Goofy can't smoke?

The big movie news today is the fact that Disney has banned smoking in its "family" films. I fully expect Disney to go back and digitally remove the cigarettes from Cruella DeVille's fingers.

Disney is calling this a historical and groundbreaking edict. Is it, though? Do kids watch cartoon characters smoke and say "Damn, Goofy is badass cuz he's puffin' a stogie!" The implication is that seeing characters smoke on screen causes people to smoke. Disney is making a concerted effort to keep its cartoon personalities from promoting a truly despicable habit. That's admirable, in a way.

But here's where the problem comes in: Where does Disney stop and how does it justify the other "bad" things in its films? Let me first say that this isn't going to affect films by Touchstone and Miramax. Disney's statement is that it will strongly "discourage" smoking in films put out by these companies. That's code for "We're not going to do a damn thing if Tarantino wants to make Smoking Bastards of Hellcat Highway".

So for now, it's just relegated to Disney flicks starring the pre-cokehead Lindsay Lohan's of the world...and their cartoons. I wonder why this is being treated as so revolutionary by the press? This is self-censorship. It is a company telling its artists "sorry, you can't do that". But you know what, I'll bet Disney will have no qualms about bringing 101 Dalmatians out of their vault in a few years for an HD release. Their commercials will say something like "The TIMELESS Disney classic that you will want to share with your children again and again". One of the most famous villians in animation history is Cruella DeVille. Her trademark, besides her hair, is the fact that she is a chain smoking bitch. In a film like Dalmatians, the smoking is made to look bad. The puppies regularly cough and wheeze. The cigarettes are portrayed as disgusting, yet they become an integral part of Cruella's character. I wonder how many children start hitting 8 packs a day after watching the film? My guess is zero.

But where does Disney stop? Do they tell their animators "You know what? Cut out all the fight sequences in Hercules because we don't want kids to start fighting each other. While you're at it, better cover Ariel with a little more than a seashell bikini because we don't want kids to get any unnatural ideas." I don't doubt that Disney's intentions may be partially honorable (though I do think this is a marketing ploy for some good PR), but I think it makes Disney out to be a complete hypocrite.

Groups have been lobbying forever to get smoking out of Hollywood movies. Those voices now have a much larger sound due to Disney's PR tactic. The chants of "ban smoking in the movies" is going to get much louder. Hypothetically, if in 20 years the anti-smoking lobbyists pressure into effect an actual ban on smoking in movies, what happens to the first 120 years of cinema? Do we ban every movie that ever had a character who smokes in it? Will Turner Classic Movies be forced to shove all those Film Noir's into a vault? Will John Wayne become an American anti-hero?

I firmly believe that movies have a tangible effect on people. I don't discount the possibility that someone might see David Strathairn in Good Night and Good Luck and decide to turn their lungs black in a week. But "banning" what can and can't be shown in movies is censorship, plain and simple. Disney comes out safe in this. I'd venture to guess that if you asked most parents whether or not smoking should be in cartoons, they'd say "no". Then again, if you asked those same parents if they like Elmer Fudd shooting Daffy Duck in the face with a shotgun, they'd say "yeah!". So Disney gets some good "common sense" PR and the rest of Hollywood is left to fight the dogs that have now been set upon it. Could this seemingly innocent Disney smoking ban lead to a new Production Code? I don't think so, but I wouldn't be surprised to see slow steps moving in that direction.