It is not often that cigarette smoke becomes visible on the big screen again. Undoubtedly, this is a change that no time traveler from the 1880s would expect. Fortunately, today we can only experience the past through films, which have recently started showing cigarettes on screen again.
We can observe that among the current films nominated for the Oscars, many actors portray characters who smoke cigarettes. Cillian Murphy, playing Robert Oppenheimer in the film “Manhattan Project,” never parts with his cigarette throughout the entire film. Bradley Cooper, as Leonardo Bernstein in the film “Maestro,” also frequently appears with a cigarette in hand, except for moments of conducting. In the film “The Holdovers,” trade agreements based on packs of Winston cigarettes play a significant role in the plot, and Da’Vine Joy Randolph, an Oscar-nominated actress, is immersed in cigarette smoke.
This history evokes nostalgia for the times when cigarettes were widely accepted in society. Today, when most public places are smoke-free, stepping into the 1980s would undoubtedly make us nauseous from the smell of old cigarette smoke lingering on everything – from people to clothes to furniture.
Currently, we can enjoy the ban on smoking in Irish pubs, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year. However, the milestones of this history were laid long ago. Smoking has been prohibited worldwide on buses, airplanes, cinemas, and offices. Under pressure from the anti-tobacco lobby, Hollywood started to limit smoking on screen. Since 2007, the Motion Picture Association of America has encouraged studios to eliminate smoking from films targeting young audiences. Netflix followed suit a few years later.
Finally, a change has come. Hollywood was closely tied to tobacco companies for decades, with actors endorsing cigarette brands, and some premieres being sponsored by tobacco companies. With the introduction of tobacco advertising restrictions in the 1970s, this relationship began to hide, and product placement agreements gained importance. In 1983, the CEO of Philip Morris stated at a marketing meeting, “We must continue to exploit new opportunities to showcase cigarettes on screen and put them in the hands of smokers.” In 1989, the same company paid $350,000 for its brand Lark to appear in the film “License to Kill.”
The reaction to such synergistic cooperation was understandable but sometimes absurd. I remember being informed by an official as an editor in the mid-2000s that we were now legally required to ban the publication of any photographs with lit cigarettes, even temporarily. Such exaggerations quickly faded away. For a while, smoking on screen became rare, even in historical films where realism might require it.
The first sign of change was the series “Mad Men,” in which cigarettes played a crucial role in terms of time and place, becoming an integral element depicting the personalities and neuroses of the main characters. Don Draper today looks like the archetype of the nicotine-laden darkness of post-war times, which we also see in Murphy’s and Cooper’s films. Death hangs over each of them. Both Bernstein and Oppenheimer died from smoking-related illnesses, a fact present in both films, although “Maestro” portrays death from cancer in detail.
But why have so many filmmakers taken on cigarettes as a reference to the past, characters, or situations? The answer is simple – cigarette smoke provides them with a perfect visual tool to recreate an era. They largely draw from the rich history of cinema. Cigarettes were excellent props, especially in more conservative times when they signaled that a person (a) was ready for sex, (b) had sex, or (c) was interested in another round. But it was more than just that. A match striking against the end of a cigarette could signify danger, excitement, intimacy, or all at once.
Cigarettes allow filmmakers to quickly convey the peculiarity of the past, even the very recent past. The film “Saltburn” by Emerald Fennell is set in 2007, just before the smoking ban was introduced in the United Kingdom. “For me, it was a very specific moment because for someone in their early twenties or teenage years now, it would be unthinkable to smoke inside a bar or pub,” Fennell said in an interview with Vanity Fair. “So, the film takes on the characteristics of a historical drama, even though it doesn’t look like one at all.”
Filmmakers have started to share with the younger generation the same fascination with cigarettes that once captivated young people. Including cigarettes as “adult content” in movies and streaming series gives them the aura of a retro forbidden fruit. Cigarettes are dangerous but also carry a hint of sex appeal. Cigarettes can lead you astray, but in films, you can’t even smell them. How can one not love such a message on screen?
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
The source of the article is from the blog smartphonemagazine.nl