The 'Fuck You, Disney' Thread

[Replies From View]

I don't even agree with it and it was my wording.  I'm learning as the thread progresses.  I wish that certain other people would too.

Sod off with this, ta.  I'm not going to be moved from my position that the historical cooperation between film and tobacco industries was terrible and that I'm glad times have changed.  This doesn't ipso facto mean that I don't learn things when other people are making good points in a debate.

[sevendaughters]

It reveals that the character wants a coke instead of an alcoholic beverage or is in the mood for a coke instead of alcohol but not more then that.

this is some proper visual aspergers shit

[Zetetic]

It reveals that the character wants a coke instead of an alcoholic beverage but not more then that.

Arguably that's an inference too far.

I'd like to advocate for a form of narrative analysis that views all 'characters' as vacuous automata performing a series of inscrutable actions from which we cannot justifiably infer any sort of internal state, let alone any sort of permanence of personality.

Some noises have been made in a place. Next scene.

[St_Eddie]

So it's fine to offer a one sided, glamourised image of fags because they don't cause instant harm? A realistic depiction of smokers might well have a few of them displaying the odd hacking cough or yellow teeth, but that's not artistically valid? And, shirley, one way that society does deal with the issue is to examine how it is depicted in fiction.

It bothers me the way that so many of you seem to think that you know what's best for other people.  You know that smoking's bad but other people aren't as clued in as you and need protecting because of their delicate sensibilities?  You know who else adopted that attitude?  Mary Whitehouse.

It reveals that the character wants a coke instead of an alcoholic beverage or is in the mood for a coke instead of alcohol but not more then that.

What an utterly bizarre way to read that hypothetical scene.  If a character is drinking whiskey in a bar at 11am, there's no inference of character there.  The fella just wanted to drink a whiskey, right?  Ridiculous.

[St_Eddie]

Sod off with this, ta.  I'm not going to be moved from my position that the historical cooperation between film and tobacco industries was terrible and that I'm glad times have changed.  This doesn't ipso facto mean that I don't learn things when other people are making good points in a debate.

If there's no point in us continuing to debate because you've already made your mind up, then please stop responding to me because it's beyond pointless.

[Timothy]

What an utterly bizarre way to read that hypothetical scene.  If a character is drinking whiskey in a bar at 11am, there's no inference of character there.  The fella just wanted to drink a whiskey.

You added a specific timeslot to your scene there, which indeed makes a difference and can indicate that something's wrong, that the character is an alcoholic or whatever.

But ''character drinks coke at bar'' is vague and doesn't tell you much about a character.

Instead of saying you think it's utterly bizarre you can try to explain why.

[colacentral]

What an utterly bizarre way to read that hypothetical scene.

[Replies From View]

It bothers me the way that so many of you seem to think that you know what's best for other people.  You know that smoking's bad but other people aren't as clued in as you and need protecting because of their delicate sensibilities?

There is a reason the tobacco industry has always targeted young people when they've been able to get away with it.  It's not patronising to think protecting young people from certain types of insidious marketing is a good idea, whether it's for tobacco, alcohol or junk food.

[Timothy]

There is a reason the tobacco industry has always tended to target young people.  It's not patronising to think protecting young people from certain types of insidious marketing is a good idea, whether it's for tobacco, alcohol or junk food.

Indeed. Well said.

[St_Eddie]

But ''character drinks coke at bar'' is vague and doesn't say much.

Fine.  Allow me to rephrase the scene; it's 10pm on a Friday night, a character named Alice and her friends are at a busy bar.  The character's friends all order alcoholic beverages but Alice orders a diet Coke.  Would that or would that not inform the viewer about the nature of Alice, to some degree?

[Timothy]

Fine.  Allow me to rephrase the scene; it's 10pm on a Friday night, a character named Alice and her friends are at a busy bar.  The character's friends all order alcoholic beverages but Alice orders a diet Coke.  Would that or would that not inform the viewer about the nature of Alice, to some degree?

It could, yeah.

Now let's get back to cigarettes. Could you give me an example there as well?

(again: not trying to be patronizing or trying to troll. genuinely curious to see your point here.)

[St_Eddie]

There is a reason the tobacco industry has always targeted young people when they've been able to get away with it.  It's not patronising to think protecting young people from certain types of insidious marketing is a good idea, whether it's for tobacco, alcohol or junk food.

I've already conceded that it's likely a good thing to not depict smoking in kids films.  We are now discussing films not directly aimed at children and have been for a good couple of pages now.

[Replies From View]

It could, yeah.

Now let's get back to cigarettes. Could you give me an example there as well?

(again: not trying to be patronizing or trying to troll. genuinely curious to see your point here.)

