This article was written on June 3rd 2005 since then the proposed law is to come into affect from 1st January 2006 as against 1st August 2005 (some new things are added).
The proposed new prohibition law on smoking related scenes in movies and TV is the most exciting thing to happen in recent times. But some people in media have gone overboard in their criticisms. One Newspaper ( The Hindu) in today's editorial writes"…
films explore the entire gamut of human behavior …their purpose is not always to idealize people but to reveal them in truthful and convincing manner".
Another Newspaper (TOI…well I read all the Newspapers today to gauge the response) shows similar concern in its editorial "..
films is an artistic product, supposed to depict human behavior as it actually is, not as it is supposed to be…".
Oh really!!!. I mean Rreaallyy!!!. So which "bollywood" movie are we talking about!!!. Jumping from tall building (now it is Chinese rope trick) and fisting ten people is not my idea of "depicting human behavior as it is". Off course it is not denying that there are some (very rare) realistic brilliant movies made. For the very reason I am not in for a complete ban but looking at the contemporary movies where the "reality" is limited to pandering the senses and sensationalized scenes with Guns and sex is not about "exploring the entire gamut of human behavior" so one tends to agree with the Government's efforts. I have seen gun in real life only carried by policemen(as also soldiers) but haven't seen a gun being operated live. Nor has one seen women wearing revealing clothes and gyrating around whatever-is-there-at-sight in the street or on the top of the running train doing chaiyya chaiyya. Some of these may happen in some dance bars and yes (big YES here) the movies do "
reveal them in truthful and convincing manner" Nor have I seen people singing songs to each other, they generally talk (in this blog!!. Such a boring life!!!). Nor have I seen a movie, which ends with an X-ray of the charred lungs as happens to most smokers in real life. Lets face it movies are in most cases about fantasy and even if it is about "reality" or "truthful depiction" it is subjective perception of moviemaker. Off course the Director definitely has the Right to show his/her side of the story but the problem is when all the version look similar and many realities are left out as it is not "stylish" enough. There are more immediate terrifying truths that millions (that is majority) face on a daily basis. Where do we see such truths in today's commercial movies? Not all people take up smoking when stressed as is assumed in most movies. Also it is a misnomer that "bad" characters have to smoke. They are trying to glamorize to get the effect. In earlier movies "bad' lost to "good" and every thing ended in a good note but now there is a moral ambiguity for the same reason smoking scenes send signals which are conflicting. The reason why some moviemaker show smoking (as their choice of "reality") has also to do with surrogate positioning of product which is going on in a big way. Having lost public space in legal way this is how cigarette manufactures are trying to reach their targets. In recent times it has taken such a serious dimension that even acclaimed movies like Swades also allowed this transgression. Well when it is about profit the bottom line is Return Of Investment. So the idea of "self regulation" is a big joke. Are we talking about conscience honey?!!!..well I am getting goosebumps!!.
In the 1980s it was revealed in USA that the tobacco company Phillip Morris paid to place Marlboro cigarettes in the film Superman 2 . this revelation prompted a US Congressional hearing and the advent of legislation that made it compulsory for the tobacco industry to disclose information on expenditures of product placement in movies to US Federal Trade Commission. Do we have such laws in India??.
We live in a
shubh laab world of pure
munaffa. It is about Market regulation. It is also about "if I don't do it somebody else will do it" ideation. The creative space in a business venture (which a movie is….we have people ranging from Banias to underworld putting in their money) is very much reduced and as we do the balancing act one has to take into consideration the social context and rule of the land. It is not free for all in the name of "artistic freedom". "Artistic freedom" works when the society is truly democratic. "Artistic freedom" works when there is an equitable distribution of opportunities. Majority of movies in last decade do not fall under egalitarian understanding of "artistic freedom". The Marketeers to further profit at the expense of life and healthy surroundings are misusing this word. Democracy has to be understood from the Rights of marginalized (as Mahatma Gandhi put it:
daridranarayan). It should necessarily move from bottom to top.
