Smoking on The Hour makes Perfect Sense
Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 9:46 "Just sent this complaint to the BBC," writes 'Bob'. "Wonder what your opinion is?"
I am tearing my hair out about the gratuitous use of smoking in [the] programmes Perfect Sense and The Hour, broadcast this week. Perfect Sense frequently had the two main protagonists smoking in a positive, alluring and attractive way, a common and cheap device used by directors, but against the tide of opposition to smoking in 'real' society.
I was flabbergasted to see it was made in 2011, so much was it like the programmes of the 70's and before in their ignorance of the dangers of smoking. When I heard on the news the next day that sainsburys were stopping selling cigarettes in their stores and a health report suggested that lung cancer will DOUBLE in the coming years (with women twice as likely to suffer from it), it made the programme seem even more antiquated and inappropriate.
Coincidentally I stumbled upon the BBC2 latest offering The House and ... yes strong/attractive and alluring leading characters smoking in a natural and 'cool' way. I can see some logic here given the era context, but WHY, given the statistics shown above, choose to depict smoking in such a way, other than once again a clumsy attempt at 'realism', contextualisation or atmospheric effect.
What amazes me is how bankrupt imaginatively and bereft of the concept the effect of the depiction of smoking on TV has (directly and subliminally) the directors/editors have. Producing TV romanticising smoking seems like a throwback to the 50's? Maybe supporting the smoking lobby is the next BBC scandal?
If I get a moment I'll respond but I'd be interested to hear your comments too.
Reader Comments (15)
*Sigh* - I like to see a diversity of cultures and smoking is one of them. It is, despite "Bob's" assertions, still part of culture and people right to see that culture represented and reflected in art, drama, and music.
If Bob doesn't like it, he can stop watching. It's not so cool to see smoking on TV that it makes him want to smoke so why would he think it would make anyone else want to smoke?
Is he a paid anti or one of their useful idiots? After all, their latest mission is to stop any representation in film,Tv etc because they don't like it.
The 'tide of opposition' ? The only opposition I hear comes from the usual groups of anti smoking lobbyists determined to make the world in their image, including rewriting social history via visual censorship of an activity which was a fact of the era depicted that many millions of people still enjoy today. Moreover, these programmes are for an ADULT audience. the starting point in 'bob's' argument then, is that even grown ups should be treated like children. The 'tide of public opposition' exists mostly in the minds and imagination of the a strident minority of tax funded anti smoking groups who use the phrase regardless that for most people, despite being encouraged by these groups to be 'intollerant' of my CHOICE to smoke, it is a non issue. Frankly, they have better things to worry about.
Dear flabbergasted Bob, I too watched "The Hour" last night, and thought what a wonderful job the BBC made of it. Last night's edition of The Hour was set in 1957 by the way, (not the 1970s) when Harold Macmillan told us all that we had never had it so good, if only we had realised how true his words were at that time.
It is rather silly on your part to suggest that when the BBC makes a programme based upon a period in time that they suppress anything we do not see as politically correct today. I have seen some excellent programmes showing people in slavery, people being murdered, wars, people starving, etc., etc., none of which are particularly pleasant subjects, but this is history Bob, and history needs to be told as it is, as it was - not whitewashed over for politically motivated issues.
You say the use of cigarettes made the programme seem antiquated and inappropriate. History by its name alone is "antiquated" Bob - it is about our past, when you overcome that hurdle you will hopefully understand what history, our past and programmes such as The Hour, are all about.
As for the health report suggesting that lung cancer will double in the coming years, with women twice as likely to suffer from it, I will post on that separately, as it is pure bunkum, with not one set of figures they have produced adding up to anything worthwhile or meaningful.
