly
used, special scented "qiwaam" being used --- there used to be
specialised brands made in cities like Lucknow.
I suppose Iran may have been a "pioneer" in this respect (insofar
as the spread of huqqa~smoking in India is concerned). In Iran,
huqqa~smoking is a common enough practice even today. Even in the
USA, there are "huqqa bars" in cities having a sizeable Iranian
population.
Smoking is a very popular habit even in Arab countries, much more
so than in India. One reason could be that the US cigarette
manufacturers may have advertised their products on a very grand
scale in these countries. The relative lack of popular awareness
amongst the local populace (about the inherent risks) is another.
Afzal