Churchill Biopic Features Warning Against Second Hard Smoke

C6Many of us are excited to see the new biopic “Darkest Hour” on the towering historical figure of Winston Churchill.  What is less welcomed is a truly ridiculous warning added to the move that “the depictions of tobacco smoking are based solely on artistic consideration.”   It is not even clear what smoking “based solely on artistic consideration” means but is clearly meant as a gesture to those who would immediately run from the film in shock at the scene of a twentieth century leader smoking.  It turns out that while, “History is written by the victors,” it is rewritten by cringing Hollywood producers.

Churchill of course was known worldwide for his cigar, which Gary Oldman properly displays.  Churchill of course apologized to no one from Hitler to Stalin but his film kowtows to social warriors.

91kWTNQAmEL._SY445_The full warning reads: “The depictions of tobacco smoking contained in this film are based solely on artistic consideration and are not intended to promote tobacco consumption. The surgeon general has determined that there are serious health risks associated with smoking and with secondhand smoke.”

Of course, Churchill lived to be 90 — well above the average for his generation.  The warning is a case of the greatest generation meeting the snowflake generation.  A film about a man who demanded resolute toughness was augmented with clinging warning about secondhand smoke.

They should at least give Churchill equal time with his statement that “Perhaps it is better to be irresponsible and right, than to be responsible and wrong.”

Universal Pictures has reminded silent despite worldwide ridicule.  

111 thoughts on “Churchill Biopic Features Warning Against Second Hard Smoke

  1. Reblogged this on The Inquiring Mind and commented:
    Professor Turley points out the absurdity of a warning re smoking in the new Churchill movie. This sort of warning is pandering to modern prejudices and trigger warnings taken to the manifest absurd

  2. If you could magically transfer your present self to live in say the year 1980, would you do it?

    I for one was happier when I didnt have the govt sticking its nose into every little thing. We were freer then.

  3. PCS:
    “The Star Wars multi-verse has changed. Disney has moved the goal posts. If you don’t accept that, you will never understand what is going on.” What is going on, oh wise sage? Your statement reads as if you are some industry insider talking to some wet-behind-the-ears recent film school grad who hasn’t got a clue about how the world really works. I’m going to assume your condescension is unintentional. You may think everyone has to accept the crapification of Disney’s products (read: constant pushing of SJW memes, non-existent plotlines, banal script focused toward middle schoolers, etc.), but we don’t. There will be those who watch Episode 9, if it gets made, simply because they have to “complete the series”. And then there are those of us who realize we’re being had and will vote with our pocketbooks accordingly. And FWIW, Benicio was brilliant, albeit brief, in Snatch. But like you said, taste is subjective.

    • “You may think everyone has to accept the crapification of Disney’s products (read: constant pushing of SJW memes, non-existent plotlines, banal script focused toward middle schoolers, etc.)”

      Cape Cod you are 100% correct, especially on the SJW memes.

      • Much of what comes from Disney is an insult to our intelligence. A respectful film made for a child audience is not insulting to anyone. It is simply written toward what comprises a child’s realm and world. Many adults will find such a film entertaining if it is of quality, especially when it is created for a family where all can find value and entertainment. Yet so much anymore we are served stupidity and as you say banal scripts it is no longer worth watching much less paying for.

        The insults of course are not limited to Disney. Most commercials insult the viewer and years ago I reached my lifetime limit. If I wasn’t the only person in my household I wouldn’t watch TV, save the occasional DVD of old movies. But if I do we simply either mute the commercials or pause the recording at the beginning and fast-forward through the commercials.

        I might be coaxed back to TV if someone created a reality show highlighting groups who created programs to solve complex problems of all types without politics or drama and succeeded to great effectiveness and efficiency.

        • Darren, I was raised on Disney and raised my kids on Disney. I have many of the movies on DVD and will never part with them though my kids are grown and none of us watch them regularly. IMO Disney productions peaked in the Howard Ashman/Alan Menken era, although I do think the Pixar movies are also brilliant (I’ve loved Brad Bird since Iron Giant). Frozen was a hot mess, although Josh Gad did his level best to make it watchable. And the live-action versions of the animated classics? Gack. I see nothing interesting coming out, save Incredibles 2. I agree with you re: TV. Most is complete crap. We used our TV all last week to play youtube Xmas music channels. So much more enjoyable.

    • CCS – tell me you could actually understand him all the time. Whether you see 9 or not is up to you. I am finally rooting for the rebels again. After 1-3 I was rooting for the Empire and had decided the Jedi were basically whiny do-nothings. They were all hat and no cattle. And who doesn’t like a good empire? Someone has to police it.

      I did see it in 3-D IMAX which may have made the movie much better than it was, but I liked the movie I saw and heard. And taste is both subjective and changes over time. I used to think Jackson Pollack was a rip-off, but then I had the opportunity to see several of his canvases and I could see what he was doing. There was almost a musical rhythm to the paintings. When I was young I loved the Three Stooges. Now I hate the Three Stooges and love Buster Keaton. My wife and I have disparate tastes, so 2 TVs saved our marriage. 🙂

      • PCS: re Benicio in Snatch and TLJ, yes I could understand him the whole time. I think he affected a speech impediment in TLJ as a means to make his character more interesting. God knows Johnson didn’t give him much to work with. WRT your excitement about the franchise again–that’s fabulous. You do you. If we all agreed, well, you know how the saying goes.

