Disney announced yesterday it's banning smoking in Disney-branded films. According to the Hollywood Reporter:

"The Walt Disney Co. shares your concern regarding deaths due to cigarette smoking," Iger wrote to (Congressman Ed) Markey. "We discourage depictions of cigarette smoking in Disney, Touchstone and Miramax films. In particular, we expect that depictions of cigarette smoking in future Disney-branded films will be nonexistent."

Disney films are aimed at the family audience. Miramax and Touchstone tend to make more adult-oriented fare.

The move was welcomed by Markey, who has been a leading anti-smoking force in Congress.

"Disney's decision to take a stand against smoking is groundbreaking, and I commend CEO Bob Iger for this important commitment," Markey said. "Now it's time for other media companies to similarly kick the habit and follow Disney's lead."

Smoking in the movies is one of several areas in which the entertainment industry has been under pressure from Washington. Lawmakers and regulators are also pressing for them to promote healthier foods and cut down on violence and foul language.

According to the American Lung Assn., cigarette smoking has been identified as the most important source of preventable morbidity and premature mortality worldwide. Smoking-related diseases claim an estimated 438,000 American lives each year, and about 90% of smokers begin smoking before age 21.

Universal adopted a policy in April that drops smoking from "youth-rated" films and will add health warnings to films that do include smoking.

Universal president and CEO Ron Meyer said the studio is committed to reducing the health risk connected with smoking.

"We hope that our decreased portrayals of smoking and smoking paraphernalia in youth-oriented movies will help reduce the incidence of smoking among young people," he said. "If smoking is included in a youth-rated film released by Universal, we will include a health warning in our distribution channels. We feel it is important to use our influence to help stem a serious health problem in the U.S. and around the world. We believe it's possible to do that while respecting filmmakers' creative choices, and we are committed to partnering with them in this effort."

Share This

Tags: Laws, Ratings

Entertainment Weekly posts a provocative dissection of the movie rating system from its June 22 edition online.

Writer Mark Harris, prompted by the extreme and sexualized violence of Hostel II receiving an R rating, puts his finger firmly on some of the weaknesses of the rating system as it now exists:

The hypocrisies of the ratings system are familiar: Indies have it harder than studio films, naked men are naughtier than naked women, and almost any sex is worse than almost all violence. But the problem runs deeper. The MPAA has never decided whether its job is guidance or rule making. As a result, four ratings - G, PG, PG-13, and R - are merely advisory: The raters tell parents what's in a movie and let them decide whether to take their kids. But the fifth rating - NC-17 - carries the force of law: It's the only stage at which raters decide their judgment should overrule yours. It's a sharp distinction, and Hostel II's R rating proves that they're manifestly incompetent to make it.

NATO has repeatedly called for the proper rating of films - particularly films that merit an NC-17. At ShoWest in March, NATO president John Fithian stated

Speaking of the NC-17 rating, we call again for efforts to revitalize that important category through the release of significant movies under the NC-17 rating. Contrary to often-repeated myths, most theatre companies will play NC-17 movies that are appropriate for their markets, and most newspapers will run advertisements for the pictures. NC-17 movies on average make $3.9 million, while unrated films on average make $1.8 million. Serious filmmakers need to take NC-17 seriously. Everyone in the industry should resist any temptation to treat NC-17 as a negative judgment, rather than an integral part of the rating system that contemplates entertainment for both children and adults.

This approach is simple, but it is not easy. NATO General Counsel Kendrick Macdowell's column in Boxoffice magazine's May issue makes the point:

We do not pretend that simply saying "NC-17 is not a negative" can suddenly alter entrenched public perceptions. But we know that better educating the public begins with more precise communication. We also know that the vast majority of exhibitors will play NC-17 movies, if otherwise appropriate in content to their communities, and that virtually no exhibitor has a categorical policy against playing NC-17 movies. The same holds true for the vast majority of newspapers and their policies about ads for NC-17 movies.

We further do not pretend that there is no consequence whatever from an NC-17 rating. Yes, there is a consequence. Per above, patrons under 18 need not apply. But if I might paraphrase a Supreme Court ruling on the limitations of government regulation of free expression, we rue the day that all entertainment is reduced to the level of what is suitable for children.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

Tags: Laws, Ratings

June is Ratings Awareness Month, so it might be of interest to find out just how aware parents are of media ratings regarding sex and violence.

The Kaiser Family Foundation, demonstrating excellent timing, has released a report detailing the findings of its survey Parents, Children & Media: A Kaiser Family Foundation Survey.

They report that "Sixty-five percent of parents say they "closely" monitor their children's media use, while just 18% say they "should do more." This may help to explain why since 1998 the proportion of parents who say they are "very" concerned that their own children are exposed to inappropriate content - while still high - has dropped, from 67% to 51% for sexual content, from 62% to 46% for violence, and from 59% to 41% for adult language."

Some of the key findings:

Media Ratings

• Parents' use of the TV and video game ratings has stayed virtually the same since 1998 at about 50%, while use of music advisories has gone up (from 41% to 52%), and use of movie ratings has declined (from 86% to 77%).
• Among parents who have used any of the media ratings, the proportion who say they find them "very" useful has increased over the years, from 43% to 58% for video game ratings, 45% to 56% for music advisories, and 42% to 49% for the TV ratings.
• Many parents still don't understand what the TV ratings mean. Among parents who have children ages 2-6, only three in 10 can name any of the ratings used for children's shows, including TV-G, or G, which means "general audience." Only 11% know that the rating FV indicates violence (it stands for "fantasy violence"), while 9% think it means "family viewing." And only 11% know that the rating EI means educational or informational programming. Among parents with any child ages 2-18, 61% know that TV-14 means the show may be inappropriate for children under age 14 and just over half (54%) know that TV-MA means for mature audiences.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

Tags: Ratings