This is not a joke. This is not The Onion. This is real. And frightening.
At the beginning of “Darkest Hour,” the new film about the wartime heroism and brilliance of Winston Churchill, this warning appears on the screen:
“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.”
Winston Churchill, you see, smoked cigars. Actually he chain-smoked them, and inhaled. They were among his trademarks. Any adult who doesn’t know that should not have graduated from high school. Interestingly, shooting and bombing people are also serious health risks, so I don’t know why it wasn’t noted that the “depictions of warfare contained in this film are based solely on artistic consideration.”
Whatever “based solely on artistic consideration” is supposed to mean…
Of course, showing Churchill smoking cigars is not an “artistic consideration,” but one of historical accuracy and integrity. Does this mean that there was really a debate in the studio about whether or not Churchill should be shown smoking, so as not to trigger good little progressive totalitarians, who believe in changing the past for the greater good of the present? I wonder if they considered making Winston, who was fat, appear slim and ripped, since the surgeon general has determined that there are serious health risks associated with obesity and over-eating. I don’t see why they wouldn’t, if they felt that showing people smoking in the 1930s, when almost everyone smoked, might be interpreted as promoting smoking today. Churchill also drank like Bluto in “Animal House.” Why no warning about that? Uh-oh—does this mean that the film, for artistic considerations, only shows Winston sipping soda water and prune juice?
That warning says to me, “We, your Hollywood moral exemplars, think you are an ignorant, illiterate dummy who can’t tell the difference between a historical drama and a tobacco commercial. We also support the government’s belief that it should impose on every aspect of your life, including your entertainment, to protect you from yourself.”
This is an insult to the audience, history, and Winston Churchill, who, it should be noted, lived to the ripe old age of 90 while chain-smoking huge cigars and drinking, by his own estimate, at least a quart of wine, whisky and brandy a day, and often more.
The only way to nip this insidious development is for audiences to stand up and walk out in protest. I am completely serious. The warning shows such disrespect, such arrogance, such utter stupidity and warped priorities, that the film and its producers should suffer for it.
I am not certain which is more troubling, that the progressive movement has metastasized into such a fanatic, obsessed, warped cult that it could slap this idiocy on a movie and not expect roaring laughter in response, or that so many Americans, especially young ones, have been so indoctrinated into the cult that they won’t realize that the warning is ridiculous.
***
Now a brief salute to Professor Turley, who flagged this nonsense. In addition to writing an interesting blog with a lot of ethics content, he also labors on it by himself, as I do here, and like me, types terribly. The headline for his story about the Churchill movie reads (as I write this), Churchill Biopic Features Warning Against Second Hard Smoke.
The post has several more typos, syntax and punctuation errors before the jump, and unlike me, the professor does not have Pennagain and other helpful Ethics Alarms readers calling his attention to the errors so he can fix them, at least not quickly.
Professor Turley’s proofreading problems have more than once saved me from the depths of despair when I was embarrassed by my own errors. It doesn’t make typos any more excusable or less unprofessional in a serious blog. It does remind me that to err is human, and to err while blogging daily in short breaks between more lucrative or essential tasks isn’t a flaw unique to me. This is small solace, but solace it is. Thank you, Professor.
I like solace.
Ethics Alarms 
Next, there won’t be any inhaling when Cheech & Chong receive their Kennedy Center honors.
Sent from my iPhone
>
And that same warning on “Duck Soup”…
Agree. Add it to the list of embarrassing excesses of the culture wars. Just because you’re Left doesn’t mean you’re right.
And I too take solace from Typo’s turleys.
“And I too take solace from Typo’s turleys.”
…you owe me a keyboard… and that damn punch will NEVER come out of my shirt!
If I recall correctly, “Hollywood” or the “MPAA” passed down a directive a few years back that tobacco use would constitute an “R” rating. I imagine the filmmaker and studio acquiesced to putting the placard in exchange for keeping their PG-13 rating.
I must have missed that one. I do recall reading excerpts from the now-defunct Hayes code that smoking should be minimized overall, and NEVER done by heroes- the only character shown smoking should be “The Heavy.” Which, I suppose, one could argue perfectly describes Churchill, if taken literally.