Another issue is the contention that "prohibition has never worked" and that "..the operative principle should be to strike a balance between the right of individual to smoke as long as he is aware of the consequences, and the right of other individuals and society at large.." sure it goes with the tag line: choices, not judgments. In a "liberalized and globalized" world "
choices" is the new mantra for nirvana. In USA there is a belligerent group (some call them neo-con), rightist to core who are increasingly getting a mainstream character, are now demanding that children be given (yes the buzzword) the "choice" to choose between Darwinian theory of evolution and biblical guidance on life. Incidentally this is circa 2005AD lest one forgets!!. Such is the power of "choices" over rationality and reason. Further why is this "operative principle" of "right of individual" not applied in case of marijuana or heroin…well these also don't affect "the right of other individuals and society at large" and people are " aware of the consequences". Quite clearly "right of individual" works under some restrictions necessarily for the betterment of society. This particularly true in a society where millions people are illiterate as also the audience consist of substantial number of impressionable minds. It has been proven beyond doubt that people do get influenced by smoking related scenes (in many cases initiated). Even the recent WHO report has convincing proved it. Smoking scenes in movies also gives acceptability to smokers. It is seen as normal behavior. Making it quite difficult for anti-smoking campaign. Statistics show that 20 million children in India are getting addicted to smoking every year and nearly 55,000 children becoming smokers everyday( Tobacco the killer unkilled: Deccan herald). The share of developing countries has been increasing dramatically in last few years as the tobacco companies aggressively market to capture the huge markets. The Institute of Medicine Report titled “
Growing up Tobacco free” elucidates that “
in developing norms, adolescents look to the great social environment for concept of adult identity, particularly the behavior of leaders, heroes and film stars, and in media”. According to the social learning theory, which underscores the importance of underplay between individual traits and environment, mass media have an enormous influence on lifestyle choices of young adults. In November 2005 in the journal
Pediatrics, it was clearly established that exposure to movie smoking is an independent, primary risk factor for smoking initiation among adolescents. In this study, adolescents were grouped into four different quartiles based on their level of movie smoking exposure and it was found that the smoking prevalence rose steadily with increasing levels of exposure to movie smoking. A number of other studies have shown that exposure to movie smoking does promote the smoking habit among youth. A study conducted in 2001 at the Darmouth Medical School in Hanover,United States,concluded that “
the portrayal of tobacco use in contemporary motion pictures, particularly by stars who are admired by adolescents, contribute to adolscent smoking”
Given the "choice" to choose between life of children and "artistic license" of some small time profit makers who have taken up movie making from soap selling I think the sane society will choose future for it's children that is about having the right to be healthy. And that is what the Government of India has done. Kudos to that. Having said one is against blanket ban since as Ramboji mentions "to make movies against smoking, you have to show smoking". Quite clever that one!!. So how many movies has one seen in last decade against smoking? Who is kidding!!!. This is how people trivialize the issue. I think the system that will come into affect from August 1 will take care of that. Mamus don't worry. Rather than whining the poorBollywooddirectors need join their hands to fight the evil of smoking and take it as a challenge to deal with smoking related scenes within their "artistic license". Obviously it means sensitive scripts and camera handling..i guess that is asking a bit too much. One is not suggesting that poorbollywooddirectors assume the role of moral guardians. Pleaaase don't. It only means less profit. One reason of such a hue and cry is that poorbollywooddirectors will find it difficult to channelise money. There are some big companies with huge money waiting at the doorstep.
Some people are also using some great movies to further their agenda. The movie in question here is
Shatranj Ke Khiladi of Satyajit Ray, where the protagonists smoke hookah through out the movie. This is a ridiculous attempt to scuttle the debate. One the movie mentioned is a Period movie when smoking was not known to cause major diseases. It is not about lighting a cigar and puffing into the audience as a style statement. Further paraphernalia seen in the movie are not commonly used. Secondly this movie was made in 1977(those good old time when Ms. Azmi was a normal human being) couldn't mamus quote any contemporary example?. They cannot since there is none. Today in most movies it is about how to create scenes to attract maximum. Aesthetics and restraint is biggest causality. Since majority audience are youngsters who I am told consider onyourfaceshit as part of their vibrant culture and since mall theaters have come into being the rules of games have changed dramatically. This life style statement majority of us don't associate with nor it is considered worth pursuing.
Ramboji at The Hindu has a unique problem (well this boy is unique) his contention is "…it would inhibit live events such as Formula 1, where cars and racing overalls of drivers often contain brand names of cigarettes". This according to Ramboji is "direct infringement on the freedom of media". Quite clearly our boy is a Formula 1 enthusiast. Rather than seeing it as "infringement of freedom of media" we need to have a perspective shift and question the organizers and participants of these events to boycott such harmful products. It has been done successfully in the case of cricket and soccer. Our advantage is we have a huge population (audience) so if they want to tap into this market they better mend their ways. The onus on them NOT us. One wonders what is about expensive cars driving faster and faster and bumping into each other (some have even get killed), sucking precious fuel (which we less mortals are told to save), polluting environment in the name of Sports. This whole "event' sound quite deviant to me. Ooopps I almost forgot I am supposed to be a deviant. My mistake.
