Use of, ahem, cannabis in student film.

Lr158

My classmate and I are doing a video project for college. Its a short film and basically in one scene one of the characters is rolling a joint, with real cannabis. Its just a way, of being able to apply different effects as we do it.

My question is, of course, will anything be said to us? Its sitting on the table although we dont do any close ups on it. If they ask we could just say a friend in an art collage made it as a prop?

Anyone know anything on this?

Miguel_Sanchez

I doubt it's the first time your lecturers have seen a lump of hash in a student film.

Don't worry - they won't be bothered in the slightest.

Freelancer

Funny moments from film school: number 5 in series.

First week of first year and our first sound lecture.

Sound Lecturer
(trying to explain a sound waveform)
'You know when you're on acid right? And you "see" sound? Yeah?
Thats a sound waveform"

Your lecturers have been film students and on film shoots. They've seen and more than likely ingested more drugs than you.

Alternatively, use a lump of peat.

DublinWriter

Freelancer wrote:

Sound Lecturer
(trying to explain a sound waveform)
'You know when you're on acid right? And you "see" sound? Yeah?
Thats a sound waveform"

...and all the smelly little freshers nod in agreement, wondering what the feck he's on about.

BlitzKrieg

Should be fine, i've seen a number of films with weed in it, the lecturers usually dont say anything.

I remember one of the early films i did in secondary school had a weed scene in it, the director just said it was herbal tobacco or something and the principal believed him.

Should be no bother.


But on the film itself make sure your lecturers are not the sort who roll their eyes in exasperated annoyance at tht type of film your making. I know my lecturers get annoyed at films about drug deals and suicides.

Happened in my 1st year, 2 films (one a drug deal gone bad) and another (a suicide) got ripped apart by the panel of film lecturers at the crit. Ever since there has been 3 rules about filmmaking in my college, no drug deals, no suicides and dont film in the graveyard next door.

Lr158

The film isnt about drugs. Its just more of a "session" I suppose. Character development etc

The only reason its in, is for different effects and transitions.

Cheers for the information

Freelancer

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Happened in my 1st year, 2 films (one a drug deal gone bad) and another (a suicide) got ripped apart by the panel of film lecturers at the crit. Ever since there has been 3 rules about filmmaking in my college, no drug deals, no suicides and dont film in the graveyard next door.

We did one about two kids who minced a cat.

For no aparent reason.

All film schools have at least one short about two kids who find a gun and then one accidently shoots the other one.

Lr158

lol

There is a guy in my class like that.

Wouldnt be unusal for him to do something like that

BlitzKrieg

Freelancer wrote:

All film schools have at least one short about two kids who find a gun and then one accidently shoots the other one.

Dont think i've seen one like that in ours yet? We've had one in 16mm where two people fighting over the remote for a TV and it goes OTT and the end result is a bloody murder involving a kitchen knife.

I do remember one where the film crew got so stoned that they forgot to shoot their film, they just filmed a wooden old door opening and closing all night.

They still brought it in the next day and bullsh*tted their way through the crit, one of the lecturers (the trademark avant garde one) loved it to bits.

Freelancer

DublinWriter wrote:

...and all the smelly little freshers nod in agreement, wondering what the feck he's on about.

Mate this was VTEC course in Ballyfermot not UCD, I was a freshfaced whippersnapper out of school, but I was one of the few. I can politely describe some of my classmates as "jaded".......

There's a favourite anecdote about a classmate involving the New South Wales Police Department, this guy's Aborigine boyfriend, a stash of drugs, their cottage gay porno industry, and a car crash, that cannot be repeated in polite company.

Hell there was a student shoot involving shotguns, horse sperm in liquid nitrogen, ketamine and a stable boy, and thats just what we got up to in our spare time.

Ahhhhh college........

I do remember one where the film crew got so stoned that they forgot to shoot their film, they just filmed a wooden old door opening and closing all night.

I think I've done that.....

Best parody of a student short film
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190299/plotsummary

"Don't you see? We're in black and white and all wearing polonecks,
We're IN A SHORT FILM"!!!

Rockdolphin

What you need to worry about is The Office Of Tobacco Control. It is illegal in Ireland to allow smoking in a workplace and that includes film sets ! You could be fined €3,000. I know it's crazy, but thats Bertie's Brave New Ireland for you !

And just think the amount of films and tv that can't be shot here. No smoking scenes whatever allowed. Censorship at source !

Devinho

Freelancer wrote:

All film schools have at least one short about two kids who find a gun and then one accidently shoots the other one.

Ah, the opening of the most memorable episode of the Sweeney ever.

Freelancer

Rockdolphin wrote:

What you need to worry about is The Office Of Tobacco Control. It is illegal in Ireland to allow smoking in a workplace and that includes film sets ! You could be fined €3,000. I know it's crazy, but thats Bertie's Brave New Ireland for you !

Good point.

And just think the amount of films and tv that can't be shot here. No smoking scenes whatever allowed. Censorship at source !

Bad point.

Art departments simply subsititute tobacco with a variety of substances, such as clove cigarettes or herbal cigarettes.

nohshow

Goddam student movies with their graveyards and their loners in a darkened room and their drug-related tales.

Fact: cannibis is illegal.

Fact: You can be arrested for possession.

Fact: You can be arrested for promoting its use, or 'pushing' as it's called.

Fact: Use herbal tobacco or a non-tobacco alternative. You aren't even smoking it! Who the fkcu's gonna know the difference, and you probably won't get arrested.