Will Hayes was a super conservative Puritan-minded dictator. It is fascinating that the Left is now embracing his views and methods.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10141697
Leave it to me to remember one tid-bit from a decade ago only to find out that they basically had no follow-through on it since:
https://smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/whos-accountable/mpaa
Oh joy unbound!. One of my favorite film festivals is coming. If there is one movie in the full ten days of double bills (quads, on the weekends) without real tobacco smoke swirling around in nearly every enjoyable scene, I’ll be shocked:
http://www.noircity.com
I guess living to 90 while smoking and drinking seriously undermines their health arguments. If they really cared they would demand all inhaled nictotine products illegal be banned. I laugh when they talk about horrible big tabacco’s ill gotten profits but never consider that tax revenues dwarf the per pack profits.
You should find solace in the fact that all writers suffer from grammatical, syntax, and typo errors. There is a reason we do drafts and have editors make corrections. A second set of eyes is always better in proffing because the writer when reading over the work skips text unconciously . There are reading tests which demonstrate the mind will fill in the blanks in fragmented verbiage. Proofreading requires tremendous concentration.
““The depictions of the Mafia contained in this film are based solely on artistic consideration and are not intended to promote being in the Mafia. The surgeon general has determined that there are serious health risks associated with the Mafia and with marrying into the Mafia.” —The Godfather,, 1972
“The Mafia is for external use only, if your thoughts about the Mafia have lasted for more than four hours, consult a physician immediately.”
You two are funny. When is Hollywood going to start putting gun violence warnings in their movies and their trailers? I can’t remember the last time I saw a move trailer that did show at least three people pointing a .45 at someone else off camera.
You just haaaaaaaaaad to get me started, didn’t you.
Hilarious. Thanks Paul. Clearly, this is not who Hollywood is…
“The depictions of adults making free choices in their own lives contained in this film are based solely on artistic consideration and are not intended to promote liberty. The progressive general has determined that there are serious health risks associated with freedom.”
Lefties…tobacco…cigars…Bill Clinton…?
“Does this mean that there was really a debate in the studio about whether or not Churchill should be shown smoking, so as not to trigger good little progressive totalitarians, who believe in changing the past for the greater good of the present? I wonder if they considered making Winston, who was fat, appear slim and ripped, since the surgeon general has determined that there are serious health risks associated with obesity and over-eating.”
This was a neat juxtaposition, not only do I not think that progressives would try to thin-wash historical figures to a more healthy body mass, I think that there’s a good chunk of them that would call the practice discriminatory. Fat shaming, you see, is akin to blatant, violent, hate speech if you happen to remember the Giles Coren piece and some of the discussion around it. The “healthy at all sizes” movement wouldn’t tolerate their historically chubby compatriots being replaced with thin people. It’s cultural appropriation or something.
Which is why the continued shaming of smokers by progressives confuses me. Smoking is recognized as one of the most addictive habits on Earth, if overweight people can’t help but take in more calories than they need or live a sedentary lifestyle, and therefore should not be shamed for it, someone suffering from the throes of tobacco addiction must deserve your compassion, correct? Healthy at all lung capacity, am I right?
Of course I’m not. But it’s inconsistent to be so triggered by one that you need special warnings lest the stogy-smoking Churchill send you into throes of literal shaking while you take up the banner in the righteous movement for 800 pound land-whale body positivism. The sad part about this is that if I had to predict where the movement will eventually settle into a consistent approach will be the acceptance of smokers, not the rejection of “healthy at all sizes”
https://jezebel.com/5913089/bill-clinton-had-his-picture-taken-with-some-porn-stars-and-of-course-its-all-about-hillary
Erratum: Should have nested under tex.
Jack,
“This is an insult to the audience, history, and Winston Churchill …”
No, it’s a line of text that appeared for less than a minute on the screen to avoid controversy. Morons complain about this kind of crap and so Hollywood often does this to side-step it. It’s not totalitarian, it’s not an affront to history, it’s a disclaimer. Ironically, your screed against it is now longer and more substantial than the thing itself.
Entitled, first world nonsense.
Interesting theory! The significance of an insult is determined by its length!
But stupid.
Hollywood doesn’t “often do this.” I see a lot of movies: it never does THAT. It’s injecting anti-smoking propaganda in a film where it doesn’t belong; it is setting an offensive slippery slope precedent, it is presuming historical ignorance (no, you do NOT pitch you film to the morons, and as a special bonus, the phrasing was illiterate.
I didn’t write this, but it was also presentism, and akin to the statue toppling. They’ll get around to demanding that smokers aren’t worthy of honors, you watch. The disclaimer suggested that Winston Churchill was wrong to smoke. Not in his day he wasn’t.
