“Teenagers who watch films showing actors smoking are more likely to take it up,” says the BBC today. The experts who discovered this amazing fact say that it should be reflected in film classification.
There are some surprising things in this news story, but the central claim is not one of them. The whole advertising industry – and possibly our whole envy-driven economy – is built on the premise that our choices can be influenced by what we see. To devote research resources to stating the obvious looks crazy ... until we see the pro-smoking flat-earthers trying to deny it.
The question is rather one of nuts and sledgehammers, or gnats and camels. Should films depicting smoking carry a 15 (or 18) rating? The same debate has been heard in relation to on-screen violence, where the issue is perhaps more worrying. DVD boxes also routinely warn us about sex and swearing.
But what about vengeance, bullying, financial greed? To take one example of many: there’s a film called The Heist, in which the main character (I won’t call him a hero) sees his friend killed and his wife run off with another man. But he is shown as the winner – partly because he has killed his enemy, but mostly because he ends up with the gold. I suspect we are meant to share his satisfied smile: to approve the goal he pursued, the means he used, the cost he deemed worthwhile.
Indeed, what about the general level of unpleasant behaviour seen in most soap operas? This seems to escalate of its own accord, like inflation or bankers’ bonuses: but even before it reaches GBH and arson, there is a constant undercurrent of selfishness, scheming, lying, cheating, and just plain hatred. Without a censor's rating to worry about.
(Oh, and don't get me started on the daytime chat output: freak-shows in which all manner of stuff is "normalised". 100 housewives who have shagged the milkman discuss why it's a good idea.)
And now the TV channels bring an argument opposite to the one we started with: that programme-makers who see certain patterns of behaviour in society are more likely to include the same in their TV shows.
I am reminded of the story of the TV forecaster who warned of a severe winter, because he had seen Native Americans gathering a lot of wood. And he kept seeing them gather more and more wood. So his weather warnings became more and more severe: because the Native Americans obviously knew something. And eventually he asked them: “How do you know it’s going to be a bad winter?” And they replied: “From watching your forecasts.”
(Oh, and don't get me started on the daytime chat output: freak-shows in which all manner of stuff is "normalised". 100 housewives who have shagged the milkman discuss why it's a good idea.)
And now the TV channels bring an argument opposite to the one we started with: that programme-makers who see certain patterns of behaviour in society are more likely to include the same in their TV shows.
I am reminded of the story of the TV forecaster who warned of a severe winter, because he had seen Native Americans gathering a lot of wood. And he kept seeing them gather more and more wood. So his weather warnings became more and more severe: because the Native Americans obviously knew something. And eventually he asked them: “How do you know it’s going to be a bad winter?” And they replied: “From watching your forecasts.”
But of course the story must be a myth. Because if it were true, it would mean that we can be influenced by what we see. And we know that’s not true. Right, children?