Jeezus, students! The industry is lost . . .

Freelancer

nohshow wrote:

Goddam student movies with their graveyards and their loners in a darkened room and their drug-related tales.

Fact: cannibis is illegal.

Fact: You can be arrested for possession.

True, but its not like theres going to be a raid on the film set for a nodge of hash.

I suppose some colleges and lecturers would be angry and seek discpline if a student brought drugs onto set, but I think most will operate with a don't ask dont tell. I know on an actual film set, using real drugs as props is a massive no no for good reason.

Fact: You can be arrested for promoting its use, or 'pushing' as it's called.

Yes which is why Danny Boyle doesn't come to Ireland. Cop on. You cannot be arrested to showing people smoking drugs.

nohshow

The point is not necessarily that the demonstration would in and of itself invoke the adverse attention of the law - is that what you meant by "cop on"? - but you are in effect making your actor use the stuff. If someone wanted to press the point (and please don't insult me by pretending you think I would) you could be considered a pusher in this instance.

But you miss the entire point of my message. You evade the question of why anyone would want or need to use actual cannibis on a film set by saying that your tutors would probably turn a blind eye. That isn't the point.

The point is it's illegal and you don't need to do it. Except for the andeneline-hyped daring of the deed and the manly chest-expansion potential involved, there is absolutely no reason not to substitute something legal.

And you're right. No one is going to launch a raid on a student film set. Good. Because if you were to be raided you'd have to apologise and express as convincingly as you could that you realised it was wrong and you'd need to promise with as much heart-felt shame as you can fake that you'll never do it again.

Is what right or wrong comes down to, then? The degree of possibility or otherwise that you'll be caught doing it?

Perhaps this is a moral issue best discussed by theologians. Meanwhile you'll consider your argument and possibly reply, I'll consider mine and perhaps reply to yours and in the end you'll do whatever you want.

Freedom of choice, responsibility for your decisions.

Good luck.

turbot

I suggest that if you actually go ahead and do this, then you should have a disclaimer, possibly a really sarcastic disclaimer, in the credits, stating something like:


The producers of this film are aware that smoking is bad and cigarettes are bad because the government says so and just say no.

In order to retell a fictional story derived from what the producers have watched, heard, read about, explored on the Internet and experienced first hand, though absolutely not partaken in, this film involves what appears to be a smoking scene, involving what appears to be a joint.

The producers would like to state, categorically, that they have not made use of drugs or tobacco in this production because it is illegal, bad, wrong, naughty and silly (play excessive, uncontrollable laughter as this part scrolls past). Legal herbal incense was used in place of tobacco, combined with dried peat moss, to simulate what otherwise would have been an illegal activity.

The ingestion of these ingredients produced none of the hallucinations, euphoria, relaxed sense of expansion, amazing orgasms, laughter and visions of beauty or other side effecti many online writers attribute to being an effect of smoking a (good) joint.

Thanks to the incredible method acting skills of the actors, and their detailed academic research of the above phenomenon and more, the visible stonedness represented carefully filmed footage involving skillful mimcry and nothing more. (play someone crossing their eyes)

By the way, if you, the viewer partake in such illegal and reprehensible activities, please be aware that the producers of this film neither encourage nor endorse nor promote such activities (neither should you) especially activities like getting high before listening to music, getting high in the company of attractive naked people you've recently met, or to see the World differently. Don't do it. Bertie says no.


(you have my permission to paraphase the above / and or use it exactly for your film - and if you do, please send me a copy, and I'll PM you my details).

Rockdolphin

Freelancer wrote:

Bad point.

Art departments simply subsititute tobacco with a variety of substances, such as clove cigarettes or herbal cigarettes.

Many directors simply won't accept that and it won't work in all cases and comprimises artistic freedom. In the era of the Stardust the majority of young people smoked at clubs. In the recent RTE production about the Stardust how many people did you see smoking ?

A play in New York ran into trouble over a scene where people smoked on stage. The local Authorities demanded the actors not smoke. This infinged the copyright and hence the play was pulled.

Not only is smoking frowned upon, but so to is it's portrayal. The film and Tv industry in California is fighting a constant battle against the anti-smoking brigade. There is proposed legislation in America to have any films with smoking scenes to be automatically branded with an adults only certificate and also calls to electronicaly manipulate smoking scenes out from older movies. Crazy eh ? , but then again so was the smoking ban idea when it was first mooted !

When you start mucking about with the basic foundations of freedom and democracy you end up with some nasty consequences.

BlitzKrieg

The point is it's illegal and you don't need to do it.

i was under the assumption (maybe wrongly) that the scene had already been shot and the OP was worried that they (like most student filmmakers [myself included]) hadnt actually extensively planned the piece (checked legality of actions, ensured every prop.) and now find that they could be in a difficult place and are checking should they cut the scene in question or reshoot it with a legal substitute.

In the above situation i would say its ok to just continue, and if questioned tell the lecturer it is a herbal substitute.

Except for the andeneline-hyped daring of the deed and the manly chest-expansion potential involved, there is absolutely no reason not to substitute something legal.

But i agree that if it is a film that has not gone into shooting yet or was extensivly planned (a film for distribution rather then a student project) then yes it is something that should be spotted early on and the pros and cons of risking legal action could be wieghed.

