The thing that bugs me about the no-smoking law is that folk congregate round doorways: you can't get into some places without taking a deep breath and swimming through the cloud of smokers.
No. All venues should be smoke free. Take it outside
Yes. Enough about anti-smoking. Give us a break
Don't care, it doesn't affect me.
er..you hold something that looks like a cigar - which is what he did I believe (could even have been a real one). I think you can give the audience enough credit for them to figure out someone is "smoking" by the actors actions, without actual smoke coming out - unless they are exceptionally thick.
The thing that bugs me about the no-smoking law is that folk congregate round doorways: you can't get into some places without taking a deep breath and swimming through the cloud of smokers.
Ah yes, the only drawback of Berko - running the gauntlet of the smokers in the bar on route to the dance rooms.
That's not the issue. It would become like the elephant in the living room - pretending to smoke something that doesn't look like a lit cigar would be tremendously distracting. It would be as if you went to the Royal Shakespear Theatre and they were 'pretending' to pour wine into glasses and 'pretending' to drink it, instead of using Ribena or whatever it is that they do use.
whilst they do use non-alcoholic drinks, they may also use those comedy glasses with the liquid inside the glass itself. i.e. if the play doesnt require the audience to see an empty glass then it doesnt matter. With smoking; people are quite familiar with the act of lighting the cigarette, talking a draw and stubbing it out - all actions, that if performed by an actor, look uncannily like smoking- i cant imagine anyone walking out in outrage because "there was no smoke" or "his cigarette didnt go down so it was clearly fake". Except you that is
I think Tescos have a "suspension of disbelief" in the freezer section. You should get one
Well - maybe after all this discussion it'll stick out like a sore thumb (or unlit cigar). If he'd just quietly used a fake cigar without making an issue of it, most people probably wouldn't have noticed. So you may have single-handedly completely ruined the whole play for the entire forum!
I hope you feel suitably guilty
um-- but wouldn't that contravene the law anyway?
It's not outrage, just distraction from the play.i cant imagine anyone walking out in outrage because "there was no smoke" or "his cigarette didnt go down so it was clearly fake". Except you that is
As for suspension of disbelief - a few years as a lawyer gives you invaluable training in that!
NO! Im descibing the actions of smoking, which, if you were to do them, would make people think you were smoking even if its a plastic straw you are holding! People will see that its a straw but still know from your actions you are treating it as a cigarette. Imagine the miracle of something that, instead of a straw, looks a bit like a cigarette - why, that would be uncanny. You would be alterting peoples realities. Someone could give the impression that they were smoking when they REALLY ARE NOT. You could invent a whole new name for people like that. I dunno, "actors" maybe.
What, you mean people being killed in stage plays are just, I dunno, pretending to die or something?
I never though about it, but it makes sense, I guess - think of the savings you'd make, not having to recruit and train new victims every day. In fact, the more I think about it, the more it sounds like an excellent business suggestion - you should be on Dragon's Den
Oh, I wonder how many people had booked to the Mel Smith play before all the fuss, and how many after the fuss...
I'd never suggest that such a well-co-ordinated media campaign could have been organised in advance.
I'm sure it all just happened spontaneously because an enterprising set of 100 or so journalists happened to investigate the same story, doggedly pursuing mysterious leads and hints until they arrived at the truth.
And I'd be shocked, shocked I say, to find out otherwise.
Bored with this.
I think there is an argument that the law is disproportionate, if it is intended to 'improve the health of the nation', if it also prevents realistic portrayal of smoking, when required, in plays. If it doesn't prevent that - because the props department has located realistic cigars/pipes/cigarettes which the actor can use, or alternatively if the audience is too dim to notice that a chain-smoking cigar-wielding character like Churchill never actually has a lit cigar in his hand or mouth during the whole performance - then it isn't disproportionate.
Oooh, lets all go home then
My point was that it ... DOES NOT. By realistic you seem to mean "looks,smells, behaves" like a real cigarette whereas realstic to me is when someone acts out the process of smoking just enough that you get it.I think there is an argument that the law is disproportionate, if it is intended to 'improve the health of the nation', if it also prevents realistic portrayal of smoking, when required, in plays.
Sheesh, you'd be bloody terrible at charades :
lets see...
films
----
"Jaws" would have you off fetching a 12 foot great white shark, Rob Schnieder, a gas canister and relocating all of us to the beach.
"One flew over the cuckoos nest" - where would you find an evil nurse, a native american and an asylum ? (ceroc party night?)
"The Color of Money" - ok, this might be a bit easy
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" - you'll never find that secret bunker with the Ark of the Covenent in it, its in Area 51 y'know. (head toward canada from Bose, Idaho turn left at 14567th cactus)
music
-----
"Murder on the dance floor" - you'd be banned from Ceroc for THIS one i imagine.
"Dance the Night Away" - knackered at the end of it probably
"Hotel California" - luckily theres a village called California in Central Scotland, you dont have to go too far. You'd need to open a hotel though, it doesnt have any.
"Money for nothing" - ta, mines a guiness.
slightly off topic (ok WAY off topic.. but it is related to DS's comment about acting above)
My favorite quote/movie myth/urban legend/whatever is from the filming of "Marathon Man"
Dustin Hoffman , a well known method actor for one scene had to look like he hadn't slept or washed for several days.. so to "get into the role" he didn;t sleep or wash for several days
Laurence Olivier commented on his appearance and asked if he was ok to which Hoffman told him why he was looking like that.
Olivier took a long look at hoffman and is reputed to have said "Why not try acting? It's much easier!"
Back on topic and in a similar vein (or should that be root canal?) I can't see why actors ACTING smoking lessens the enjoyment of a play any. I don't care it it's a candy stick , a piece of dowling or a rolled up bit of tissue paper.. if they act like it's a cigarette while in the play.. As far as I'm concerned it's a cigarette.
I wonder if Barry used to sit in the audience with a copy of the play and heckle.. "It clearly states here he smoked a CUBAN cigar.. but that cigar is CLEARLY Nicaraguan!!"
This, of course, is why film studios spend almost nothing on special effects. We are all well used to having somebody shout 'Bang!' to simulate a gun firing and 'Boom!' to signify an explosion.From Dreadful Scathe and Beowfulf:
bunch of yuk yuks! about the performance of smoking
As I said above, if there are realistic alternatives, I have no problem. Somebody waggling a white stick about as if it was a cigarette does not feel much like a 'realistic' alternative.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks