Drugs in Cinema

Celluloid Stoners: It’s Not What You Think! (Except when it is…)
By: Jaime Holt
Over the past few years, much dialogue has been presented about the presence of substance use in the media. It has been implied by many sources that children and teens are especially vulnerable to glamorized images of smoking, as well as drug and alcohol abuse. Two studies, one performed at Harvard University, and the other by the Royal Academy of Medicine (Australia) were excellent in giving a quantitative analysis of substance use content. However, a better approach would be a qualitative study of the films as a whole, and the effect that certain types of films have on young viewers; one which takes into account the film’s MPAA rating, functional narrative related to the substance use, and the films overall theme.

In June 2001, The American Academy of Pediatrics released a Harvard University study whereby they meticulously viewed “the content of all G-rated animated feature films released in theaters between 1937 and 2000.” The purpose of this was to document the presence of alcohol and tobacco use in films which were marketed toward children (Thompson). The results were not all that surprising if one has ever paid attention to a Disney film. In addition to counting the number of seconds that the substances in question were visible on screen, they went so far as to determine whether or not the character using the substance was “good or bad.” The study concluded that 38 of the 81 films (47%) portrayed the use of alcohol, and 35 of the 81 films (43%) showed the use of tobacco products. “No film contained the use of illicit drugs, although 3 films showed at least 1 character consuming a magical food, pill, or potion that transfigured them and 2 films showed characters using a syringe to inject a substance into another character (Thompson).” The study is meant to push the idea that children’s media is wrought with images of bad behavior and that the incidence of these behaviors is increasing year after year. Seeing this behavior encourages them to participate in like behavior (smoking, drinking, etc.); however some of the findings were to the contrary. The rate of incidence of both alcohol and tobacco use in animated films is declining (Thompson).
This study is interesting because it only focuses on animated G-rated films. The study ignores live-action G-rated films which appear more like reality, and might be more likely to influence behavior. The study also seems to overlook the fact that children and adolescents can, and frequently do, view PG and PG-13 rated films without parental guidance. Furthermore, it is not that difficult for under-17 viewers to get in to see R-rated films without parental consent, which often contain substantially more illicit content. While it mentions characters taking magical potions, the study also fails to look at the substance use in the context of the film’s theme. Alice ate a piece of mushroom that made her grow larger and then smaller, however, the whole thing happened in the course of a silly dream she had (Alice in Wonderland, Clyde Geronimi, 1951).
In 2005, a very similar study was published by the Royal Society of Medicine (Australia), in which they studied the IMDB top 200 films of all time. They discounted all animated films, G & PG- rated films, films that were set or released before 1983 (before the emergence of HIV/AIDS) and those which were not about humans (Gunasekera). This left 87 films for review. 8% of these films depicted cannabis use, for a total of 27 different occurrences. 52% of these depictions were shown in a positive light, 48% in a neutral light (Gunasekera ). None were negatively portrayed. 7% of these films showed characters using non-injected drugs, and again, none were portrayed negatively (Gunasekera ). It should be noted that 75% of the films studied depicted people having sex, 68% showed characters smoking, and 32% showed alcohol intoxication (as opposed to just drinking alcohol). While the use if illegal drugs was not prevalent within these films, it was problematic to the surveyors because it was not rejected or demonized within the narrative. “Assuming all excluded movies had no incidents showing sex or drug use, at least a third (33%) of the 200 most popular movies of the last 20 years depicted negative health behaviors (Gunasekera).”
These two studies are a quantitative analysis on the content of films over the course of the last century. They cite research which propagates the idea that youths will mimic the behavior that they see in films and media. While this is a good approach to documenting the number of certain types of influential images that occur; neither study takes into account a qualitative analysis of any of the films as a whole. They are simply numerical representations of how much screen time is used presenting specifically defined “negative health behaviors.” A good example of the problem with this approach is seen when looking at movies like Traffic (Steven Soderberg, 2000) or Trainspotting (Danny Boyle, 1997). Both films spend a great deal of time depicting people smoking, drinking and using drugs. If included, the “Top 200” study would not account for the time that the films spend depicting the procurement and trafficking of illegal narcotics, or the negative effects of these behaviors (ie, going to jail as a negative health risk because of the risk of violence; or drug trafficking increasing the risk that you will be murdered). On the positive end, both films spend ample time depicting the negative consequences that these behaviors can affect. Traffic depicts Caroline’s (Erika Christensen) grisly descent into addiction and prostitution, and drug traffickers being murdered; Trainspotting has a gruesome detox scene in which Renton ((Ewan MacGregor) is haunted by visions of a dead, rotting baby crawling on the ceiling. Both films are rated-R.
Regardless of where it falls within the MPAA ratings system, or the narrative structure of a particular film, the use of drugs in film falls within two categories: those films which take a hostile stance towards it, and those which accept drug use as an inevitable or even acceptable part of society as a whole. Brief presence of illicit drug use within a film will not necessarily garner it an R-rating (Valenti) ; however smoking cigarettes as well will probably guarantee it any more (Cieply, C3).
A hostile stance toward the use of drugs is one in which drugs are portrayed as “the downfall of society,” or one in which the use of illegal substances will invariably lead to death, dismemberment, incarceration, or other negative consequences. These films are considered to be hostile because the functioning ideology relies on the concept that any use of illegal substances constitutes addiction, or will inevitably lead to it. There is no room for simple experimentation or controlled recreational use. A good example would be Reefer Madness (Louis J. Gasnier, 1936), in which drug dealers are peddling marijuana to young teens. The teens become immediately addicted and eventually one of them kills a man in a hit-and-run accident. Another girl is shot to death by accident, a man is murdered, and in the end another girl commits suicide by jumping out of a window. The film is a good example of an exploitation/propaganda film. It is not rated, as it was released prior to the development of the ratings system. By current standards, the film would likely be rated R. There is rampant drug use, implied sex by minors, an attempted rape, an accidental shooting, a murder and a hit-and-run accident that almost kills a pedestrian. However, this is an anti-drug film meant to warn youths of the dangers of using drugs. Had it been released after the ratings system was in place, the film’s viewing would have been restricted to adults only. While the film was meant to warn parents to “tell your children,” there is an implication that teens are the intended audience for the “adult” rated message.
In 2005, Andy Fickman directed Reefer Madness: The Movie Musical, Rated R for drug material, sexual content and some violence (CARA). It starred Kristen Bell and Christian Campbell. The musical was a farce, as it mocked exploitation films in general. It featured poignant references to the falsehoods within the original, such as the statement that “marijuana is more addictive than heroin or cocaine.” The film pokes much fun at the hysteria surrounding marijuana prohibition and “addiction.”
Parents:
“It's time for parents to take a stand
For the preservation of this great land
'Till the things that scare us are burned or banned,
Or smashed to smithereens!
And once the reefer has been destroyed,
We'll start on Darwin and Sigmund Freud,
And sex depicted on celluloid,
And communists and queens
Lecturer:
When danger's near, exploit their fear!
Parents:
The end will justify the means!”
“Tell ‘Em the Truth” Performed by Ana Gasteyer, Christian
Campbell, Alan Cumming, Kristen Bell, Steven Weber, Amy Spanger, Harry S. Murphy and cast.