For example:

-My current project has a bit of legal liability, in the UK it requires for any filming at any train station a fee of 1000 pounds sterling per day. This is even when its a student. After being told this i was faced it a dileama. Cut one of the most important scenes in my film, find an alternative, or risk the full wieght of the law.

I couldnt cut the scene so looked into alternatives, but all the test footage came back horrible, bu station didnt have the same empty cold feeling as a platform and a car and taxi proved too difficult for what the script required.

So actually under the *cough* unofficial advice of one of my lecturers we drove out to a unmaned station on a sunday afternoon and tried to quickly shoot as much of the scene as possible.

We actually got caught towards the end when two ticket collectors got off one of the trains passing by. But we played ignorant got a slap on the wrist and told to finish up and leave.

But i feel it was worth it, the location was a necessity for how the scene played out so the pros clearly outwieghed the cons.

Course i have now learned a new Con which is i cant go back and reshoot any footage that came out wrong, so i am stuck trying to fix some problems in the sound...*sigh*

BlitzKrieg

And just think the amount of films and tv that can't be shot here. No smoking scenes whatever allowed. Censorship at source !

and as far as i understand smoking in the workplace is allowed if its outdoor or at a specific level of ventilation. While this does not benefit smaller productions, it means no problem with larger productions as they have to have alot of ventilation anyway due to the large amount of lighting equipment used.

Freelancer

Rockdolphin wrote:

Many directors simply won't accept that and it won't work in all cases and comprimises artistic freedom.

Whut? How does smoking herbal cigarettes instead of tobacco ones, compromise "artistic freedom"?

In the era of the Stardust the majority of young people smoked at clubs. In the recent RTE production about the Stardust how many people did you see smoking ?

I generally think if you're watching something and spotting continuity errrors, the director has failed. You're not engaged in the story, and you start to notice trivial details.

Think Bloody Sunday or Omagh. No one really smokes in either, did you notice or care? No.

[ancedote]
I worked on a feature film in late 2003, definetly set in 2004 (someone buys a new car with 04. It takes place over a number of seasons (someone plants flowers) and a major location is a bar. What do you see everyone doing? Smoking. Not just smoking, moodly dragging on cigarettes intently as shorthand for "I'm feeling broody and serious)

Worst continuity error ever
[/ancedote]

A play in New York ran into trouble over a scene where people smoked on stage. The local Authorities demanded the actors not smoke. This infinged the copyright and hence the play was pulled.

A quick search on google and google news doesn't show anything about this story. Are you sure it isn't a smokers urban myth?

Not only is smoking frowned upon, but so to is it's portrayal. The film and Tv industry in California is fighting a constant battle against the anti-smoking brigade. There is proposed legislation in America to have any films with smoking scenes to be automatically branded with an adults only certificate and also calls to electronicaly manipulate smoking scenes out from older movies. Crazy eh ? , but then again so was the smoking ban idea when it was first mooted !

Theres lots of stupid campaigns out there doesn't mean the entirity of the anti smoking lobby is insane. And how do you manipulate out a smoking scene, have Rita Hayworth reach for a stick of gum in Gilda? :rolleyes: Have you any idea how impossible that is?

When you start mucking about with the basic foundations of freedom and democracy you end up with some nasty consequences.

Yeah funny I don't see "killing people with second hand smoke" enshrined as a fundamental right in any countries constitution. And "nasty" consequences? On one had you have less people, y'know, not dying, verus, having to smoke a herbal fag. Gosh I can see which one is nastier.

Rockdolphin

Originally Posted by Rockdolphin
Many directors simply won't accept that and it won't work in all cases and comprimises artistic freedom.

Freelancer wrote:

Whut? How does it comprimise artistic freedom.

If you don't see how it can compromise artistic freedom then ask someone like Neil Jordan or Oliver Stone next time you see them. As with alcahol it can easily be portrayed by coloured water, but some directors choose to use the real deal ! It's their choice

Freelancer wrote:

I generally think if you're watching something and spotting continuity errrors, the director has failed. You're not engaged in the story, and you start to notice trivial details.

Think Bloody Sunday or Omagh. No one really smokes in either, did you notice or care? No.

[ancedote]
I worked on a feature film in late 2003, definetly set in 2004 (someone buys a new car with 04. It takes place over a number of seasons (someone plants flowers) and a major location is a bar. What do you see everyone doing? Smoking. Not just smoking, moodly dragging on cigarettes intently as shorthand for "I'm feeling broody and serious)

Worst continuity error ever
[/ancedote].

Attention to detail is the hallmark of great directors. It's the trivial details that set the mood, texture and atmosphere and is the canvas the story and plot unfolds on. Great care, attention and time is given to this by production staff. If I were a producer of a movie in which the story revolved around a bar and bookies office in 70's Ireland I'd be very sceptical if you as a director would have the instincts needed to set the correct atmosphere !

Freelancer wrote:

A quick search on google and google news doesn't show anything about this story. Are you sure it isn't a smokers urban myth?.

This actually happened in Boulder, Colorada not NY as I had stated. The play contained a scene where some people smoke. A patron called the police who ordered the theatre management to cut the smoking scene or face a €1,000 fine and 90 days in jail. Fearing copyright litigation if they changed the scene theatre management halted the production. Commenting afterwards the copyright owner said "It's so funny, in these censorious times, everyone goes home and sits around the dinner table and talks about how great it is to live in a free country."

