Hey Cruella, Put That Out!

In what can only be called a symbolic gesture in this day and age, Walt Disney Pictures has issued a ban on any onscreen images of smoking in its films. Considering that the bulk of this studio's output is such G-rated fare as Ratatouille, I don't think this will be very hard. (As for Disney's more "adult"-orientated films put out under their Touchstone and Miramax labels, smoking onscreen will be "strongly discouraged". Whatever.)

But what does this mean for the images (created in a less "Oh, but we have to protect the children" time) from such classics as Pinocchio (lost boys puffing on stogies on Pleasure Island), The Three Caballeros (Jose Carioca and his ever-present cigar) and 101 Dalmatians (Cruella de Vil is never without her green smoke-spewing cigarette holder)? Disney already got the scissors out for the DVD release of the lesser-known Melody Time, snipping out every last trace of cowboy Pecos Bill's tobaccy habit. Will the same be done to forthcoming new DVD editions of Pinocchio and Dalmatians?

Well, it is doubtful that even Disney would go that far. For one thing, I cannot imagine the expense such self-censorship would entail, and the public outcry from animation purists and film historians would be deafening if these two certified masterpieces were tampered with in any way. Also, in both cases, smoking is shown as bad - Pinocchio turns green, Cruella is the villain. So I think it is safe to say that both films will be re-released unharmed - or at least with a "smoking is bad for you" disclaimer tacked on the beginning ... for now.

However, how much longer will it be until that isn't enough? In the excellent satire Thank You for Smoking, William H. Macy's senator announces a plan to edit out all images of smoking from old movies. He illustrates this by showing a photograph of Gary Cooper with a candy cane sticking out of his mouth in place of a cigarette. Sure, it is a ludicrous idea (if not down right impossible - watch any day of Turner Classic Movies and you will see that everyone in every old movie smoked - constantly), but there is a sense that it could happen - that is what makes the scene funny in the first place.

There are certainly dangers the Hollywood studios would face if they allow Washington to control too much of what you see. The MPAA has already hinted at automatically rating a movie an "R" if there was any smoking in it (can you imagine, an "R"-rated 101 Dalmatians), and studios in England have already instituted a ban on any smoking on its sound stages. Are such blanket policies really necessary? Or is this just more political conservatism run amuck?

You may ask, well, it is just smoking, that's bad for you, so they shouldn't show it any way, right? OK, fine, what about alcohol? Alcohol is bad for you, so no drinking onscreen. Guns? Guns kill people, so no guns either. Cars - cars cause accidents, no cars. Food! Someone can choke on a chicken bone and die, nobody can eat in a movie ever again ...!

Absurd, yes, but you can see how slippery the slope is; the politicians should do their jobs and leave the movie making to the moviemakers (free of any government-sanctioned restraints on content) and let parents give little Johnny the anti-smoking talk. After all, isn't the government busy enough without worrying if a cartoon character lights one up?

Which reminds me: Hey Cruella, got a match?