The main objection to Sigourney Weaver's smoking in Avatar is that it takes the viewer out of the world Cameron's trying to create. The audience is suddenly going "WT--? Smoking 150 years from now? And in a lab?? What's up with that?" It takes people out of the movie. Not worth it for such a cliche anachronism.
A second objection is that Cameron/Weaver go 150 years into the future to spout 80-year-old tobacco propaganda.
In the 1920s, American Tobacco Co. hired Freud's nephew Edward Bernays to get women smoking. His solution: promote smoking as freedom and independence. Bernays hired debutantes to walk down 5th Ave during the 1929 Easter Parade dressed as the Statue of Liberty, holding their cigarettes aloft as "torches of freedom."
Bernays later deeply regretted his work for tobacco companies.
Independence/rebellion is an ad theme Cameron falls for and promotes with Rose's character in "Titanic," too.
Weaver's stress-relief is another tobacco advertising mantra, used since the 30s at least, with lots of jet pilots, sports stars, etc., "calming their nerves" with cigarettes.
Cameron's unconscious swallowing of tobacco propaganda shows he really doesn't understand the issue; his rationale is specious. He is fooling only himself.
You ask where is the criticism of Ds who've been too cozy with the industry along with the Rs who've locked arms with the wall street insurance biz. Here's one of many examples of our critiques: https://www.prwatch.org/node/8580
My longstanding faith in the journalistic integrity of the Washington Post is being severely undermined by the idea that you would outsource news on such a vital topic to such a partisan view that has such a strong underlying ideology. This is against all the principles of principled journalism! How the might have fallen/are falling - unless you promptly interrupt this clandestinely-corrupt arrangement!
Here's a relevant scene involving the tobacco PR maven trying to hook kids in "Thank You for Smoking":
--Nick Naylor: Now, what we need is a smoking role model, a real winner. . . . two packs a day. . . .
--Jeff Megall: Sony has a futuristic sci-fi movie they're looking to make.
--Nick Naylor: Cigarettes in space? . . . But wouldn't they blow up in an all-oxygen environment?
--Jeff Megall: [long pause] Probably. But, you know, it's an easy fix. One line of dialogue: 'Thank God we created the, you know, whatever device.'
The main objection to Sigourney Weaver's smoking in Avatar is that it takes the viewer out of the world Cameron's trying to create. The audience is suddenly going "WT--? Smoking 150 years from now? And in a lab?? What's up with that?" It takes people out of the movie. Not worth it for such a cliche anachronism.
A second objection is that Cameron/Weaver go 150 years into the future to spout 80-year-old tobacco propaganda.
In the 1920s, American Tobacco Co. hired Freud's nephew Edward Bernays to get women smoking. His solution: promote smoking as freedom and independence. Bernays hired debutantes to walk down 5th Ave during the 1929 Easter Parade dressed as the Statue of Liberty, holding their cigarettes aloft as "torches of freedom."
Bernays later deeply regretted his work for tobacco companies.
Independence/rebellion is an ad theme Cameron falls for and promotes with Rose's character in "Titanic," too.
Weaver's stress-relief is another tobacco advertising mantra, used since the 30s at least, with lots of jet pilots, sports stars, etc., "calming their nerves" with cigarettes.
Cameron's unconscious swallowing of tobacco propaganda shows he really doesn't understand the issue; his rationale is specious. He is fooling only himself.
You ask where is the criticism of Ds who've been too cozy with the industry along with the Rs who've locked arms with the wall street insurance biz. Here's one of many examples of our critiques: https://www.prwatch.org/node/8580
My longstanding faith in the journalistic integrity of the Washington Post is being severely undermined by the idea that you would outsource news on such a vital topic to such a partisan view that has such a strong underlying ideology. This is against all the principles of principled journalism! How the might have fallen/are falling - unless you promptly interrupt this clandestinely-corrupt arrangement!
Pages