Did they try to promote Smoking in old movies? they sure smoked a lot

[Edward]

I remember reading that Bogart was spnosored by a cigarette brand to smoke only their product in all his films. I believe it was common back in the day. It seems it was really only into the seventies here in the UK when the link between cigarettes and cancer became common knowledge and started to affect people's habits. I would have expected that we'd have seen a level of smoking depcited in films that reflected real life, whether or not it was sponsored. In the UK during WW2, 50% of men smoked, and about 30% of women. As I recall, it rose for women over time, evne as it began to dwindle for men. The highest take-up group in the UK is still teenage girls - mainly for the reason Lizzies' vintage ad shows. In the eighties in the UK, about a third of adults smoked; it's now about 20%. Interestingly, though, I have in the last year or two seen more people by far with these vaping things than cigarettes, and precious few of these vapers are using a thing which in any way imitates the look of a cigarette. Not so much a way of people giving up as the way they are choosing to consume nicoteen changing. Wouldn't touch it myself (I stick to lighting the pipe maybe half a dozen times in the year), though if there was a nicoteeen-free version that simply gave you one of those sweetie flavours they come in, I'd be on that like a rat up a drainpipe as a way to keep off snackfoods....

Take away a man's cigar, and this is the result:

https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/winston-churchill-by-yousef-karsh/

Alcoholism?

 

[ChiTownScion]

I've watched both parents and an aunt die from cancer.

I've relatives who went to bed one night and did not wake up.

I know which death I prefer.

Watched my mother die, inch by inch, day by day, from smoking induced COPD. For twenty years. I broke off an engagement with a woman who was a "secret smoker."

Sorry, but it's a non- negotiable with me. Vowed that I would never become involved with a woman who had that habit. Losing one person who was dear to me that way was enough for one lifetime.

 

[MisterCairo]

Cigarettes are great props in real life, giving you something to do with your hands. They're also a thing to share with another. "Here, let's share this custom a moment."

I've never smoked so much as a puff, but I can understand this. As a regular (read: heavy) coffee/tea drinker, I'm often left wondering what to do without a mug or cup in my hand, and socializing is often in the context of a warm beverage...

 

[Edward]

Cigarettes are great props in real life, giving you something to do with your hands. They're also a thing to share with another. "Here, let's share this custom a moment."

I can very much relate to the old "you're never alone with a Strand". Especially in pre-mobiled telephone days, I've spent a lot of time over the years waiting around for other people. Somehow being "man having a smoke" fades into the background in a way "man standing on his own. What's he doing?" doesn't. The latter can be awkward, tedious, and make time drag. (I guess that's one reason they called mobile phones "the new cigarette" - it was something to do when there isn't.) It's that very sociability, that very 'invisible smoker' nature of it all that was the readon I never dared touch a cigarette. I like having a prop: I'd have been chainsmoking camels by the end of week one.

And it's a dangerous addiction: I know a woman in her mid seventies who has been a fairly heavy smoker for decades now. She uses all of the patches and such to get through a one-hour flight (plus the time in the airport either side). It seems nicoteen addiction is a tough grip.

Yes, cigarettes are toxic, we all know that. I can't pass a smoking person without gagging at the stink now. But they were very, very popular for a very long time for good reasons.

Yeah. I light the pipe maybe half a dozen times a year; I doubt it will do any real harm at that. I've never been a cigarette smoker, but it is interesting how differently it is still perceived. Most people like the pipe - they see it as a novelty, or they remember some beloved family member, or Tolkien, or Tony Benn. Pipes never had the negatvie image that cigarettes do now - or even cigars. One of our former UK PMs, Harold Wilson, was in private a cigar smoker, but his team built him a public image with a pipe instead. Pipes are comforting, suggesting warm, stable, manly men. Cigars have an image of the privileged, the fat cat, the greedy businessman. I suspect that the reason for this, evne in the seventies when Wilson was in power, was largely down to established tropes in the entertainment business.

 

[MisterCairo]

Alcoholism?

That photo is famous, probably the most famous photo of Churchill, and I've long known it was taken by Canadian photo legend Yousef Karsh at the House of Commons, Ottawa, in December 1941. He meekly asked Churchill to remove his cigar, which Churchill refused to do. Feigning the need to take a light reading, Karsh approached the man, and plucked the cigar away, engaging the wire shutter release on the way back and out of shot to get the famous visage.