I know this might go against the grain for Simon, as he has specifically asked not to repeat posts on his blogs - but although I have already posted this elsewhere, I am doing so again in answer to "flabbergasted Bob's" email to Simon, where he quotes from a report he read stating "lung cancer will DOUBLE in the coming years with women twice as likely to suffer from it"
I also read that "report" and noted the figures contained in it - this is my answer to that"
Researchers from Kings College, London, who, according this article, say that they are "experts" supplied the British Journal of Cancer with these facts & figures", which the British Journal of Cancer went on to publish as "fact"
The "expert" researchers, predict there will be 137,000 people with lung cancer by 2040. They go on to say that Lung cancer rates have surged in women after tobacco manufacturers encouraged them to smoke to stay slim.
This "prediction" by the "experts" will take place in 28 years time. They then say that women did not begin smoking en masse until the 1960s and 1970s and that lung cancer rates tend to reflect people's smoking habits of 30 to 40 years ago.
This is where their figures start to go wrong surely? If women really did begin smoking en masse in the 1960s and 1970s, and we use the 30 to 40 year rule, which they (the "experts") say should kick in, that would make the cancer explosion date for women, some time between the 1990s and 2010. Well that's one set of figures that don't add up isn't it?
Secondly, they now state that women will be hit by a massive lung cancer explosion in the year 2040. Just pause for a moment and think about this one. Take their (the "experts") figures again, and their 30 to 40 year rule, and that would mean that these poor "predicted" women lung cancer sufferers would have contracted lung cancer between 2000 and 2010.
It is a fact that smoking rates were already on the decrease by 2000, and the smoking ban came into existence in 2007, which, according to most, if not all the cancer charities, cut the smoking rate even further. Their exact statement on the smoking ban in the UK is that it has been a huge success and has cut smoking rates dramatically.
So were they not telling us the truth when they issued such statements, or are they not telling us the truth now? These are their figures and "facts" not mine, or the tobacco companies.
So much for these sets of fictitious figures.
Equally as fictitious are the "facts" supplied by Amanda Sandford, of Action on Smoking and Health who said that many manufacturers used images of thin, beautiful, models smoking equally slim cigarettes.
Ms Sandford said that although tobacco advertising had since been banned, manufacturers still promoted smoking with being thin by the use of 'slim', more feminine cigarettes.
What "slim" cigarettes? As far as I know all cigarettes are much the same in size, and as for more feminine cigarettes, that is laughable - what do the manufacturers do, put them in a box shaped like a bra?
Ms Sandford is demeaning women in general by making up such crass remarks - women are not fools, who only buy a product that is shaped like a woman or has lace around the edges.
I think it is time to start demanding explanations to "facts and figures" that are dished out willy-nilly by people like this who call themselves "experts".
Let's go the whole hog with Bob
This could possibly be a spoof comment. Who is ‘Bob’? Perhaps if we knew that we could then tell.
But let’s suppose the comment is genuine disgust at what is being shown. I suggest we take it one step further…or even several steps further.
I would like to see the smoking scenes kept in, but when someone lights up we can have the offending:
1. Cigarette, cigar or pipe heavily pixelated.
2. Strap lines going across the top and bottom of the screen giving information about the number of deaths by SHS and THS as well.
3. The Health Secretary can pop up on screen telling us how we can seek help with smoking cessation products…perhaps he can alternate with Deborah Arnott.
4. At the end of each episode we can have information displayed on screen where we can seek counselling.
5. Finally (and I particularly like this one), there can be a 5 minute discussion about parents smoking in your household where children are present.
Now this would make scenes and dialogue incomprehensible, but remember its for our own good.
Well, what do you reckon – eh? How long do you think the general public watching their favourite soaps would take to become well and truly pissed off.
Since 80% of the general public were in favour of the smoking ban according to YouGov – then maybe it’s what we all want.
I think it’s a real hoot of an idea.
We need more Bob's like Bob
Hmm. Let's see. There are people going hungry all over the world every day; civil unrest and riots in Europe due to austerity measures and a morally-bankrupt political system; a bloody civil war in Syria with innocent civilians being slaughtered and losing their homes, livelihoods and everything they've ever known; wars still being fought elsewhere in the Middle East; old-age pensioners in England and Wales burning second-hand bought books to stay warm because they are unable to pay their exorbitant fuel bills; and so much more happening in the world ... and Bob is worried about people smoking on a television programme and feels the need to send in a complaint?
