Thank you for smoking

I agree. Gleeful, excessive smoking comprises about a third of the pleasure that I get out of watching Mad Men. For many classic films, the same activity takes on talismanic significance in part because smoking is in a sense doing nothing glamorously, and that's all the we require of screen icons. Idols shouldn't have to do anything more.

Jimmy Stewart wore a toupee? It's going to take me some time to recover from this. I hope you're happy, shattering illusions all over the place like that. Just don't tell me that Catherine Zeta Jones has had plastic surgery.

As a teenager, I used to feel that The Rockford Files was more realistic than other cop shows because Jim Rockford occasionally lit up. I'm sure there's a lot more than that to creating an illusion of realism, but every little helps. The Sweeney, in which both the main characters (played by John Thaw and Dennis Waterman) smoked like chimneys, was more realistic still.

At one time, it seemed to me that one couldn't be an actor without being willing to smoke. I'm glad that's changed.

no. Stewart wore a rug? I kinda knew he did later in life but early in his career too? I always question how all these middle-aged men never loose their hair in movies (or rock bands either. All of the Stones have more hair than me and they're considerably older) but I thought they weeded out most guys with hair loss problems (letting a Nick Cage or Sean Connery through now and then).

Now I have to look again at It's a Wonderful Life and see if I can see a wig in the water when Jimmy jumps in. I read a couple of years ago about tell-tale signs someone got a face lift now I annoyingly always look at closeups of actors to see if I see that wrinkle near their ears. Damn it.

It's enough to make me start smoking.

Reminds me of when the U.S. Postal Service airbrushed Robert Johnson's cigarette out of his stamp. There is only one known photograph of the man, sitting with his guitar, smoke dangling from his lips, crazy eyed ( well, you sell your soul at the Crossroads for the ability to play the guitar better than anyone in history, you will spend you short life looking a little insane, I guess). I remember looking at it and thinking that everyone who knows Robert Johnson knows that photo and we all know what's missing. Seems rather ridiculous to airbrush a cigarette out, despite the good intentions, if all it does is get people to discuss how the cigarette is obviously missing.
And it's obviously missing in that Bette Davis photo. Her hands seem weird without it.

I'm torn on this one. While I agree about being true to life and true to character, it is fact that images of smoking promote smoking. Advertising works. If it didn't, companies wouldn't spend billions of dollars a year doing so. Images of celebrities smoking are even worse. Kids see this and it reinforces what they believe, for boys, that smoking will make them look tough. For girls, that it will make them look sexy and grown-up.

They even have the paperwork that proves tobacco companies paid golden age actors and actresses to smoke. And if Mel Gibson didn't get paid for smoking in EVERY scene in Payback, then he should have. Obviously, and just like so many kids, Mel thought it made him look tougher or cooler, but undoubtedly that stupid display helped reinforce smoking for many younsters. Such is the influence of celebs smoking that to this day, you still have men and boys unconsciously squinting like Clint Eastwood whenever they take a drag on their cigarette.

As for the stamp, yes, it is obvious that she was holding a cigarette. And the picture looks a little dumb by its absence. But I'm not too upset that the tobacco corps missed out on the free advertising.

Ebert" point taken, but nobody had to pay Mel Gibson to smoke. He smoked all the time. Colin Ferrell, a chain-smoker. Oddly, I cannot think of an actress in all these years who smoked in private. There must have been some.

I agree with the removal of the cigarette. Study after study show that teens are influenced by celebrities who smoke. Your quote from Wikipedia underscores my point. "... persona which has often been imitated"

As a society, it is unacceptable to treat smoking as anything other than the plague on society that it is. No postage stamp should contribute to promoting smoking as cool or fashionable. (Don't get me started on government subsidies for tobacco farmers)

One final comment. What is with all of the smoking in film and t.v. lately. What next, unprotected sex as cool?

The question I always have when I see these old films, do actors that smoke in movies smoke in real life? I think it would be hard to take it up just for a film. It wasn't a stigma back then, my grandparents would let my father in his teens smoke in the house. They thought it was ok???