Source : The Philadelphia Enquirer

Freelancer wrote:

Theres lots of stupid campaigns out there doesn't mean the entirity of the anti smoking lobby is insane. And how do you manipulate out a smoking scene, have Rita Hayworth reach for a stick of gum in Gilda? :rolleyes: Have you any idea how impossible that is?.

Have you not noticed the increasing use of pixelisation on TV programs of late ! Used primaraly to erase product placement, but can be easily used for other purposes

Freelancer wrote:

Yeah funny I don't see "killing people with second hand smoke" enshrined as a fundamental right in any countries constitution.

Maybe you should research deeper than quick searches on Google to inform yourself ! There is no sceintific evidence that can link passive smoking and ill health with non smokers. Not one single person can be named that has died from passive smoking. If what the anti smoking lobby claim is correct then airline staff who worked all their lives in smoke fileld tubes would be dropping like flies in winter. Extensive studies have shown no increased mortality rate amongs this group of workers from the general population. Smoking is banned because some people hate the smell of it and detest smokers !

But the issue is not smoking, it's freedom of choice, not my freedom of choice nor yours, but everyones ! If smokers and non smokers cannot be accomodated in society then what chance have we of a tolerent and inclusive future ?

This is from India's national paper The Hindu and what Bollywood has to contend with and soon Hollywood 'Distributors and TV channels will be required to blur scenes that show characters smoking. The ban will also apply to foreign films and old films being telecast or re-telecast.'

Full Article : http://www.thehindu.com/2005/11/28/stories/2005112805021200.htm

And here is a list of some of the films ASH America cited in a 1996 legal petition to have smoking scenes cut from movies :

"VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED" (1995), one of the more ridiculous images
was Kirstie Alley puffing away; because she's playing a doctor.
Her character should know better.

"THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY," tobacco played a significant role
in the love affair between Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep.

"BACKDRAFT," the hero þ who should know better because he is a
fireman, is a smoker.

"A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT" features beautiful outdoor scenes with
clear air and clean water, and yet the hero smokes.

"THE MASK", Jim Carrey's madcap cartoon character in a mythical
green mask blew a valentine-shaped smoke ring, and used the catch
phrase ''Smokin!'' three times to define the cutting edge of hip.

"MOONLIGHT AND VALENTINO." Gwyneth Paltrow has smoke coming out of
her mouth and nose through the entire film. That's no
exaggeration.
What is exaggerated -- to the point of being gross -- is her
cigarette smoking.

"PULP FICTION," youthful reviewers found more than 100 incidents
of tobacco use. A sultry Uma Thurman dangling a cigarette is the
poster girl for the gritty film.

"REALITY BITES" (1994), Winona Ryder and Ethan Hawke chain-smoked.


"CORRINA, CORRINA" (1994), Whoopi Goldberg chainsmokes, a movie
aimed at women.

"BOYS ON THE SIDE" (1995), Whoopi Goldberg chainsmokes, a movie
aimed at women.

"HOW TO MAKE AN AMERICAN QUILT" (1995), lots of smoking in a movie
aimed at women.

MEDDLERS AS A MASTER I DO NOT DESIRE !!!!!!

Freelancer

Rockdolphin wrote:

Many directors simply won't accept that and it won't work in all cases and comprimises artistic freedom.


If you don't see how it can compromise artistic freedom then ask someone like Neil Jordan or Oliver Stone next time you see them. As with alcahol it can easily be portrayed by coloured water, but some directors choose to use the real deal ! It's their choice

If you really think we've lost movies because of the smoking ban you're living in a dream world.

Producer
"Hey Ireland has really good tax incentives. We should shoot there"

Director
"Nahhhhh theres that scene where she has a fag, and I won't compromise my artistic freedom by subsituting it with a herbal one"

Producer
"Well okay, we'll shoot in France, it'll cost an extra $7 million, but hey it's important we have a real cigarette that no one could possibly be able to see the difference"

Attention to detail is the hallmark of great directors. It's the trivial details that set the mood, texture and atmosphere and is the canvas the story and plot unfolds on. Great care, attention and time is given to this by production staff. If I were a producer of a movie in which the story revolved around a bar and bookies office in 70's Ireland I'd be very sceptical if you as a director would have the instincts needed to set the correct atmosphere !

An atmosphere that can easily be recreated using herbal or clove cigarettes.

Look at one of Cinema's most Icon Smokers. Withnail from Withnail & I. Richard E Grant, destests smoking and doesn't really drink. Pulls it off doesn't he? He's smoking clove cigarettes throughout the movie.

This actually happened in Boulder, Colorada not NY as I had stated. The play contained a scene where some people smoke. A patron called the police who ordered the theatre management to cut the smoking scene or face a €1,000 fine and 90 days in jail. Fearing copyright litigation if they changed the scene theatre management halted the production. Commenting afterwards the copyright owner said "It's so funny, in these censorious times, everyone goes home and sits around the dinner table and talks about how great it is to live in a free country."

What can I say thats pretty dumb, doesn't mean a smoking ban is dumb, though.

Have you not noticed the increasing use of pixelisation on TV programs of late ! Used primaraly to erase product placement, but can be easily used for other purposes

They're going to pixelate Bogarts face because he has a fag? Get real.

Maybe you should research deeper than quick searches on Google to inform yourself ! There is no sceintific evidence that can link passive smoking and ill health with non smokers. Not one single person can be named that has died from passive smoking. If what the anti smoking lobby claim is correct then airline staff who worked all their lives in smoke fileld tubes would be dropping like flies in winter. Extensive studies have shown no increased mortality rate amongs this group of workers from the general population. Smoking is banned because some people hate the smell of it and detest smokers !