Until looking this image up for the post, I had no idea that Churchill warmed up to Karsh, and said "You can take another one. You can even make a roaring lion stand still".

You can see why the Canadian government (who commissioned the photos - Churchill gave two minutes for the shoot) chose not to release this one. Not sufficiently "lion-y"...

 

[BlueTrain]

All of this has been common knowledge for a long time, even though tobacco companies denied it. Remember the song, "Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette?" It was written by Willie Nelson.

But I think specific product placement is relatively recent, although anything after 1970 seems relatively recent to me. I don't know that one would ever notice specific brands of cigarettes in early movies but more ordinary products in recent movies seem to be quite visible. I've noticed certain makes of cars in movies from the 1950s, though, and sometimes credits are given on the screen. That was also true of clothing, but more so for television shows. One movie, a serial, Trader Tom of the China Seas (an okay serial from 1954 but not classic) featured three new Fords: a sedan, a station wagon and a pickup truck. They were ever so obvious in the movie but I don't think they (or Ford) were credited.

 

[BlueTrain]

I thought I'd add here the experience of working at a place that maintained two lunch rooms. One for smokers and one for non-smokers. That was about 20 years ago before indoor smoking became generally banned in businesses. In the room for the non-smokers, it was always quiet with everyone with their head in a newspaper or book. In the other room, however, whether or not anyone was smoking, people were always carrying on animated conversation. I thought it was an interesting observation on human nature.

There are maybe a half-dozen people here at work who smoke but they have to go outside for their smokes. And yes, they are easy to talk to. They tend to be the more sociable individuals here and oddly, the more athletic, too, in a couple of cases.

 

[Fading Fast]

I know at some point I posted that Apache Beer had been a clear product placement in 1936's "The Petrified Forest."

I was surprised as it was very early and very, very clearly a product placement.

The Apache Beer sign is prominent in the diner (where 90% of the movie takes place) and the Apache bottle shows up several times with the brand name fully visible and highlighted in the frame (couldn't have happened that way by accident).

 

[LizzieMaine]

All of this has been common knowledge for a long time, even though tobacco companies denied it. Remember the song, "Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette?" It was written by Willie Nelson.

But I think specific product placement is relatively recent, although anything after 1970 seems relatively recent to me. I don't know that one would ever notice specific brands of cigarettes in early movies but more ordinary products in recent movies seem to be quite visible. I've noticed certain makes of cars in movies from the 1950s, though, and sometimes credits are given on the screen. That was also true of clothing, but more so for television shows. One movie, a serial, Trader Tom of the China Seas (an okay serial from 1954 but not classic) featured three new Fords: a sedan, a station wagon and a pickup truck. They were ever so obvious in the movie but I don't think they (or Ford) were credited.

Brand-specific product placement goes back to the twenties, if you watch closely. Any time an actual brand shows up on screen, it's there for a reason -- otherwise it would have been covered up or a fake "generic" label would have been shown. Mostly this sort of thing was done as part of cross-promotional campaigns -- you might see a star endorse a company's product in print, and somehow that company's brand would appear in the background of that star's next film.

This sort of thing was even done in radio, to a degree. Very often when a guest star appeared on a different program, mention of that guest's own sponsor would be worked into the script as part of the deal. That's why Jack Benny would call Fred Allen an "off-key Ipana troubadour" or Fred Allen would call Jack Benny a "quivering Jell-O salesman" or some such thing. Conversely, performers were prohibited from ever mentioning any word related to a competing product of the sponsor -- you couldn't say "camel," for example. even in the context of a sketch or a drama, on any program sponsored by Philip Morris. The most famous subversion of this happened in 1938, when W. C. Fields had a weekly comedy slot on Your Hit Parade, sponsored by Lucky Strike. Fields lost his job after going off-script repeatedly to refer to his son "Chester." It took a while for the agency Boys to catch on, but when they did, that was the end of Fields on that program.

Radio performers were also often required to use their sponsor's product whenever they were seen in public -- especially in cases where the sponsor was a tobacco company. Often they would get around this by putting their own brand in an empty pack of their sponsor's brand -- Mary Livingstone, wife of Jack Benny, was one of the most frequent users of this dodge: she preferred Parliaments, so when Jack was sponsored by Lucky Strike she would put Parliaments in a Lucky Strike pack and flash them around, being very careful to conceal the actual label printed on each cigarette.