Ebert: The first time I fully realized that years were passing was when an EDITOR asked me, "Did reporters used to smoke at their desks like they do in the movies?"

One recent depiction of smoking that looked just great was in Eastern Promises, when Viggo Mortensen's character is getting ready to "prepare" the corpse, early in the film. He's in a dark shirt and tie, and there's a shot of him with a cigarette dangling from his mouth that looks simply perfect. Then, of course, he extinguishes the cigarette on his tongue, which is a terrific character moment.

I think it's odd that Deas took out the cigarette but left the fur.

I'm with you, Roger. I hate smoking, but this is ridiculous. There are a million photos of Bette Davis and probably half of them feature her without a cigarette. Why not just choose another picture rather than make this one politically correct? Marring the picture only leads me to believe that Bette is motioning to give us the finger.

I was appalled recently by the information that MGM was going to retool the entire library of Tom and Jerry cartoon to remove all cigarettes and all smoking references. That means that in "Texas Tom", when Tom approaches the pretty girl cat and blows smoke that reads "HOWDY!", Tom does so with no explanation for the smoke. How ridiculous is that?

What is the point of rewriting history to make it fit our political climate?

I would think that the decision to leave the cigarette in or not depends on what reaction you want people to have. Don't a lot of people by now respond to smoking with revulsion, given how many people it's killed? So Bette Davis, Robert Johnson, and other people from a time of greater ignorance smoked...that doesn't mean anyone wants to see it now.

This one is worthy of the debate club! Honor the celebrity in full historic context, or remove one of the things that defined her in her era at risk of promoting something deadly - does this still truly honor the legend?

I've vascillated on this one for the past 10 minutes, and have come down firmly on your side, no regrets. Put a cigarette in Britney's hands, you are promoting smoking, put them on a stamp in context of a celebrity of another era, you are promoting the celebrity and the era.

Now that I've made my decision, I'm going to buy the stamp, painstakingly draw back in a cigarette, sell it on ebay, and see if I can't create my own "1909 Honus Wagner" style collectible.

I think that the Postal Service, and others, have a choice to make. If the iconic image they want to make reproduce has someone smoking in it, then they can either use it despite the tobacco use or they can use another image that does not depict smoking. But don't use it with the cigarette removed; if the cause is that important, sacrifice your use of the image totally. Commit.

I remember coming home from kindergarten in the seventies with the candy that the nuns had given us as a Halloween party favor. Amid the bag was a box of candy cigarettes for kids in a little mini cigarette package. My mother was horrified and took them away from me when she saw me playing with them.

The stamp looks ridiculous. I wonder why the artist didn't change the position of her hand.

There have been ads around New York latley calling for cigaretts to be banned in all PG-13 rated films. I'm as big a smoking bigot as your ever going to meet, but I think this is exesive, and even imoral.

If I were an eighth grade Social Studies teacher, and I was teaching about the MaCarthy era, I wouldn't hesitate to show "Good Night and Good Luck". I would also tell the students that even though Edward R. Murrow was one of the first people to report on the dangers of smoking (and risk valuble corporate sponsorship to CBS), he continued to smoke on air after having one of his lungs removed, and would eventually die of lung cancer.

More to the point, a movie like "Good Night and Good Luck" NEEDED to have people smoking because people smoked all the time in the fifties, even on the air!

I can't stand smoking, but I don't understand why they even used that picture if they can't show the cigarette. What's she doing with her hand now?

Yeah, there tends to be lines drawn in the present to try an atone for the sins of the past. When is the last time you saw Tom singing 'Is You Is, Or Is You Ain't My Baby?' to that cute rich cat in the classic Tom & Jerry cartoon? It was racially insensitive, so had to be removed. The past happened folks, and there's not a bloody thing you can do about it. You won't see too many young girls get into smoking because Bette Davis makes it look cool.

Keep in mind too, sir, that not too long from now the films themselves will be 'edited' to remove such content. The technology exists to do just that. One day you might see Mammy in Gone With The Wind wearing a smart business suit and approach Miss Scarlett saying 'At present my Dear I am untrained in the art of delivering babies.' I give it ten years.

