Amela Husic, HUMN240, Assignment 1-4-5, Analysis 4

The depiction of smoking in current films and on TV

Cigarette companies were always trying to get new customers, keep old ones, and get ‘quitters’ back. The best way to accomplish the agenda was to promote and advertise smoking in any media possible. The formula for success and one thing in common, regardless of the media used (film, magazines, TV, etc.), was to present smoking as cool as possible. Smoking was presented as a way to freedom and independence. All of the ads followed the same underlying story: smoking is cool, fun, and most of all, attractive.

There were several sub-formulas used, depending on who the targeted audience was. If the tobacco industries wanted to appeal to the male audience, they would have used a man who is good looking, masculine, strong, and handsome. If, on the other hand, the female audience was targeted, the women smoker was made to look beautiful, glamorous, sexy, independent, and slim. “You’ve come a long way, baby,” the Virginia Slims advertising punch line, underlined women independence, freedom, and empowerment. Cigarette names such as ‘Virginia Slim’ gave the idea that woman could not gain weight while they smoked. According to Jacobs (1997), “Cigarette ads give the impression that smokers are “Alive with pleasure” and that smoking is good for you”. As Kilbourne (as cited in Devereaux, n.d., pg.8) pointed out, “Advertising often lies. These lies are particularly obvious in tobacco ads. For example a Newport cigarette ad that shows young, healthy people under the heading ‘Alive with pleasure’.” The truth about smoking was hidden from consumers.

Today, smoking is not considered to be cool anymore. New laws were recently enacted to prevent smoking in public places. It is very important to educate young people, the most targeted audience, that smoking is a health hazard and is not attractive any more. New commercials such as “Above the Influence” are creating a new image of confident young people. That is a new formula for success and a healthier life without tobacco.

As Kilbourne (as cited in Devereaux, n.d., pg. 5) pointed out, tobacco “industries might want us to believe they are selling us sex appeal, good times, personal autonomy, and freedom, [but] what they are really selling is addiction and danger”.  Kilbourne wants to teach consumers to become critical thinkers and refuse to become preys for the tobacco advertising machine. He also wants to encourage them “to engage with...tobacco advertising to critique it, expose it, to fight back, and to recognize what real freedom and autonomy is” (as cited in Devereaux, n.d., pg. 5). By understanding the rules of the game, consumers are empowered to make better choices for themselves. 

References:

Devereaux, D. (n.d). Deadly Persuasion: The Advertising of Alcohol & Tobacco. Retrieved October 25, 2011 from http://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/202/studyguide_202.pdf

Jacobs, M. (1997). From the First to the Last Ash: The History, Economics & Hazards of Tobacco. Retrieved October 25, 2011 from http://healthliteracy.worlded.org/docs/tobacco/index.html

Analysis 3

The depiction of smoking in current films and on TV

“Myths are closely associated with and supported by the concepts of heroes...Heroes live close to the land of myths and serve as gatekeepers showing the rest of us the way to greatness...Spiritually and physically they are our role models” (Browne, 2005).

Reading this description of a hero, it becomes clear why tobacco companies used movies as the best media to promote smoking. Smoking in movies is seen as something cool and socially acceptable. That myth of coolness is supported by movie scenes in which the main hero who smokes is portrayed as attractive, sexy, exciting, sophisticated, and, in some cases, heroic.

Who could forget Bruce Willis in the role of McClain in the movie “Die Hard”? He is the hero that saves the day and  “smokes his way through a pack of cigarettes”, or scene in the movie “Die Hard 2” where “he smokes on an airport lobby clearly marked with ‘No Smoking’ signs” (Smoke Screeners, 2011).

The same applies to celebrities because they portray our beloved heroes on the big screen. Young people are fascinated with every move the celebrities make. So “whether captured on the big screen or caught by the paparazzi, it seems like celebrities who smoke have a big impact on smoking habits of others” (Stanley, 2011). According to the study conducted by Dartmouth University, teenagers “are three times more likely to begin smoking after viewing movies that include smoking content” (as cited in Brown, n.d.).

Blue (2011) points out that if popular actors “Were they still alive today, John Wayne and Humphrey Bogart might have been given a serious image makeover. The message from Hollywood last year: smoking in movies is not cool anymore”.  In the last five years, according to a Center for Disease Control and Prevention report, ‘tobacco incidents’ onscreen declined dramatically (as cited in Blue, 2011). “Among the three major motion picture companies with the tobacco-limiting policies, average tobacco incidents per youth-rated movie fell by more than 95%” (Blue, 2011). That is impressive. A ‘tobacco incident’ is considered to be any depiction of any tobacco product in the movie.

Bruce Willis, according to Gossip of the Day (2007), refused to smoke in the movie “Live Free or Die Hard” because it was not cool anymore. Willis did not “want to feel responsible for any kid smoking to try to look cool because he thought I looked cool doing it”. Willis said that it was his choice because he felt morally obligated to drop “a nasty habit” (Gossip of the Day, 2007).

As one can see, our heroes and the celebrities that portray them are trend setters. As our role models, they affect our lives and influence the choices that we make. Unfortunately, celebrities can be a bad influence too, such as the case with smoking.  I was shocked with the statistics that showed how many young people started smoking just because they saw their favorite actor or actress smoking on the big screen or in real life.