Of course, some people are used to be treated like morons and sheep. If they aren’t insulted, good for them. I guess. I’m not sitting still to be told that showing the most famous cigar smoker in world history smoking a cigar isn’t a pro-tobacco ad. If one thinks that, one is a cretin. If someone speaks to me as if I am a cretin, they aren’t getting away with it.
Jack,
Not everyone who doesn’t see this issue the same way are “morons and sheep.” The fact that you would phrase it that way proves how blind you are. You’re screaming to yourself and those in earshot who happen to agree, anyone else has stopped paying attention long ago.
“If someone speaks to me as if I am a cretin, they aren’t getting away with it.”
But they did get away with it, Jack. The move has been made, the disclaimer included, and you ranted about it for over a page while no one who involved in the production even knows who you are.
I look forward to your next posts on how the Sun is too bright and the Earth too wet.
If you think Jack is pissing into the wind on his posts, how much more are you pissing into the wind complaining about them?
texagg04 wrote, “If you think Jack is pissing into the wind on his posts, how much more are you pissing into the wind complaining about them?”
A…m…e…n ! ! !
Neil Dorr could have posted something like “I disagree. “ and then moved on without looking petty and foolish or he could have not posted a thing, but Neil chose otherwise. Neil chose poorly.
Choices, choices, choices.
Whew! Herr Dorr. Have you ever looked up the words “gratuitously” and “rude?” Get up on the wrong side of the bed?
I’m actually Jewish, but thanks for that.
I don’t disagree, though. It’s his (and your) characterization of the “other side” with condescending (and meaningless) terms like “clapping seals,” “sheep,” and whatever other animal analogies are at hand.
Texagg: Perhaps ask yourself why you care?
Well, I intend to see the movie, and not to walk out. But maybe I will unfurl a hand-painted poster that says, “Are you TRIGGERED yet, SNOWFLAKES?” and illuminate it with my handy-dandy LED pocket flashlight, when the insult about smoking is displayed on the screen.
Then, I will await the smell of the marijuana fumes in the theater…
I must have missed that, or been more interested in my coffee than the screen when it was flashed. Seriously? If we’re going to try to have a discussion about the movie maybe we could talk about the interesting ethics conundrums of keeping the truth about a war that’s going poorly from the public to keep morale up, dooming the few (the Calais garrison) to save the many (the army at Dunkirk), and choosing a difficult and risky war over a morally and ethically toxic peace deal with a known tyrant who would ultimately be revealed as a genocidal maniac.
A lot of today’s media would say that the public has a right to know the whole truth, and that a government that keeps it from them to keep support for a war effort, especially one that isn’t going well, high is doing the wrong thing. Other folks I know would say that a way to get the British Army home that didn’t involve the deliberate sacrifice of life should have been found. I am personally acquainted with several people who were of the opinion that the UK should have tried to negotiate peace with Hitler and waited for him to fall, as tyrants almost always do, in the name of preserving more lives, including one dear friend who said they should have done just as Gandhi instructed…a few days after Churchill’s rousing rhetoric had closed their ears to the possibility of giving up the fight. For that matter, is there a moral or ethical question to using one’s rhetorical gifts to steer one’s people into a conflict and away from a possible peace?
In the case of fighting Hitler, yes. Reading Shirer’s “Berlin Diary” right now. His real-time entries really hit home to me (as if I wasn’t already convinced) that negotiating with Hitler should have been the last thing Britain should have done.
My favorite Churchill-related conundrum is to consider the role of moral luck and/or post-hoc consequentialism in his success and historical reputation.
His postwar plan to rearm Germany under strict supervision and use them as shock troops to attack Russia was roundly rejected- but in even MORE hindsight, would hazarding those risks and taking on those losses have been a net positive if it cut short the catastrophe that was the USSR? Would we be looking back aghast at his willingness to leap into another meat grinder, or looking back and mocking the naysayers who weren’t willing to make the hard choice to confront evil?
He’s a hero because of the outcome of WWII. We can make only educated guesses about how things would have turned out had he preferred a more light-handed approach, and will never be able to truly know if he was a visionary leader of men in a dire time, or a violent bulldog whose aggressive risks and strategies just happened to work out for the best. Personally my gut says he was right about WWII, and wrong about rearming Germany immediately, but the whole thing is an interesting historical/ethical thought experiment.