I disagree with the removal of the cigarette. You're right when you bring up the old soviet tradition of removing people from photos, what else could one think of? Funny how Orwellian the capitalists countries are becoming especially when he was so anti communist.
It seems small but rewriting history to your liking is always dangerous. I find it more upsetting that people are confused by this. it might be that I'm a historian and take it more personally but I really don't see how airbrushing the cigarettes out of pictures of Bette Davis and Robert Johnson are going to prevent teens from smoking. Unless I'm missed some recent studies, I would bet most teens don't even know who they are. Not glorifying smoking with contemporary stars I think is legitimate and can have an effect. Otherwise, leave history to tell the story as true as it can.

Ah, the glories of the MPAA and our overly sensitive society. Remember when "Twister" was rated PG-13 and it was quoted by the MPAA for "intense depictions of very bad weather." With the upheaval against Hollywood liberals, I can't wait for a political film to be rated R for "intense depictions of radical liberalism."

My father was also taken from me by smoking. He had Lung Cancer, and kept smoking until his very last day. But, on that note, it is absolutely ridiculous that they airbrush cigarettes out of old photos. It's like they're trying to change history. Can anyone really remember a time they saw Bette Davis without a cigarette? It's a matter of historical accuracy. That cigarette should be in her hand. Children today know all the harm smoking can do to you and see very few advertisements promoting tobacco use. And yet, young people still decide to smoke. Ultimately it's a personal choice. If a movie shows a character using heroin, is it promoting the use of heroin? No. It's showing the reality that it happens, and that this character has a major flaw.

Ryan, get off the soapbox. To remove the cigarette is just dishonest because it's part of who Bette Davis was, and particularly an integral part of her pose for that particular portrait. And we can apply the phrase "plague on society" to many things, including the nannydom people like you would love to force on those you differ from. Removing the cigarette from Davis' portrait would be like removing the cigar from a portrait of Groucho or George Burns. Are they going to remove fat from the next overweight person they put on a stamp since obesity is another "plague on society?"

Ebert: There's a story that when Bill Wilson, the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, was asked if the post office could put his picture on a postage stamp, he said, "Sure, but only the back of my head,"

You are absolutly correct about John Wayne..... next the anti gun folks will say that we cant show him with a weapon as it sends the wrong message. I am opposed to smoking, but there is nothing that we can do, other than as parents being role models by being anti smoking to our kids.

I'm only (only?) 54, but I remember when I used to be able to smoke at my desk when I worked for Canteen Corp. and Union Tank car.

Everyone had an ash tray, and there were not yet any designated smoking rooms where us cretins were consigned to indulge our habit in the late 70's and 80's.

The ceilings were yellow, and the rooms were draped in a Camel colored haze of smoke.

I know it's a filthy habit, but I'll curse the Nanny State to my grave for what they have done.

I no longer eat out, and I no longer spend my money in bars. Do Mayor Daley can look elswhere for his precious tax dollars as I'll no longer be a contributor.

Not sure I really care (and I am very anti smoking) on this, but the least they could have done when they made the decision was to repose the hand. Which suggests that the cigarette was actually airbrushed out of the original painting.

Ebert: Yeah, it kinda does.

I searched for the Bette Davis photo that the stamp portrait was painted from but couldn't find it online. I did find a few shots of her without a cigarette and wonder why the artist did not use one of those as his base. Reminds me of the TV Guide photoshop of Oprah's head on Ann Margaret's body. Why bother? Someone is going to figure out the piece is altered.

I am not a fan of smoking. My father died of smoking related illness. He, like your mother, was on oxygen. He would go outside, sometimes to the car, to smoke. I never comprehended the addiction. I was confounded when friends and family came to visit my mother and smoked as though they didn't know what lead to my fathers death.

So reality is people still smoke. However, since movies and tv programs are fantasy it is ok to not show people smoking.

I hate historical revisionists. Thanks for commenting on this. If history doesn't fit your newfound ethics, then don't use it. There were certainly many other famous Bette Davis pictures they could have used that didn't have a cigarette in them.