Everything said and done why don't we directly ban the tobacco products? Period. End of story!. Dr. Madhu Purushothaman has something pertinent to say in this regard….. “…
questions like ‘why is the government trying to ban movie smoking instead of directly imposing ban tobacco products’ stems from a lack of understanding that any radical policy change can be made only in incremental steps. The logistics and politics of ban on movies smoking are far less complex than that those relating to the sale of tobacco products. Banning smoking in movies take the public battle to the doorsteps of not only the tobacco industry, but also the film industry….”
Post Script: Written after few days of the above....
The debate still rages!!.
I heard someone saying that rape and murder are also shown in movies so how come it will not influence people!!!. People can go to such ridiculous extend to scuttle the main issue. A murder and rape is an extreme action on someone else and people are very much aware of the risk involved (albeit there are cases where murder is inspired by media). It is true that life is becoming cheap, seeing others being hurt is always a considered a form of entertainment (popularity of WWF is an indication). The remorse is seen as weakness. This is most moviemaker's take on machoism. Cigarette comes handy here. We all seen it haven't we??. Many movies particularly Hollywood have (and take pride) in spectacular scene of killing, which the people here are trying to copy. Human life becomes less important than the "mission". The images they produce have lasting impact. So if people are not motivated to kill there is definitely a disregard for life form and the surroundings. Everything is meant to be used. Consumerism loves indulgent behavior. It's about high consumption, compulsive acquisition and instantaneous gratification. The highly acclaimed book Affluenza: The All Consuming Epidemic writes "..if we don't begin to reject our culture's incessant demands to 'buy now' , we will pay later in ways we can scarcely imagine". The author adds, " the message in the book isn't to stop buying; it's to buy carefully and consciously with full attention to real benefits and cost of purchases, remembering, always, that the best things in life aren't things". The exploitative products (cokepepsi) and their complete disregards to local population and its basic needs is an extension of this mindset. American spending is totally out of sync with the rest of the world and results in the depletion of precious resources. The book points out "..according to UNEP, Americans spend more for trash bags than 90 of the world's countries spend for everything". Consumption pattern in America is producing an incredible amount of pollution. Most people who equate America with development and progress seem to be oblivious to the colossal price all of us have to pay to sustain its high levels of consumption. According to the authors most Americans suffer from "possession overload", the problem dealing with too much stuff.
Hyper consumption is having a delirious consequence for the rest of the world. For instance though American comprise only 4.7% of the world\'s population, they account for 25% of its global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. Now to add confusion on such \nfacts and to maintain global threat lifestyle some scoundrels have even started to debate "whether human factors do contribute to global warming". We all are aware of Phillip Cooney case. The extend to which people can go to make profit!!!. The smoke screen!!!. The cigarette manufacturers say (with full support from McMedia and marketeers) that " percentage of people smoking has gone down". Yes true. But number of people smoking have gone up!!. Got it. 76% of the 800-900 movies made in India had smoking scenes. 52% of children take to smoking due to movies and that smoking on screen was 16% more effective than direct tobacco advertisements. These from prestigious \nLancet magazine. There are also cases of actors being paid by cigarette companies to smoke on screen. So are we going to fudge the numbers?!!. Clooneyboy is a role model for all Marketeers in all the place. I am told that they are thinking of constructing a temple for him!!. Om jaya clooneyboy hare. Sab ke sankat shan meh dhoor kare!!!. What motivated the attack on Iraq and subsequent endorsement of the people of this "powerful" nation is an eye-opener to the society's mindset. Life of "other" is so very cheap. This "other" is an extension of the selfish ideology of me and myself, taking an organic form of national interest. In advanced countries very effective law and order machinery control selfishness, as violent outbursts. Even then the crime rate is not low. In our country competing impoverished population on depleting resources with arcane and in most case corrupt law machinery the scenario is different. This is not to suggest that "reality" need to be curtailed and not be shown. Freedom is important. So is social context. So is how reality perceived and projected. So is what motivates people to present their interpretations of reality. The realities of, lets say, the gun battle of underworld and graphic scenes maybe important to vicariously experience the tragedy. But that is not the only reality we are aware. So why do they keep on showing this side of the story only??. Crime was always there in the society much before media. True. As someone said preventing kissing scenes has not stopped the population explosion!!. Very true. But this is deviating from the issue. These are basic human (lets say biological) acts. We all kill don\'t we? We kill animals (plants) for food. What is important is context. The context (and intention) of every act is important understanding on the event. And that is what is being questioned here.