That simply isn't true

In the longer term, passive smokers suffer an increased risk of a range of smoking-related diseases. Non-smokers who are exposed to passive smoking in the home, have a 25 per cent increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer. [4] A major review by the Government-appointed Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) concluded that passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease in adult non-smokers, and a cause of respiratory disease, cot death, middle ear disease and asthmatic attacks in children. [5] A more recent review of the evidence by SCOTH found that the conclusions of its initial report still stand i.e. that there is a “causal effect of exposure to secondhand smoke on the risks of lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease and a strong link to adverse effects in children”. [6] A review of the risks of cancer from exposure to secondhand smoke by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) noted that “the evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never smokers”. [7] A study published in the British Medical Journal suggests that previous studies of the effects of passive smoking on the risk of heart disease may have been under-estimated. The researchers found that blood cotinine levels among non-smokers were associated with a 50-60% increased risk of heart disease. [8][/quote]

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html

But the issue is not smoking, it's freedom of choice, not my freedom of choice nor yours, but everyones !

What about my freedom not to stink, my eyes filled with smoke and not to get lung cancer.

If smokers and non smokers cannot be accomodated in society then what chance have we of a tolerent and inclusive future ?

Oh please there are actual people in need of actual civil rights, this isn't a civil rights issue.

This is from India's national paper The Hindu and what Bollywood has to contend with and soon Hollywood 'Distributors and TV channels will be required to blur scenes that show characters smoking. The ban will also apply to foreign films and old films being telecast or re-telecast.'

Like I said there are stupid groups out there doing stupid things, this doesnt mean a smoking ban is wrong.

BlitzKrieg

Ok first of all every movement has nutters, we all accept that. Doesnt mean you two have got to polarize and bark at each other.


secondly this thread has veered madly off the original topic, but seeing as the original topic was answered by post 3, i'm not gonna knock heads.

Sooo.

In the tradition of having some life on this forum and i'm interested in one part of this discussion i'm gonna let this topic continue (if it wants)

But i do not want it turning into a pro anti smoking ban debate.

LEts keep it film related.

More specifically i'm interested in:

Many directors simply won't accept that and it won't work in all cases and comprimises artistic freedom.

peoples opinion of the above, seeing as most of us here are filmmakers in some form, how do you feel about the above statement.

Are you like Freelancer willing to use substitute or are you more willing to stand up to creative freedom.


My opinion is quite simple. What difference does smoking a clove cigerrette have to using blanks in a gun?

Seriously a large part of the atmosphere in a film is faked in most schools of film making what difference. When you go through the list of whats actually there and whats ADR, Foley, special effects, digital alterations, wild tracks, constructed props and studio locations. Your left with very little authentic material and more of a manipulation of the audience to create reality.

Thats pretty much normal for hollywood.

The only school of film i can think of that would have difficulty is dogma 95 which prides it self on being authentic.


On the editing of film and tv for smoking, hell they already do that in america in blockbusters in some of its video releases, i doubt it will go any higher then that, yes there are nutters who will demand it should BUT i think allowing blockbusters and other rental chains to edit their films will be furthest the filmmaking community will be pushed on the matter, and thankfully its not a matter that affects us over here.

Rockdolphin

This thread was never intended to be about the smoking ban so in the interests of other board users I will give my repost as briefly as possible.

The smoking ban and proposed futher strenghtning of, not only requires there to be no smoking in workplaces, but also in places of fiction. If you don't believe that infringes on artistic freedom or basic civil liberties then so be it.

Bizets Carmen is about a cigarette seller and set in a cigarette factory. I'd hate to imagine the stink in any theatre that has the actors and actresses puffing on herbal cigarettes throughout. It would deflect from the overall ambience I would think, don't you ?

Richard E Grant detests smoking and plays a smoker, so what ? Many actors detest Hitler yet manage to portray him quite adequetly, whats the big deal, it's what actors do

You obviously take your information regarding smoking from anti smoking groups like ASH. Here is a quote from a major independent health survey carried out between 1960 and 1997 in Germany and published in 2002 enitiled 'Mortality from Cancer and Other Causes among Airline Cabin Attendants in Germany, 1960–1997' " We found a rather remarkably low SMR for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until the mid-1990s, and smoking is still not banned on all charter flights."[/COLOR]

If you follow this link you will see it was a totally independent and reputable survey carried out by neither pro nor anti smoking interests http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/156/6/556

Regardless of the health issues, this thread is concerned with a film maker portraying drugs and it should now be patently obvious just how difficult that is and how much more so it will become.

BlitzKrieg

Regardless of the health issues, this thread is concerned with a film maker portraying drugs and it should now be patently obvious just how difficult that is and how much more so it will become.

key word there i think.

The smoking ban and proposed futher strenghtning of, not only requires there to be no smoking in workplaces, but also in places of fiction

you got a link to the part about it being required in places of fiction?

Bizets Carmen is about a cigarette seller and set in a cigarette factory. I'd hate to imagine the stink in any theatre that has the actors and actresses puffing on herbal cigarettes throughout. It would deflect from the overall ambience I would think, don't you ?

dont see how it would be any different. Firstly if its a film it has no effect. But i assume you mean a play and that can be solved by a simple method of spraying artificial recreation of smoke into the theatre before hand. Could save the production thousands cause they wont have to pay the insurance for naked flames on stage.