She looks like a painting of a Byzantine saint offering up a benediction without that cigarette. Who knows though? Maybe the kids will get the message: if you smoke, you risk having people tampering with your likeness decades after you're gone.

Roger, your blog entry reminds me of your review for Scorsese's Shine a Light, in which you point out Keith Richards "does not smoke onstage simply to be smoking, but to use the smoke cloud, brilliant in the spotlights, as a performance element."

Removing the cigarettes from these stamps offends me. When did the U.S. Postal Service become the arbiter of issues moral and medical? Sure, smoking is bad and unhealthy, but a government institution dedicated to accurately shuffling paper and packages from here to there has no business using Photoshop.

Sheesh, all this talk of cigarettes... I'll be back in a minute, fellas.

How many classic film admirers know that Liggett paid Paul Henreid to suggest that Now, Voyager starred Chesterfield cigarettes? How many know that Bette Davis' and Joan Crawford's most famous smoking scenes were, in fact, merely recycled from earlier films with the same stars, both of whom had cigarette advertising agreements?

How many women started smoking because of the immortal images created by Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Constance Bennett, Claudette Colbert, and all the other stars who had tobacco advertising deals, worth millions to them (in today's dollars) and tens of millions in free national advertising to the Hollywood studios that held the stars' contracts and brokered these deals?

How many of these women, deliberately targeted by the tobacco companies using Hollywood faces, have died of lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease? What is their postage stamp: "Deceased, return to sender"?

To read the new research study documenting "Golden Age" Hollywood tobacco deals in detail, visit this University of California site: http://www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/earlyhollywood.

By the way, the policy solutions proposed by leading health organizations and agencies to gently but firmly break up the 80-year collaboration between Hollywood and the tobacco industry would NOT alter a frame of any past film nor reclassify any film under the MPAA's rating system. Nostalgia is not a leading cause of preventable death. Smoking is. Leave the cigarette in Ms. Davis' gloved fingers. Just know what put it there.

That photo didn't have to be kitsched up or photoshopped for the squeamish, it just could have been cropped leaving out the obvious hand gesture. Plus it could have been in glorious b/w, alas.

I wasn't aware of the sepia Robert Johnson stamp, thanks for bringing it to my attention. As a (white) musician from Mississippi, I owe a lot to that man. His proclivities were his own damn business and I don't see why people would be taking such liberties with his image.

Neither of these two brilliant Americans deserve to be judged, comprimised or, worst of all, sanitized.

Best,
Ben

"...you still have men and boys unconsciously squinting like Clint Eastwood whenever they take a drag on their cigarette."

That reminded me of a piece of trivia (apocryphal?) about Eastwood's "Man-with-No-Name" character from his films with Sergio Leone: As a nonsmoker, the cigars that the actor smoked on set were so distasteful that they helped him get into sneering character. See Wikipedia for one such recounting of that story.

As a side note, Eastwood was responsible for most of his character's iconic look (with the exception of the serape). Roger, do you have any stories of other actors that so shaped the look of their classic characters? Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_with_No_Name

A previous poster asked why they could not simply use a different photo of Bette Davis, and that is exactly what I have been wondering all along. There are probably hundreds of iconic photos of Miss Davis, including some from "All About Eve," that do not feature her with a cigarette. In my opinion, she does not appear very attractive in the photo used for the stamp. It appears that she was probably blowing smoke when the picture was taken, and with the cigarette and smoke removed, her mouth just looks awkward. If the Postal Service does not want to promote smoking (I applaud them for this), then it would have been so much easier to just use a photo in which Miss Davis was not smoking rather than alter this one.

Since it is glaringly obvious that this image was edited, and no attempt has been made to make the image look more natural without the cigarette, and the fact that a different image of Davis that simply showed her without a ciggarette wasn't used, makes me wonder if this was a deliberate attempt on the part of the USPS to make nice with anti-smoking activist groups and/or to appear more "responsible" in our "enlightened" age. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too by using the image of Davis and by "correcting" it to make it more suitable for our times. But the results are just too messy and embarrasing. Thank you for calling them out on this one Roger.