Woman chooses to smoke because she is a smoker.  Do you see?  She is sexy and this is chiefly because of her smoking.  Cigarettes make her an independent woman as can be seen by numerous instances of her lighting up exactly at the point of her being assertive and independent.

[sevendaughters]

More to the point having a character perform a ritual and normal process like eating, smoking, drinking, sleeping, kissing, walking etc. and showing how that person does it in a certain way, how they hold the cigarette, how they inhale, how they do it with a certain style, just gives us access to so much more sense data than having some clumsy exposition that tells us. The PI smoking with a femme fatale is not the same as Bridget Jones nervously smoking with her friends is not the same as the dying old man having one last puff is not the same as the teenage nerk round the back of the bike sheds. Sure you could have them do something else. But smoking is/was familiar and most people know how it works. I daresay it will gradually decline and be projected onto some other common act. Yes, you could do it some other way. But this is a time-honoured and good way and it will carry on. I honestly can't believe I am having to write this out in 2019.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

It bothers me the way that so many of you seem to think that you know what's best for other people.  You know that smoking's bad but other people aren't as clued in as you and need protecting because of their delicate sensibilities?  You know who else adopted that attitude?  Mary Whitehouse.

All I'm saying is that, if it's realistic to show people smoking onscreen, then it's equally realistic to show some of the more unpleasant side effects. It doesn't have to be full on cancer.

[Replies From View]

More to the point having a character perform a ritual and normal process like eating, smoking, drinking, sleeping, kissing, walking etc. and showing how that person does it in a certain way, how they hold the cigarette, how they inhale, how they do it with a certain style, just gives us access to so much more sense data than having some clumsy exposition that tells us. The PI smoking with a femme fatale is not the same as Bridget Jones nervously smoking with her friends is not the same as the dying old man having one last puff is not the same as the teenage nerk round the back of the bike sheds. Sure you could have them do something else. But smoking is/was familiar and most people know how it works. I daresay it will gradually decline and be projected onto some other common act. Yes, you could do it some other way. But this is a time-honoured and good way and it will carry on. I honestly can't believe I am having to write this out in 2019.

Well you do have to write this out in 2019 because smoking is a lot less fashionable than in the 60s, and the tobacco industry no longer has as much influence within influential mainstream art forms, so including nicotine consumption in films and television is a lot more of a shoehorning effort and requires more justification.

[sevendaughters]

Well you do have to write this out in 2019 because smoking is a lot less fashionable than in the 60s, the tobacco industry no longer has as much influence within influential mainstream artforms, so including nicotine consumption in films and television is a lot more of a shoe-horn.

I said that in my post, more or less.

[St_Eddie]

It could, yeah.

Now let's get back to cigarettes. Could you give me an example there as well?

(again: not trying to be patronizing or trying to troll. genuinely curious to see your point here.)

There's a scene in Exorcist III, where a doctor character has been cajoled by a possessed man to spin a yarn to the detective protagonist.  When we open on the scene with the doctor, we as the audience do not yet possess any of this knowledge (regarding what has transpired between the doctor and the possessed man) and instead are shown an ashtray full of cigarette butts and the doctor sparking up a fresh cigarette.  He's murmuring repeated lines to himself, as though he's learning a script.  The detective enters the room and says "you wanted to see me?".  The doctor then gives his rehearsed speech.

In that scene, cigarettes are used to inform us of that character's state of mind; one of considerable stress.  This is true to life.  When I'm under heavy stress, my smoking increases exponentially.

All I'm saying is that, if it's realistic to show people smoking onscreen, then it's equally realistic to show some of the more unpleasant side effects. It doesn't have to be full on cancer.

Plenty of films to show the unpleasant side effects, so I fail to see your point.

[Timothy]

But smoking is/was familiar and most people know how it works. I daresay it will gradually decline and be projected onto some other common act.

That's my whole point there. Rituals and normal processes are important in movies. Drinking, eating, sleeping, kissing, walking etc. Obviously I agree with that.
But I disagree with smoking being a normal process. Therefore I think that smoking can, indeed, be exchanged for some other common act.

Well you do have to write this out in 2019 because smoking is a lot less fashionable than in the 60s, and the tobacco industry no longer has as much influence within influential mainstream art forms, so including nicotine consumption in films and television is a lot more of a shoehorning effort and requires more justification.

Exactly.

and instead are shown an ashtray full of cigarette butts and the doctor sparking up a fresh cigarette.  He's murmuring repeated lines to himself, as though he's learning a script.  Cigarettes have informed us, the viewers, that this is a man under immense stress.

But are these cigarettes necessary to show that the man is under immense stress? Doesn't the way he behaves and the fact that he keeps murmuring repeated lines to himself not enough indication?

[Replies From View]

If there's no point in us continuing to debate because you've already made your mind up, then please stop responding to me because it's beyond pointless.

I asked you to sod off with this tone.