As with Lincoln, who also would have gone down as a great villain and incompetent if the North had lost the Civil War, which it easily might have.
People who are in the right place at the right time for their peculiar talents only find out that after the results are in. As you say, Winston is a great example.
My personal suspicion is that Churchill would be seen much less favorably if, all else being equal, the Holocaust didn’t happen. Although it couldn’t have been known (at least not fully) from the beginning, all of his risks and choices get a whitewash because we NOW know it was all done in opposition to no mere dictator or villain, but a monster.
Worst example of unintended consequences of a roll-the-dice gamble:
The Germans sending Lenin back to Russia to undermine the Russian’s war effort…
boy did it ever.
“As with Lincoln, who also would have gone down as a great villain and incompetent if the North had lost the Civil War…”
The North’s prosecution of the war WAS inept. Lincoln won after going through many generals and strategies. He was a great man, don’t get me wrong, but we would be talking about the failures today if the North had not won.
“His postwar plan to rearm Germany under strict supervision and use them as shock troops to attack Russia was roundly rejected- but in even MORE hindsight, would hazarding those risks and taking on those losses have been a net positive if it cut short the catastrophe that was the USSR?”
Every great and upcoming conflict can be foreseen by some, and radical solutions could be implemented immediately that would be seen as dreadful at best for the implementing group. The consequences of not implementing such a solution is prolonging until later an even MORE dreadful solution.
This happened between WW1 and WW2, it is now happening with North Korea. It happened in the USA in the 1820s-1850s as the slavery issue continued to be kicked down the road.
I’ve read somewhere that a great deal of Cold War heartache, violence of proxy wars, and inhumane brutalities inflicted upon the very citizens of the Communist regimes could have been averted or alleviated if the United States had decided to build a handful more Nukes BEFORE the Russians had developed the technology and then waylaid the bejeezus out of the Russians in the late 40s and early 50s, to topple the USSR. (This I think would have undermined our very values though…)
But, we are human, and we seem to ALWAYS forestall a small amount of pain now with the hopes that a great deal of pain will not have to happen in the future.
In addition to the concerns that the radical immediate solution might also cause problems.
Consider the Sykes-Picot chopping up of the Ottoman Empire. No one really understood the import of the vast sea of oil the Ottoman Empire was sitting on top of. Some did. Everyone did see the advantage in chopping up the Ottoman Empire, to forestall any great conflict between Europe (which just bled itself dry) and the Ottoman Empire (which was still limping along). Imagine an Ottoman Empire, intact, on top of all that Oil, right as the true value of the oil was realized.
So Sykes-Picot, accidentally solved a problem. Just not a very good solution, as we’re experiencing all the problems that has led to.
Remember, these are the folks who conceived the idea of safe spaces on campus to mitigate the trauma of listening to Ann Coulter give a speech (if Antifa didn‘t shut it down). I do wonder why though, a trigger warning was absent at the beginning of “Dunkirk” when British and French troops were being killed all over the battlefield and hospital ships full of wounded soldiers were sunk by the Luttwaffe.
Yes, walk out. They already have your money so what do they care?
Mass walk outs would convince others not to go see the movie and invest their money. Then Hollywood would get the hint.
Who says “revolutions” don’t cost the initiators something?
I’m tempted to bring a box of bubble gum cigars and pass them around the movie theater.
I just can’t fathom the deluded arrogance of these people to think that were it not for them, in their superior wisdom and “wokeness”, us regular sheep (oops, I mean Americans), can’t help but to fall into any open manhole of stupidity, hate, and bigotry we happen to come across. To quote Mr. Churchill, “What kind of a people do they think we are?”
“I know a man who gave up smoking, drinking, sex, and rich food. He was healthy right up to the time he killed himself.”
― Johnny Carson
Smoking did kill Johnny, though.
That’s a good point, although Johnny lived the life of ten men. However, but for smoking he may have lived the life of 11 men.
I remember Carson delivering joke during a monologue: “A tobacco company heard about a guy who had begun smoking at age eight and was now ninety. They flew him from North Carolina to New York so he could appear on a morning TV talk show and show smoking really isn’t that dangerous. Which was a great idea. The only problem was he didn’t usually stop coughing until around lunch time.”
Da da da da dah…
Johnny will be right back.
I wish.
Lot’s of DVDs out there.
The Great Karnak:
Answer: “The New 747.”