"No postage stamp should contribute to promoting smoking as cool or fashionable."

In response to Ryan, I have to say that they are not promoting smoking, they are representing the icon that Bette Davis was to the world. And when you say teenagers imitate their role model celebrities, that is mostly true of only the uneducated or kids who have parents that smoke and do not discourage them, or any other reasons. A smart person such as me and you know that we should not smoke and therefore we don't. Sure, if smoking is removed from the stamp then some ignorant or disadvantaged teen won't go "wow she smokes I should too!" because they will not be exposed to smoking that way, but more than likely the tobacco company will find another way around that to promote their product. There is no reason to re-write history, it is what it is. Wouldn't we all like to forget the Holocaust and never have to imagine the pain all the millions of people who died? But that is not right; it happened and we have to accept it. Maybe that is an extreme example but it still gets the point across. Besides, if a teen sees a role model smoking and then find out that they died of smoking, they'll think twice before smoking it up.

Also, the picture just looks awkward without the cigarette in her hand. So that's another important reason why it should have stayed. For the sake of a good stamp.

Hey Roger --

How come I can't find an original photo of this pose anywhere? I'd really like to see it...

Clearly, taking iconic photos of blues musicians and movie starlets, erasing the cigarettes from their mouths, hands, shirt pockets, etc. is a worthwhile cause.

Stamp collecting is a dangerous, if not sometimes zesty enterprise Roger, it's a gateway drug! As a kid, my Aunt gave me stamps with Superman on them, and the next week, I was knee deep in the Man of Steel's adventures. Looney Tunes stamps got me in trouble when I impersonated Daffy Duck impersonating a Japanese general. The Hulk Hogan stamp had me dropping the atomic leg on my classmates the next day.

So what if Robert Johnson looks like he's about to swallow a fly? Who cares that Bette Davis looks like she's coyly hailing a taxi? When I have children and I introduce them to the wonderful world of philately, I don't want to introduce them to Cloves, Lucky Strikes, Chesterfields, or those awfully big cigarettes Bob Marley was always smoking.

Kudos the the US Postal Service. They are the true heroes.

This is a cut-and-dry example of things being taken too far. As previous commenters have mentioned, why on Earth use that picture if you don't want a picture of her with a cigarette?

Then again, my roommate smokes. And though he'd never admit it, he smokes because he thinks it makes him look like an old movie star. Mad Men is like porn for him.

I would have to disagree with Mr. Ebert on this. I understand your view point. However, if anybody or character needs a cigarette to "define" who they are, they have failed to be and we have failed to truly know they are.

If, by removing a cigarette from a stamp prevents just one person from thinking smoking is cool, I say great.

Good day,
There's no need to post this to the board. I just wanted to let you know that the Cheshire Cat is a non-smoker, which is why his grin is so nice. The caterpillar has the hookah. You probably mentioned the Cheshire for recognition's sake; but I thought I'd alert you anyway.

Ebert: So that's why I couldn't find a picture of the Cat and the hookah!

[i]Mammy in Gone With The Wind wearing a smart business suit and approach Miss Scarlett saying 'At present my Dear I am untrained in the art of delivering babies.' I give it ten years.[/i]

Actually, it was Prissy that said that.

This reminds me of the cover of a Simon and Garfunkel boxed set I saw in which a cigarette was erased from Paul Simon's fingers, so it just looks like he's raising his left hand in a weird position (similar to the Bette Davis stamp). I'm an avid non-smoker, but this is downright ridiculous. Are we so afraid of offending people that whitewashing the past is now considered acceptable?

Even worse are the ones rallying to get any movie depicting smoking slapped with an R rating. Does that mean they'll have to go back and re-rate all of the classic movies from Hollywood's golden age (which includes not just "All About Eve" but pretty much everything Humphrey Bogart appeared in)? I don't think I would want to live in a world where a 13-year-old wouldn't be allowed to see "Casablanca" because of a bunch of overzealous health extremists.

I'm shocked but I'm not surprised. The government is honestly childish. Same with the probation of marijuana. They're closeminded, ignorant, and immature. This is sickening, and I hate cigarettes, too.