[sevendaughters]

That's my whole point there. Rituals and normal processes are important in movies. Drinking, eating, sleeping, kissing, walking etc. Obviously I agree with that.
But I disagree with smoking being a normal process. Therefore I think that smoking can, indeed, be exchanged for some other common act.

You clearly know what it is and so does literally everyone here. It's not something obscure like whittling or doing that weird thing girls did with elastic bands over their fingers. I get the moral argument (feel it stronger on guns, particularly on posters) but it's going to take a good few decades to de-normalise smoking to the common eye.

[Delete Delete Delete]

I bet hes gagging for a fag. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDgFrVCkGxE

[Uncle TechTip]

All I'm saying is that, if it's realistic to show people smoking onscreen, then it's equally realistic to show some of the more unpleasant side effects. It doesn't have to be full on cancer.

I think the main unpleasant side effect for a smoker is the smell, so whilst you can see that Humphrey Bogart looks suave and sophisticated, you'll have to imagine that he stinks of ashtrays.

[Replies From View]

In that scene, cigarettes are used to inform us of that character's state of mind; one of considerable stress.  This is true to life.  When I'm under heavy stress, my smoking increases exponentially.

Of course it fits that situation.  But like drinking haven't you noticed it actually fits every situation?  One of the reasons I stopped drinking was because I didn't like the way I could excuse the presence of alcohol in any situation.  Lovely warm summery afternoon?  Drink.  Miserable cold January evening?  Drink.  Picnic with friends?  Drink.  Alone with a film?  Drink.  You name it... drink.


And the same goes with smoking which ultimately means it doesn't say anything specific about a character at all, beyond the fact that they smoke.  Under heavy stress?  Smoke.  Not under heavy stress, just a naturally relaxed person?  Still smoke.


I refer you back to this:

It's absolutely irrelevant that some working class people smoke in films when ... films [also] promote smoking as

Sophisticated/glamorous/sexy
Rebellious
Otherworldly
The action of someone extremely popular
The action of a loner
Sensible/smart
The action of someone stressed out (smoking is for people who want to calm down)
The behaviour of someone who is extremely chilled (smoking is for people who are calm by nature)
Wistful


The list goes on and on, by the way.  Your key point was that cigarettes in films can be used to help us understand something about that character, but you are wrong - all it tells us is that that character smokes.  And the tobacco industry wants influential films to train people that smoking is for every type of person in any possible situation, alone, socially, everywhere.

[St_Eddie]

Of course it fits that situation.  But like drinking haven't you noticed it actually fits every situation?  One of the reasons I stopped drinking was because I didn't like the way I could excuse the presence of alcohol in any situation.  Lovely warm summery afternoon?  Drink.  Miserable cold January evening?  Drink.  Picnic with friends?  Drink.  Alone with a film?  Drink.  You name it... drink.

And the same goes with smoking which ultimately means it doesn't say anything specific about a character at all, beyond the fact that they smoke.  Under heavy stress?  Smoke.  Not under heavy stress, just a naturally relaxed person?  Still smoke.

Okay, so according to your logic, there's never a reason for a character to drink alcohol in a film either?

[greenman]

I tend to think that actually a lot of the reason smoking was used so often in cinema was exactly because its unhealthiness was played up, maybe not in terms of showing direct effects a lot of the time but the general sense that it was something dangerous that highlighted someones mortality the same as hard drinking. You could argue that often shifted into a certain anti hero/heroine coolness but smoking depicted as a harmless everyday activity never seemed that common to me.

[Replies From View]

You clearly know what it is and so does literally everyone here. It's not something obscure like whittling or doing that weird thing girls did with elastic bands over their fingers. I get the moral argument (feel it stronger on guns, particularly on posters) but it's going to take a good few decades to de-normalise smoking to the common eye.

Yes but de-normalising it won't happen if we insist on using films to continue normalising it.

[colacentral]

West Side Story isn't The Exorcist III. If the Sharks did a few lines of coke before breaking into a dance I think most here would agree it to be unnecessary.

[sevendaughters]

Yes but de-normalising it won't happen if we insist on using films to continue normalising it.

I haven't insisted on it once. I just think it is defensible and a great way to externalise the internal. If everyone stopped doing it tomorrow I wouldn't notice or care. Neither do I care about de-normalising it. Have everyone huffing vapes as a compromise.

[Replies From View]

Okay, so according to your logic, there's never a reason for a character to drink alcohol in a film either?

I've not been saying "never" about this, but if drinking was used in films to the same extent - people drinking on the move, for example in the same way a cigarette can be easily carried across different contexts, then it would probably evoke similar feelings for me, yes.

But a big part of this is about how the tobacco industries have worked with movie studios in the past not to promote specific brands but to communicate that smoking is a desirable activity in its own right.  I can't really think of any other industry that has done that.