Question: “What train replaces the old 7:47 from Manhasset?”
Interview with Winnie Palmer:
Carson: “Do you do anything before a tournament to wish Arnie good luck?”
Mrs. Palmer: “I kiss his balls.”
Carson: “I bet that makes his putter stand up.”
Mr. Palmer evidently never forgave Carson.
Yep, a bunch of these busybodies who are terrified of potentially unhealthy preferences or potentially unhealthy choices would rather, in the name of prolonging life, mandate we stop living.
They would love we have a society where babies are immediately born into a kind of hospice, merely keeping their hearts beating and lungs filling for a very long boring time.
Non-smoking campaigns were employed by Hitler at the beginning of the war. He apparently attributed his being the “salvation of the people” due to quitting smoking. (source: The Nazi War on Cancer by Robert Proctor).
Perhaps the next movie depicting Hitler can have a warning about how quitting smoking could lead to genocide.
Hah!
Other “Inconvenient Truths” about the rise Der Führer and the Nationalist Socialist German Workers’ Party which would make for some mighty interesting PSA’s:
*Hitler was a strict vegetarian (Himmler was a staunch animal rights advocate) who had plans to shutter the slaughter houses after the war.
*They spent massive amounts on public education, which they nationalized.
*They led the world in alternative/holistic medicine and nationalized health care
*They were Pro-Choice (provided the right people were making the right choice.
*They were pro-euthanasia & favored strict gun control (with some…um…stipulations)
*They confiscated inherited wealth and favored guaranteed pensions to elders, and guaranteed jobs to the youngers.
*The favored strict racial quotas and speech codes on University campuses
*They eliminated the Church from public policy.
They hated the free market:
From Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Facism.”
”Party leaders spouted all sorts of socialist prattle about seizing the wealth of the rich.
”Mein Kampf is replete with attacks on ‘dividend-hungry businessmen’ whose ‘greed,’ ‘ruthlessness,’ and ‘short-sighted narrow-mindedness’ were ruining the country.
“Hitler adamantly took the side of the trade union movement over ‘dishonorable employers.’ ”
“Upon seizing power, the radicals in the Nazi Party Labor Union threatened to put business leaders in concentration camps if they didn’t increase workers’ wages.”
Starting to think you’re perusing the DNC website?
Huh? I’m not sure what you mean by perusing the DNC website as I probably don’t speak internet very well.
I’ve read Goldberg’s book but there are a lot better ones for points related to your points.
Green Tyranny by Rupert Darwall is new. A really helpful one is Nazi’s and the Occult by D. Sklar. A classic is Nazi Oaks by R. Mark Musser. From Boycott to Annihilation by Avraham Barkai is an excellent primer on the lead up to the all out war as well. Also recently is Big Lie by Dinesh D’Souza who correctly links todays antifa to then Germany’s antifascism groups.
Have a nice night.
”I’m not sure what you mean by perusing the DNC website”
Clumsy sentence. I didn’t mean you specifically, the “you’re” would have been better served if it had been “one’s.”
A number of the Hitler/National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) ‘policies’ (for lack of a better word) that were listed appear compatible with those of Post-Modern-Neo-Leftyism.
”as I probably don’t speak internet very well.”
That goes in the plus column.
Thanks for the recommendations, I still haven’t gotten to Margaret Sanger’s “Woman and the New Race.”
All in due time.
Well, I guess eternal lefty darling FDR will have to go as well.
https://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimgc.allpostersimages.com%2Fimg%2Fprint%2Fpresident-franklin-roosevelt-debonair-with-his-cigarette-holder-1939_u-L-PH8RCL0.jpg%3Fsrc%3Dgp&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.art.com%2Fgallery%2Fid–b9361%2Ffranklin-delano-roosevelt-posters.htm&docid=_x_psUReRxMU4M&tbnid=uGMT6S5DoMkkAM%3A&vet=1&w=338&h=450&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim
All I know, is that if I don’t learn anything else from Churchill’s life, at least I’ll know that smoking is bad.
Mission accomplished!
Actually, the lesson of Churchill’s life was that smoking is harmless and drinking to excess keeps you young.
Sometimes I think the only thing of value I took away from sixteen years of Catholic education was that most party givers serve the good wine first and then give the crappy wine to the drunk hangers on. Quite helpful.
This was true in Jesus’ time as well… as mentioned in His first recorded miracle
That’s where I learned it, sw. Cheers.