It is nice to see that smoking is not seen as cool anymore and that so many celebrities have started to behave as true role models and refuse to smoke in movies, like Bruce Willis did. Several celebrities publicly announced that they quit smoking, such as Whoopi Goldberg, Charlize Theron, Matt Damon, John Stewart, Kelly Ripa, Elisabeth Hurley, Ben Affleck, and Jennifer Aniston (FoxNews.com). Trends are changing for the better.

References:

Blue, L. (2011). Hollywood to Kids: Smoking Isn’t Cool. Retrieved on October 19, 2011 from http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/14/hollywood-to-kids-smoking-isnt-cool/

Brown, L. (n.d.). The impact of smoking in movies, as seen by teens. Retrieved October 20, 2011 from http://www.scenesmoking.org/editorial_lbrown.htm

FOXNews. (n.d.). Celebrities Who Have Quit Smoking. Retrieved october 20, 2011 from http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/health/2009/07/23/celebrities-quit-smoking

Gossip Of The Day. (2007). Bruce Willis’ smoke concerns. Retrieved October 20, 2011 from http://www.askmen.com/celebs/entertainment-news/bruce-willis/bruce-willis-smoke-concerns.html

SmokeScreeners. (2011). A Tobacco Awarness and Prevention Program of the Quit Doc Research and Education Foundation. Retrieved October 20, 2011 from http://smokescreeners.org/category/Movie-Reviews.aspx

Stanley, G. (2011). Smoking Celebrities; The Influence of Celebs Smoking in Film. Retrieved October 20, 2011 from http://www.hellohaveyouheard.com/blog/bid/31373/Smoking-Celebrities-The-Influence-of-Celebs-Smoking-in-Film

Journal Article Analysis

”iPods, Viagra, and the Praiseworthy Life: Epideictic Rhetoric in Technology and Medical Print Advertising”

In her article, Barbara J. Blakely stresses “the importance of critical pedagogical attention to epidictic role in advertising” (pg.685). She is a firm believer that, by helping, encouraging, and empowering the students to analyze visual advertisements in more systematic and critical way, the students should be in a better position to recognize “the influence of epidictic rhetoric” (pg.700) and respond accordingly.

Blake conducted a study in the fall of 2005, in which students enrolled in a Popular Culture Analysis class, were asked to examine the ads printed in two popular magazines such as Parade and USA Weekend. Those magazines have a large circulation that reaches an “extremely broad audience” (pg.691) that identifies itself with the magazines and thus, the ads printed in them are even more persuasive and influential (Blakely, 2011).  Students were asked to examine two ads, one for technology and one for pharmaceuticals, and to analyze them. The purpose for the study was to educate the students about the ‘epideictic rhetoric’ - the persuasive and manipulative methods used by the marketers and advertisers to persuade consumers to buy the product by appealing to common values shared by consumers.  Epideictic rhetoric, according to the author, is the “praise and blame of values held in common by its audience and presented as education rather than persuasion” (pg.689).

The article is nicely organized and very well structured. It provides a logical flow of information, so it is easy to read. As soon as the reader understands what the author means by using the words ‘epideictic rhetoric’, the main point of the article becomes clearer. The article’s main purpose is to educate students to be wiser, smarter, and more responsible consumers.  The author claims that advertisements for technology and pharmaceuticals, published in Parade and USA Weekend, have huge effects on the consumers. Readers trust those ads because they trust their magazines and those ads “receive little critical processing” (pg.689). The products advertised are believed to be ‘science-related’ and created for our benefit, to improve our lives. Such ads are seen as educational rather than persuasive. Study data shows that by applying the ‘epideictic rhetoric’ to the printed ads, two completely different types of product, such as the birth control patch and an iPod can be aligned around same “culturally promoted values”(pg.695) such as happiness,  efficiency, speed, control, and free time.

The technology ads were perceived to be more promotional and persuasive than the pharmaceutical ads. The reason for that could be the participants’ age because they were more focused on technology than on pharmaceutical products. For students, technology is a fashion necessity.  According to Katz and Sugiyama (as cited in Blakely, 2011, pg.699), the cell phone is “as much a status symbol as a communications device”.  Cell phones are heavily marketed to the young people and marketers rely on an epideictic rhetoric because “the mobile is a symbol in itself, an obscure object of desire, and a sign of the times” (Jim McGuin, as cited in Blakely, 2011, pg.698). By looking at such ads, the consumer forgets that the purpose of the ad is to sell the product and not to make us “happy and carefree” (Blakely, 2011).

This article was very interesting and educational. It helped me understand why we, as consumers, respond to some ads more easily than to others. Now, I understand that the reason for that is the power of epideictic rhetoric. Advertisers want us to believe that they educate us, as consumers, by providing us with the product information as a necessary help to make informed decision and buy their product. Somewhere in the back of our minds, we know that their ‘education’ is concentrated on how to get our money by persuading us to buy. But how do they do that? Simply by presenting their product in a favorable light aligned with the cultural norms of what is ‘in’ and what is ‘cool’. That is exactly how they get us to buy. Blakely explains the phenomenon in details and made me more aware of the influence those ads have on consumers. There is a fine line between the education and the persuasion in ads. This article opened my eyes.

References

Blakely, B. J, (2011). Ipods, Viagra, and the praiseworthy life: Epideictic rhetoric in technology and medical print advertising. The Journal of Popular Culture, 44(4). Wiley Periodicals, Inc.