Outside of those points the rest of your topic goes back to anti smoking ban statistics which i dont want to hear on this forum anymore (nor do i want anti smoking statistics) so kindly restrain yourself (and others) from spraying it out or else.

Rockdolphin

BlitzKrieg wrote:

My opinion is quite simple. What difference does smoking a clove cigerrette have to using blanks in a gun?.

The irony here is that in Ireland cigarettes are legally sold and legal to possess where as firearms real or imitation are not. On the other hand when shooting a film you can use firearms, but not cigarettes.

Whether it be bullets from a gun, a drowning person, a woman raped, or a cigarette smoking deliquent the job of a director is to convey to the viewer as realistic an illusion as possible. No director is going to seek a suicidal extra to drown for realism sake in his drowning scene. It will be the skill of the director and his crew of filmtographers, editors, etc that will determine whether a sense of believeble realism is conveyed to the audience.

So lets say a director wants to shoot a scene where the character, a tough no nonsense chain smoking detective has simply had enough and is going to end it all. It's the pivitol scene in the film and the director needs it to be as poignant and evocative as he can make it. He wants to portray to the audience the character's torment and inner turmoil. This calls for a long prolonged scene with close-ups of the detective anguishing and chewing on cigarettes leading eventualy to him taking his revolver to his temple and blowing his brains out. Herbal cigarettes have a different consitency and burn rate from cigarettes and that cannot be disguised. The authenticity of the whole scene is compromised. No doubt there are plenty of would be Speilbergs that would fancy getting the scene in the can regardless. However the point is, this should never be an issue in the first place with a legally available product that only adults can purchase.

I'd love to do this scene and have the heroine arrive just in time to take the gun from the detective, as he breaks down and sobs in her bossom she launches into a lecture on the dangers smoking has on his health

Incidently, Brandon Lee was killed on the set of The Crow by the explosive charge of dummy blanks, so be careful kiddies !

Freelancer

Rockdolphin wrote:

This thread was never intended to be about the smoking ban so in the interests of other board users I will give my repost as briefly as possible.

The smoking ban and proposed futher strenghtning of, not only requires there to be no smoking in workplaces, but also in places of fiction. If you don't believe that infringes on artistic freedom or basic civil liberties then so be it.

You can quote any lunatic fringe group as proof that people want to ban smoking in "fiction". That doesn't mean anyone who supports a smoking ban in workplaces feels the same way.

What you are doing is the equilvent of suggesting that " anyone who supports universal health care is a communist" Trying to suggest moderates in a group support or agree with the lunatic fringe of said group is bonkers. I've marched in anti war demostrations, along side groups like the Sparticans (who actually have a chant with the line "5-6-7-8 support the Korean workers state") were we both aganist the war in Iraq? Yes. Did we both want to support Kim Jung Sung? Nope.

Bizets Carmen is about a cigarette seller and set in a cigarette factory. I'd hate to imagine the stink in any theatre that has the actors and actresses puffing on herbal cigarettes throughout. It would deflect from the overall ambience I would think, don't you ?

But I'm not saying that. Am I. You can quote and rant about certain elements of the anti smoking community who'd like to excise smoking from the world, that doesn't mean that people who don't think cigarettes should be in the workspace.

Richard E Grant detests smoking and plays a smoker, so what ? Many actors detest Hitler yet manage to portray him quite adequetly, whats the big deal, it's what actors do

Wow. You broke Godwin's law in the film production forum theres got to be a medal in that.

The point that whistled far over your head is this:

You said this;

rockdolphin wrote:

Attention to detail is the hallmark of great directors. It's the trivial details that set the mood, texture and atmosphere and is the canvas the story and plot unfolds on. Great care, attention and time is given to this by production staff. If I were a producer of a movie in which the story revolved around a bar and bookies office in 70's Ireland I'd be very sceptical if you as a director would have the instincts needed to set the correct atmosphere !

And I responded:

Freelancer wrote:

An atmosphere that can easily be recreated using herbal or clove cigarettes.

Look at one of Cinema's most Icon Smokers. Withnail from Withnail & I. Richard E Grant, destests smoking and doesn't really drink. Pulls it off doesn't he? He's smoking clove cigarettes throughout the movie.

You claimed that you had to have people smoking real cigarettes for "authenticity" Richard E Grant pulled off an authentic iconic smoker without smoking tobacco. So your suggestion that people need to smoke tobacco for it to appear authentic is entirely moot.

You obviously take your information regarding smoking from anti smoking groups like ASH. Here is a quote from a major independent health survey carried out between 1960 and 1997 in Germany and published in 2002 enitiled 'Mortality from Cancer and Other Causes among Airline Cabin Attendants in Germany, 1960–1997' " We found a rather remarkably low SMR for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until the mid-1990s, and smoking is still not banned on all charter flights."[/COLOR]

That's nice of course air in planes is recycled using filters, so making that an accurate definition of cancer suffers isn't fair or accurate. Further the report wasn't specific on cancer or lung cancer, Christ it was investigating cosmic rays as well

As to the ash report

Lets look at it again, shall we.