  4. The Crown has many scenes of smokers and shows the effects. As King George coughs up blood, the camera focuses on his lit cigarette in the ashtray, when his doctor finally tells him that his remaining lung has a blockage, a tumor, the king lights up. His mother also has emphysema and lights up. I didn’t see a warning about smoking and not a word in the script but the message is clear by the use of the camera.

  5. Oh, and here is another thing. Smokers had about a 20% rate of lung cancer, and about half died of it. Guess what other popular activity has about the same odds??? Gay male sex!

    Yes, about 20% of men who have sex with men, will become HIV positive, and about half of them, or more, will die of its complications.

    Sooo, I wonder if 50 years from now, Broke Back Mountain will have warnings??? Or biographies of Oscar Wilde, etc???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    • These statistics are completely made up. Nobody around here is going to stop you from going on homophobic screeds, no need to lie to support them.

        • I do apologize. The statistics weren’t completely made up. Just data that’s a decade old and that you badly misrepresented in your post.

          • So, if the data supplied is, according to you, is outdated and no longer applicable, you have ample opportunity to provide any data which would be up to date and contrary to what she has provided. The onus is on you. I suspect that you are incapable of providing any information or statistics which conflict with what she has supplied. . .you just don’t care for the message and its societal implications.

          • Thank you for your apology. The CDC Report was on their website as late as earlier this year. It has since been replaced by new information, that is equally grim vis a vis men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM), but they do not have the current HIV prevalence rate for them.

            Back of the envelope calculations indicate that about 20% still seems a pretty good estimate. The current CDC estimate is that over 600,000 MSMs are HIV positive, and that MSMs are about 2% of the population. This would yield a 10% prevalence rate on an estimated 2%(300 million).

            But, other government studies put the entire LGBT spectrum at 1.6% of the population, of which men would be about half, or .8%. That would yield a MSM population of about 2,400,000 and if 600,000 are HIV positive, then that would be a 25% prevalence rate.

            In San Francisco, it is estimated that there are maybe 30,000 homosexual men out of a population of about 875,000. That is based on a 6.2% LGBT pop, and assuming half are men, or 3.1%, then 3.1% of 875,000 = 21,725 gay men. Of that group, about 12,000 are HIV/Aids positive. That equates to a prevalence rate of 55%. I believe that number is wrong, because I think the number of gay men in San Francisco is closer to 60,000, and that would put the prevalence rate closer to 20%-25%.

            Here are two links to some of the numbers:

            http://news.gallup.com/poll/182051/san-francisco-metro-area-ranks-highest-lgbt-percentage.aspx

            https://www.aidsmap.com/San-Francisco-reports-new-low-in-HIV-infections-and-faster-treatment-but-disparities-remain/page/3082266/

            This blurb from the second link: “As deaths have declined thanks to effective treatment, the total number of people living with HIV, or prevalence, in San Francisco has continued to rise, reaching 15,995 in 2015. Nearly three-quarters are gay men, 6% are women and 2% are transgender – proportions that have remained consistent over the past few years.”

            Sooo, if there are 12,000 HIV positive MSM in San Francisco, pick what you think the number of MSMs are, and do your own math. I am not really surprised that there are no readily available and reliable estimates of the prevalence of MSM’s with HIV/AIDS, because that number might tend to “stigmatize” the poor dears.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            • Squeeky, it may be some time before you get a response from the individual with the screen name, Nope. The bathhouses tend to get quite busy around the holidays. I’m sure that he will read your message when he emerges.

              • bams:

                ROTFLMAO!

                Maybe he will study the information, and be a little more cautious on his love interests!

                FWIW, here is the current CDC link:

                https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

                There is this intriguing little blurb there:

                A much higher proportion of gay and bisexual men are living with HIV compared to any other group in the United States. Therefore gay and bisexual men have an increased chance of having an HIV-positive partner.

                1 in 6 gay and bisexual men living with HIV are unaware they have it. People who don’t know they have HIV cannot get the medicines they need to stay healthy and prevent transmitting HIV to their partners. Therefore, they may transmit the infection to others without knowing it.

                Most gay and bisexual men get HIV through having anal sex without condoms or medicines to prevent or treat HIV. Anal sex is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV. Receptive anal sex is 13 times as risky for getting HIV as insertive anal sex.

                Gay and bisexual men are also at increased risk for other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), like syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia. Condoms can protect from some STDs, including HIV.

                Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination may place gay and bisexual men at risk for multiple physical and mental health problems and affect whether they take protective actions with their partners or seek and are able to obtain high-quality health services.

                Sooo, if there is a “higher proportion”, then why don’t they give a good estimate of the proportion like they used to??? It used to be about 20%, and if the prevalence rate is going up, because of fewer deaths, then what is the new prevalence rate???

                If 1 in 6 MSM with HIV don’t know they have it, then doesn’t there failure to get regularly checked make them “bad people”??? Bad people who don’t care if they pass the disease to someone they supposedly care about??? Why not come right out and call them “bad people”???

                “Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination” may place gay men at risk??? How about MSM’s not using condoms during anal sex??? Isn’t that the thing that really puts gay men at risk???

                “[MSMs]are at increased risk for STDs like syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia” – – – sooo why don’t we discourage casual gay sex, and gay promiscuity?

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                • Squeeky, I’m sure you know the answer to your question and I am sure you read And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts, but just in case you didn’t that book would satisfy a lot of your curiosity. Pure political stupidity has led to millions of deaths and the spread of a disease that could have been better controlled.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s