This sort of thing happened in other branches of entertainment as well. Baseball fans of an age will remember Nellie Fox, an excellent second baseman with the White Sox, who was never seen without a huge chaw of tobacco in his cheek. This was part of his endorsement deal with "Favorite" brand chewing tobacco, which provided him with a free supply in exchange for his constant use of the product in public.

Fox died of lymphatic cancer at the age of 47. When you make a deal with Satan, he always collects.

 

[BlueTrain]

I've heard that about radio (and presumably television as well) about the sponsors. I suppose it's completely understandable. With movies, though, the connection isn't so close but there may be one. But radio and television shows were continuous for at least a few years whereas a motion picture was one-off, usually, although there were some series that lasted for a few pictures or a lot. I do recall that sometimes a star from some show would step out of character to promote a sponsor's product. I'm thinking just now of Dan Blocker selling Chevy pickup trucks in a Western setting, loading bales of hay or something, still wearing his Bonanza outfit.

 

[Edward]

That photo is famous, probably the most famous photo of Churchill, and I've long known it was taken by Canadian photo legend Yousef Karsh at the House of Commons, Ottawa, in December 1941. He meekly asked Churchill to remove his cigar, which Churchill refused to do. Feigning the need to take a light reading, Karsh approached the man, and plucked the cigar away, engaging the wire shutter release on the way back and out of shot to get the famous visage.

Until looking this image up for the post, I had no idea that Churchill warmed up to Karsh, and said "You can take another one. You can even make a roaring lion stand still".

You can see why the Canadian government (who commissioned the photos - Churchill gave two minutes for the shoot) chose not to release this one. Not sufficiently "lion-y"...

Yes, he looks a lot more approachable in this than many others! Maybe that's the reason thed IWM didn't justg use this shot instead of the controversial airbrushing out of his cigar in a better-known shot in recent years?

My favourite Churchill portrait is actually the one of him as a much older man, by Sutherland:

Sadly, it now only exists in reproduction, as Churchill's widow had the original destroyed in an act of censorship designed to preserve a particular image of the man. A great shame - I love it for its honest depiction of age.

 

[MisterCairo]

I know many radio and television shows were not only sponsored by companies, but named for them as well.

Yes, he looks a lot more approachable in this than many others! Maybe that's the reason thed IWM didn't justg use this shot instead of the controversial airbrushing out of his cigar in a better-known shot in recent years?

My favourite Churchill portrait is actually the one of him as a much older man, by Sutherland:

Sadly, it now only exists in reproduction, as Churchill's widow had the original destroyed in an act of censorship designed to preserve a particular image of the man. A great shame - I love it for its honest depiction of age.

Somewhere I have a print of an ink sketch done by his daughter and signed as part of a limited edition released in the 70s. As I go through my father's things, I'll post once I come across it. As I recall, it was based on his later appearance.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Smoking a pipe gives a wise man time to think and a fool something to do with his hands

Personally, I enjoy smoking premium cigars. I know that puts me on the outs with this crowd.

 

[Frunobulax]

All of this has been common knowledge for a long time, even though tobacco companies denied it. Remember the song, "Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette?" It was written by Willie Nelson.

Sorry to be a pedant, but Smoke, Smoke, Smoke that Cigarette predates Willie's version by a few years. 48, actually.

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, somebody gave him credit for it besides me. Who wrote it, then?

There is a claim that serious deliberation disappeared from congress when snuff went out of fashion.

 

[Benzadmiral]

All of this has been common knowledge for a long time, even though tobacco companies denied it. Remember the song, "Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette?" It was written by Willie Nelson.

But I think specific product placement is relatively recent, although anything after 1970 seems relatively recent to me. I don't know that one would ever notice specific brands of cigarettes in early movies but more ordinary products in recent movies seem to be quite visible. I've noticed certain makes of cars in movies from the 1950s, though, and sometimes credits are given on the screen. That was also true of clothing, but more so for television shows. One movie, a serial, Trader Tom of the China Seas (an okay serial from 1954 but not classic) featured three new Fords: a sedan, a station wagon and a pickup truck. They were ever so obvious in the movie but I don't think they (or Ford) were credited.