In the longer term, passive smokers suffer an increased risk of a range of smoking-related diseases. Non-smokers who are exposed to passive smoking in the home, have a 25 per cent increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer. [4] A major review by the Government-appointed Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) concluded that passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease in adult non-smokers, and a cause of respiratory disease, cot death, middle ear disease and asthmatic attacks in children. [5] A more recent review of the evidence by SCOTH found that the conclusions of its initial report still stand i.e. that there is a “causal effect of exposure to secondhand smoke on the risks of lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease and a strong link to adverse effects in children”. [6] A review of the risks of cancer from exposure to secondhand smoke by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) noted that “the evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never smokers”. [7] A study published in the British Medical Journal suggests that previous studies of the effects of passive smoking on the risk of heart disease may have been under-estimated. The researchers found that blood cotinine levels among non-smokers were associated with a 50-60% increased risk of heart disease. [8]

okay

If you follow this link you will see it was a totally independent and reputable survey carried out by neither pro nor anti smoking interests
Regardless of the health issues, this thread is concerned with a film maker portraying drugs and it should now be patently obvious just how difficult that is and how much more so it will become.

Hmmm lets look at the 4 groups ash reference in this single paragraph

4] Law MR et al. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and ischaemic heart disease: an evaluation of the evidence. BMJ 1997; 315: 973-80. [View abstract] Hackshaw AK et al. The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke. BMJ 1997; 315: 980-88. [View abstract]

[5] Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health. Department of Health, 1998. [View document]

[6] Secondhand smoke: Review of evidence since 1998. Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH). Department of Health, 2004. [View document]

[7] Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Vol 83. Lyon, France, 2004. View summary

[8] Whincup, P et al. Passive smoking and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: prospective study with cotinine measurement. BMJ Online First June 2004 [View abstract]

Hmmm IARC, British Medical Journal, And the Department of Health. Not "anti smoking groups" reputable medical scientific and government sources.

Regardless of the health issues, this thread is concerned with a film maker portraying drugs and it should now be patently obvious just how difficult that is and how much more so it will become.

Requiem for a dream is playing right now on more 4. An intelligent cinematic look at addiction and drug misuse. Its a far cry from "reefer madness" People are portraying drugs in an open and honest manner and its getting easier to do so. Just because you can't have a fag and a pint indoors doesn't mean the rest of us are ignoring the situation.

Also I've noticed you've quietly dropped your inane suggestion that the smoking ban is costing us films. Possibly the bizarrest suggestion I've heard on boards. Hey I hear New York and LA have smoking bans, and no one shoots a movie there nowdays.....

Oh and Blitzkreig. Two excellent posts. And I am not posting more links on the anti smoking debate, just re posting what has been said for clarity.

Rockdolphin

For the record I've been on plenty of film and video sets since the introduction of the smoking ban. A set is considered a workplace even if it's a private dwelling and a film crew are present. In the main the ban is being completely ignored on location by crew, presenters, actors and subjects. Studio's are not so care free, some flaunt the the law by allowing a smoking area others don't. Editing suites and recording studios very much depend on the personel involved and smoking may or may not take place.

I know of one 3 day video shoot which was lost due to the ban. The UK production company were not happy to proceed when they learnt they could be liable for fines of up to €3,000 for every person caught smoking on the set and despite reasurances this was unlikely to happen moved the shoot ironically enough to Scotland post the imposition of a ban there.

Hopefully this thread should it continue will not become a pro v anti ban debate. For my part I detest the ban. It's not an issue of health, but one of freedom of choice. However freedom of choice is not about my freedom of choice, nor about yours, it's about everyones freedom of choice and that includes non smokers who I fully support having non smoking environs in which they can socialise and interact. There are many ways comprimises can be achieved accomodating the needs and wishes of both smoker and non smoker alike.

But back to the real issues at hand in this forum and the implications the current and proposed bans regarding the portrayal and depicting of smoking will have on producers, filmakers and the industry in general. There are the esthetical, creative and artistic freedom issues alogside concerns for freedom of expression, plus the pratical problems.

What happens endermol's Uk Big Brother after next year when the English ban will be enforce ?. As it is, Endermol are under pressure to ban smoking in this years Big Brother House. Will reality TV only be able to feature non smoking subjects in future ? Would you be happy as a producer/director of BB to be restricted to non smoking contestants ? Would Tyrone productions have been able to feature the same celebrities they had in 2003 were they producing Celebrity Farm in 2006 ?

Filmakers involved in fiction and drama will be able to use subsitutes in many cases for cigarettes, cigars and pipe smoking. However this will not saisfy the artistic freedom required in all situations. Moves to enforce a complete ban on the depection and portrayal of tobacco smoking on TV and Film are well under way and Bollywood in India has been the first to suffer this fate. An Indian filmaker can depict a drug user shooting up, but not a person smoking !

And what's next on the meddlers agenda. In ireland the war on obesity is on hold as our current minister for health would be a complete embaressment to this endevour. But how long before filmakers will be urged and presurised to depict children eating apples and sipping fresh orange juice as oppposed to Coke and McDonalds !

Creative freedom and expression should be the perogative of the filmaker and not dictated by laws or the agendas of others.



PS to Freelancer : Should you wish to continue the pro v anti smoking debate let's do it on another forum !

Freelancer

Rockdolphin wrote:

So lets say a director wants to shoot a scene where the character, a tough no nonsense chain smoking detective has simply had enough and is going to end it all. It's the pivitol scene in the film and the director needs it to be as poignant and evocative as he can make it. He wants to portray to the audience the character's torment and inner turmoil. This calls for a long prolonged scene with close-ups of the detective anguishing and chewing on cigarettes leading eventualy to him taking his revolver to his temple and blowing his brains out. Herbal cigarettes have a different consitency and burn rate from cigarettes and that cannot be disguised. The authenticity of the whole scene is compromised. No doubt there are plenty of would be Speilbergs that would fancy getting the scene in the can regardless. However the point is, this should never be an issue in the first place with a legally available product that only adults can purchase.