Hyper consumption is having a delirious consequence for the rest of the world. For instance though American comprise only 4.7% of the world's population, they account for 25% of its global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. Now to add confusion on such facts and to maintain global threat lifestyle some scoundrels have even started to debate "whether human factors do contribute to global warming". We all are aware of Phillip Cooney case. The extend to which people can go to make profit!!!. The smoke screen!!!. The cigarette manufacturers say (with full support from McMedia and marketeers) that " percentage of people smoking has gone down". Yes true. But number of people smoking have gone up!!. Got it. 76% of the 800-900 movies made in India had smoking scenes. 52% of children take to smoking due to movies and that smoking on screen was 16% more effective than direct tobacco advertisements. These from prestigious Lancet magazine. There are also cases of actors being paid by cigarette companies to smoke on screen. So are we going to fudge the numbers?!!. Clooneyboy is a role model for all Marketeers in all the place. I am told that they are thinking of constructing a temple for him!!. Om jaya clooneyboy hare. Sab ke sankat shan meh dhoor kare!!!.
What motivated the attack on Iraq and subsequent endorsement of the people of this "powerful" nation is an eye-opener to the society's mindset. Life of "other" is so very cheap. This "other" is an extension of the selfish ideology of me and myself, taking an organic form of national interest. In advanced countries very effective law and order machinery control selfishness, as violent outbursts. Even then the crime rate is not low. In our country competing impoverished population on depleting resources with arcane and in most case corrupt law machinery the scenario is different. This is not to suggest that "reality" need to be curtailed and not be shown. Freedom is important. So is social context. So is how reality perceived and projected. So is what motivates people to present their interpretations of reality. The realities of, lets say, the gun battle of underworld and graphic scenes maybe important to vicariously experience the tragedy. But that is not the only reality we are aware. So why do they keep on showing this side of the story only??. Crime was always there in the society much before media. True. As someone said preventing kissing scenes has not stopped the population explosion!!. Very true. But this is deviating from the issue. These are basic human (lets say biological) acts. We all kill don't we? We kill animals (plants) for food. What is important is context. The context (and intention) of every act is important understanding on the event. And that is what is being questioned here.
Sisters are meant to be raped. Dowry is normal so is feudal norms. So is beti ka bhoj sar pe. Men the ultimate protector and so on are stereotypes of Indian movies we have seen so many times. Now with "changing times" they are "modern" and women assertion as they understand is the in thing. Which is about "bold" movies. Boldness here is fervent gyrations and thrusting boobs into the camera. Pray why?. It sells!!!. What else??. You aint thought its Drink milk ad.!!! From manufactured consent to manufactured mediocrity that is how they use " freedom of expression" in this part of the world. It is not surprising that smoking scenes are pivotal in such worldview. The society (film makers included) should worry about how the Market has put restriction on "creative expression" and the possibilities left unexplored. The realities those are not profitable. Or is movie not reality but fantasy??. The debate on "moral policing" by state need to be extended to "immoral policing" by Marketeers. A slave (in NDTV, Master Pronnoy roy careful!!) reports foroursakeonly "all feel that the government should have consulted the cigarette companies before putting the ban…". Yes consult!!. Everything foroursakeonly. All feel. Such feelings. Almost all people I have interacted with support the government effort. Majority of people are with the Government on this move to restrain moviemakers. The doctors who interacts with patients and the man on the street are the people whose view are important here and not the profit minded (not denying that money is important) film maker. The line is drawn. Ultimately it is we who suffer since it is we who have to face the smokers on crowded buses and public places who don't heed to any request. It is the women on the street who has to face cholli ke peeche kya hai not the proponent of these "creative expression" who are peeping on us from their sanitized world and guiding us on nuances on what is good for us. I agree these are law and order problem. True. So first make the democracy work, as it should. First provide us our basic rights and needs (for women it could as basic as walking in the street without any fear). Then we can think about "creative expression" of some who insist that smoking is integral part of lifestyle. But my preference is for Ms. Aruna Roy and her effort in making the Right Of Information a reality. That is the " reality" we need. Not some glitterati's day out on manufactured discussion. We live in a different contexts, different worlds. The context denied by the Market demands.