Here's a comic version of that song as done by Thom Bresh in the '70s. It was his father, Merle Travis, who co-wrote the original song. See how many of the impressions you can get:

 

[Benzadmiral]

Oh, and the tobacco companies were once busily marketing to kids. Maybe they still are, but when I was a kid, there were two kinds of candy cigarettes. One kind was rather like Life Savers, thin tubes of minty candy with a little red coloring at one end to simulate the lit cigarette the grownups had. The other was really cool: "Camels," thin tubes of milk chocolate, sized about like the true Camels, within a thin paper cylinder. They really looked like the real unlit cigarettes. I wish I could find some today.

Whenever I read about cigarettes as a medium of exchange, say in a prisoner of war camp, I always think of these instead of the real coffin nails.

 

[MisterCairo]

Oh, and the tobacco companies were once busily marketing to kids. Maybe they still are, but when I was a kid, there were two kinds of candy cigarettes. One kind was rather like Life Savers, thin tubes of minty candy with a little red coloring at one end to simulate the lit cigarette the grownups had. The other was really cool: "Camels," thin tubes of milk chocolate, sized about like the true Camels, within a thin paper cylinder. They really looked like the real unlit cigarettes. I wish I could find some today.

Whenever I read about cigarettes as a medium of exchange, say in a prisoner of war camp, I always think of these instead of the real coffin nails.

In Canada we had Popeye's Candy "cigarettes", which are now called "candy sticks". Still available after all these years...

 

[Frunobulax]

Here's a comic version of that song as done by Thom Bresh in the '70s. It was his father, Merle Travis, who co-wrote the original song. See how many of the impressions you can get:

My experience with it stems mainly from seeing Commander Cody do it on numerous occasions. That and my buddy Bob, a local blues guy.


Sent directly from my mind to yours.

 

[MikeKardec]

I just don't see how actors and actresses can remember their lines. After that, everything else seems easy.

Actually, your blocking; your actions on set, moving from the window to a chair, lighting a cigarette, whatever, not only can help with the performance but each action serves to remind the actor what their next lines are.

As an actor the first thing you do is recognize what it is that you want in a scene, obviously all your lines fall into place based on that, whether your character is above board about their motivation or not. Then you figure out how you are trying to achieve that goal(s) for each beat and how the lines work into it (again, they can suggest the exact opposite but that doesn't mean you're not trying to get something) ... THEN you worry about the lines and rote memorization but it's easier to remember because it's not random; you know what you are trying to do. Once on the set you figure out the movement based on what you have to do in the scene and the way the character feels about what's happening, and that cements the lines in further and gives you natural "touch points" in the script. It's no longer a three page scene but a series of short sequences broken by changes of intention and/or movement.

Unlike a play, where memorizing the blocking and dialog will go on for days or weeks, a film rarely shoots more than 7 pages a day and often more like 2. Actors don't really memorize or break down (parsing the script apart to discover the character's intention) a scene until the night before. Screenwriters and Directors all have horror stories about Actors calling them at 2 am because they are struggling to justify a line. The Writer or Director are always saying WTF? How many TIMES have you read the script? You are only deciding you have a problem with this NOW? But in reality, until an actor really breaks down a scene and takes it seriously he or she actually doesn't know what they think or feel about it. Film scripts change so often that it's rare for an actor to get serious until the night before even if they are really conscientious.

Some actors, Micky Rooney and Charlton Heston come to mind, could memorize a scene with just one reading. The kings and queens of memorization of course were soap opera actors, many of whom could have as much as 20 pages a day for weeks on end. I've seen actors (Richard Crenna would be one) who could tell what the director wanted their blocking to be by just glancing at the lights and could feel their marks by the heat of the light on their faces as they moved into position. The physical precision of some actors, even old, seemingly out of shape actors, is astounding ... but then that's what they get paid for and train for as carefully as any athlete.

Even without memorization, like when I was doing Audio Dramas and the actors could glance at their script, they still had to memorize what their character was up to in a scene. On a couple of shows we did 40 plus pages in one or two days and on the last one we did around 140 pages in 11 days. Especially working out of order, that's a lot to get your head around! When you're done you are ready for that damn cigarette, or a highball.