The song’s lyrics are a tongue-in-cheek reference to past and current trends toward censorship, as well as being an interesting self-reflexive observation about it’s rating. Some of “The Parents” in the film fainted when they saw the orgy-dance (where it is alluded that Jimmy might have been anally-penetrated by Satan himself, while under the influence of the “demon marijuana”). Interestingly enough, if the MPAA were to decide to retroactively “re-evaluate” this film for the new smoking ban, the rating would not change.
Requiem for a Dream (Darren Aronofsky, 2000) is a beautifully stylized account of the impact of addiction. A mother becomes addicted to diet pills, while her heroin-addict son, Harry, and his friend get entrepreneurial as drug dealers. Harry is trying to raise enough money to start a clothing design firm for his girlfriend Marion (also an addict). She prostitutes herself to get the start-up money for Harry’s business, but resorts to it several times again in the film. Eventually the tides turn and all is lost, including Harry’s arm, and Mom’s sanity. The film was originally rated NC-17 as a result of the final prostitution scene, as opposed to the graphic depictions of heroin use throughout the film, but Aronofsky chose to release the film unrated in order to avoid the pornographic stigma that is commonly associated with NC-17 (“Requiem for a Dream”). In 2001, the film received a Prism Commendation from the Entertainment Industries Council for accurate depictions of social issues (Prism Awards). Despite the film’s harrowing message about drug abuse, the MPAA felt that the film was unsuitable for persons seventeen years of age and under. Like Reefer Madness, the ratings system would prevent those who could benefit most from the films implied warnings from viewing it.
Finally, one must consider that each viewer comes into a theater with their own set of experiences. A 2006 study published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology evaluated the effects of adolescent family harmony and family history density (FHD) of alcoholism. According to this study, adolescent family harmony decreased teens’ risk for drug addiction (Qing,329).In addition, “…family harmony partially mediated the effect of familial alcoholism on young adults' combined alcohol and drug dependence… (Qing, 329).” In summation, Johnny’s constant fighting with Mom and Dad, who may or may not be alcoholics, will probably have a greater impact on his decision to drink and/or use drugs, than would the fact that he watched “Renton” shoot-up in the R-rated movie Trainspotting.

Works Cited
Cieply, Michael. Smoking to Join Sex and Violence in Determining Ratings for Movies."
The New York Times 11 May 2007, Late ed.: C3.

Gunasekera, Hasantha, & Simon Chapman, and Sharon Campbell. "Sex and drugs in
popular movies: an analysis of the top 200 films." Journal of the Royal Society of
Medicine 98. Oct 2005 464 - 470. 15 APR 2008 .

Qing, Zhou, Kevin M. King, Laurie Chassin. "The Roles of Familial Alcoholism and
Adolescent Family Harmony in Young Adults' Substance Dependence Disorders:
Mediated and Moderated Relations.." Journal of Abnormal Psychology 115(2006):
320-331.

"Requiem for a Dream ." Wikipedia. 2008. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 16 Apr 2008

Thompson, ScD, Kimberley M., & Fumie Yokota, MS. "Depiction of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Other Substances in G-Rated Animated Feature Films." Pediatrics 107(2001):
1369-1374.

Valenti, Jack. "Reasons for Movie Ratings:Questions and Answers, page 4."
www.filmratings.com. Dec, 2000. Classifications and Rating Administration
(CARA). 16 Apr 2008 .

"Winners: Theatrical Feature Films." Prism Awards. 2008. Entertainment Industries
Council. 16 Apr 2008 .

For more articles like this one, CLICK HERE.