The above is horsemanure pure and simple. Prove clove cigarettes burn at a different rate.

And hey, between takes and camera angles, they're going to need different cigarettes at different lengths, depending on the point of the scene, its why you have a continuity woman.

As to your claims about "Herbal cigarettes have a different consitency and burn rate from cigarettes and that cannot be disguised. The authenticity of the whole scene is compromised." I've shown using an example that Richard E Grant pulled off a consistent portrayal of chainsmoker using herbal cigarettes and no one would have noticed.

For the record I've been on plenty of film and video sets since the introduction of the smoking ban. A set is considered a workplace even if it's a private dwelling and a film crew are present. In the main the ban is being completely ignored on location by crew, presenters, actors and subjects. Studio's are not so care free, some flaunt the the law by allowing a smoking area others don't. Editing suites and recording studios very much depend on the personel involved and smoking may or may not take place.

That would be my experience as well.

I know of one 3 day video shoot which was lost due to the ban. The UK production company were not happy to proceed when they learnt they could be liable for fines of up to €3,000 for every person caught smoking on the set and despite reasurances this was unlikely to happen moved the shoot ironically enough to Scotland post the imposition of a ban there.

So one three day video shoot was allegedly lost, we can take the hit.

Hopefully this thread should it continue will not become a pro v anti ban debate. For my part I detest the ban. It's not an issue of health, but one of freedom of choice. However freedom of choice is not about my freedom of choice, nor about yours,

My freedom not to get lung cancer from second hand smoke.

it's about everyones freedom of choice and that includes non smokers who I fully support having non smoking environs in which they can socialise and interact. There are many ways comprimises can be achieved accomodating the needs and wishes of both smoker and non smoker alike.

We found a working one. You want a fag? Step outside.

But back to the real issues at hand in this forum and the implications the current and proposed bans regarding the portrayal and depicting of smoking will have on producers, filmakers and the industry in general. There are the esthetical, creative and artistic freedom issues alogside concerns for freedom of expression, plus the pratical problems.

There's no practical or artistic freedom problems. There just isn't you can create any lurid fantasy doesn't mean it is true.

What happens endermol's Uk Big Brother after next year when the English ban will be enforce ?. As it is, Endermol are under pressure to ban smoking in this years Big Brother House.

This is the film forum? You really think we're going to bemoan the trouble Endemol is having? I've no sympathy for endemol at all.

Will reality TV only be able to feature non smoking subjects in future ? Would you be happy as a producer/director of BB to be restricted to non smoking contestants ? Would Tyrone productions have been able to feature the same celebrities they had in 2003 were they producing Celebrity Farm in 2006 ?

There were celebrities on celebrity farm? Really? Where?

If this smoking ban stops big brother or celebrity farm from going ahead, I'd look on it as an added bonus. RTE and Channel 4 are still going to have the commissioning money going, so maybe they might spend it on, y'know, something good.

Filmakers involved in fiction and drama will be able to use subsitutes in many cases for cigarettes, cigars and pipe smoking. However this will not saisfy the artistic freedom required in all situations.

I don't know how many ways or times I can point out how wrong that claim is.

Moves to enforce a complete ban on the depection and portrayal of tobacco smoking on TV and Film are well under way and Bollywood in India has been the first to suffer this fate. An Indian filmaker can depict a drug user shooting up, but not a person smoking !

Theres lots of wacky quirks about Indian Cinema, I don't really think they have a hardcore drug users genre of note over there no. I really cannot see the scene where the junkies, pushers and cops burst into a complex song and dance routine.

And what's next on the meddlers agenda. In ireland the war on obesity is on hold as our current minister for health would be a complete embaressment to this endevour. But how long before filmakers will be urged and presurised to depict children eating apples and sipping fresh orange juice as oppposed to Coke and McDonalds !

You mean we're not making tv programs about how people should eat healthy at the moment? What was Jamies School dinners all about then.

Creative freedom and expression should be the perogative of the filmaker and not dictated by laws or the agendas of others.

Really? So a filmakers should be allowed do anything on a film set, anything at all? Reminds me of this;

Mayor Quimby wrote:

We'll do anything for your film, dam a river, chop down a forest, if theres a endangered speices in front of the camera, we'll make it extinct.

So you're basically suggesting a film set should be a place above the law.

Hell why stop at the smoking ban, how about "health and safety laws" those stunt men don't need safety harnesses, that'd ruin the directors "artistic freedom". Hell what animal welfare legislation? If he shoots the dog, lets actually have him shoot a dog "for authenticity". "Damn he keeps fluffling his line, better get another litter of dalmations on set."

I cannot over emphasise how inane your logic is.

PS to Freelancer : Should you wish to continue the pro v anti smoking debate let's do it on another forum !

Nothing really to really debate, I'm right, and the anti smoking "bridage" has won.

BlitzKrieg

still waiting for a response to this simple point:

Seriously a large part of the atmosphere in a film is faked in most schools of film. When you go through the list of whats actually there and whats ADR, Foley, special effects, digital alterations, wild tracks, constructed props and studio locations. Your left with very little authentic material and more of a manipulation of the audience to create reality.