I think Bob needs to take a look a the real world around him and stop worrying about smokers and smoking. Priorities, mate.
Peter (and BoB), when this report came out, one of the authors remarked that the increase would be due to people living longer. Apart from that, as you note, women's lung cancer rates will start to fall thirty or forty years after the peak prevalence of smoking among women.
50% of lung cancer occurs after the age of 70, so increasing life expectancy will make a substantial difference. Perhaps if people lived to 150, they would all eventually get lung cancer as a result of general air pollution or natural cell mutation.
It angers me when history is rewritten and it's a dangerous route to go down and I hope film and programme makers don't give in. The Times obituary editor, at least, has a mischievous habit of publishing photogaraphs of those who lived into their nineties, with a cigarette in their hand.
"..... strong/attractive and alluring leading characters smoking in a natural and 'cool' way."
I thought the characters were all very unpleasant and, how does one smoke in a natural and cool way?
Having seen some blog responses, I'm amazed at the polarised and entrenched views out there. It's surprising to me that an attempt to save lives/health can be viewed so negatively and, almost, aggressively. Perhaps Forest should have some open days for its supporters at cancer wards and interviews with families deprived of both parents (such as I).
"....polarised and entrenched views..." (Bob)
'struth!!!!
Bob, you cannot save lives by trying to alter history. Did you know that in Germany it is against the law to deny the holocaust?
Bob, you've lost the plot, mate. No-one but the fanatical anti-smoking busybody faction (who are a tiny minority of the population) gives a tinker's cuss about seeing smoking on screen. It's a non-issue. It's not important. It's merely a depiction of reality. We don't live in a fantasy world, with pots of gold at the end of every rainbow and cute lambs gambolling in the meadows all around us with not a worry in the world. The rainbow means that we are probably cold and wet, and the lambs will probably end up on the dinner table with mint sauce on the side. It's what is called "real life" Bob. People smoke, Bob, and they will continue to smoke (and enjoy smoking) long after you have departed this mortal coil, misleading propaganda and your righteous indignation notwithstanding. Get used to it. Come down from your ivory tower and relax with us real people down in the realms of reality. Once you get the hang of it, you'll realise what you've been missing.
Well, you see, Bob, some of us have made an effort to analyse the so called 'research' into this subject and are, resultantly, extremely sceptical to put it mildly. In fact you can drive a horse and cart through most of it, even Doll's, as Ronald Fisher and Lord Nimmo Smith pointed out. And I speak as somebody whose parents both died of cancer.
If you wish to, religiously, hang on to every word a white coat says with no question, lateral view or perspective at all, that is your choice. It is not mine or ours and neither is it your place to force it on us. We have enough of this already and are sick of the hysterical rubbish already spouted without your penny's worth of attempting to rewrite or deny history and attempting to portray your self as the 'people's' spokesman.
It is both arrogant and childish not to mention nonsense.
Thanks for the concern about my health Bob but I'm sure you don't give a toss. I have family to care about me and vice versa. we don't need strangers with no lives butting into our ours for want of making themselves feel superior. Other people's decisions about their health, frankly, is none of your damn business. Look after your own and leave us alone. Don't come within a mile of us and we'll be very happy.
Bob, go away and mind your own damn business, you interfering
busybody!
I don't know why, but this keeps reminding me of an episode of Star Trek Voyager. Tom Paris was on an alien planet in a far off galaxy. As is the trend with Star Trek in all it's forms, most aliens are humanoid and do humanoid things. He was being familiar with an attractive woman, who was sitting on a balcony smoking a cigarette, a slim, feminine cigarette may I add. Tom said to her, "You are smoking, that is bad for you"...and here is the good bit..."We stopped that on our planet a long time ago because we found out that it kills us". Yes, that is right. Tom Paris, on a starship, confronting near death experiences on countless occasions. Tom Paris, being confronted with spacial anomalies and alien life forms regularly which could vaporise him quicker than a puff of smoke. He was safe however, because despite all these risks, he did not smoke.