What this makes me wonder is, is any depiction of someone smoking and not hacking up a lung automatically glamorizing smoking itself? Is the act so innately appealing that it can't just be there, it has to either be given specifically negative connotations or be a cigarette commercial? Is there no in-between?

They say that hell is paved with good intentions. Nowhere is this more obvious than with the current state of "activism", much which has shifted out of the hands of people genuinely trying to help and into the claws of control freak do-gooders trying to mind control everyone into doing things their way. So now, instead of common sense thinking, people have adopted zero tolerance ideologies. The anti-smoking revisionism you mentionned is just a symptom of that.

What's most wrong with this new dictatorial direction of activism is that so much of it is insincere attention grabbing that doesn't solve the problem at all. Think about it, the same people who ridicule the MPAA for giving films with even the briefest shot of a nipple an R-rating see no hypocrisy in demanding that films who show smoking in any context also be R-rated.

Between you and me? I think that a lot of people who call themselves activists nowadays just like to yell slogans and sing songs and tell other people what to do. They don't care about whatever cause they support any more than Fred Phelps cares about the bible or Josef Stalin cared about socialism. All they want is something they can use both as a weapon against others and a shield to hide behind.

If you want real creepiness, check out the FDR Memorial in DC. FDR's statue: himself seated, arm upraised, his fingers pinching . . . nothing, whereas every American over the age of forty will be caught up short, wndering what is missing . . . ah yes, the famous cigarette holder, to go with the famous profile.

Eleanor, sans her famous fox fur.

Bleh. Are we infants?

Poor old Bette is hardly the only one who has been retroactively sanitized by do-gooders needlessly concerned that her stamp image smoking would incite youngsters (heck, if any youngsters I know actually had even heard of Bette Davis, I'd pass out in joy!).

Does any one recall when the commissioned tribute sculpture of FDR was revealed? He was presented without his cigarette and holder(which he frequently appeared with) and sitting in a wheelchair (which he went to great pains all his life to conceal). I am staunch liberal, but that is political correctness taken way too far.

Dear Roger,

Our government representatives took no action against tobacco for decades after definitive science made it clear it was a deadly hazard to our health. Why? Tobacco lobbyists/campaign contributions. They belatedly began to fulfill their responsibilities when denials were no longer plausible. Institutions are not known for their ability to execute subtle judgements as would be needed in this Bette Davis affair. They have, however, reduced the number of new smokers and protected non-smokers, finally saving lives.

Today definitive science makes it clear that global warming will be a perpetual destructive force. But our government representatives cling to their deniability. Why? Oil lobbyists/campaign contributions. Only overwhelming public awareness of global warming will convince our seemingly conflicted representatives that they have no choice but to take action on our behalf.

If I were to become president, the first thing I would do is completely ban smoking. My friends tell me that such an act would make me a despised dictator. Sobeit. I would be a thanked dictator by my despisers several years down the line. Few things anger me as much as smoking. But, like you, I'd put the cigarette right back in that postage stamp. It's another example of people who think they're doing the right thing, but are terribly misguided with where they put the emphasis of their rightness. It ends up perplexing people like us, if not doing another kind of wrong altogether. I'd put the cigarettes right back in the Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse cartoons, too. And if I were a parent, I'd show my little ones graphic videos of patients' lungs being removed due to smoking. "Yes, Disney characters can smoke, little Johnny, but don't you."

*I am reading over my last two lines, and my "terribly misguided, emphasis of rightness" line, hoping I didn't end this post in irony.

Ebert: I am also offended by attempts to suppress that great novel about the curing of a young boy's racism, "Huckleberry Finn."

If I were to become president, the first thing I would do is completely ban smoking. My friends tell me that such an act would make me a despised dictator. Sobeit. I would be a thanked dictator by my despisers several years down the line. Few things anger me as much as smoking. But, like you, I'd put the cigarette right back in that postage stamp. It's another example of people who think they're doing the right thing, but are terribly misguided with where they put the emphasis of their rightness. It ends up perplexing people like us, if not doing another kind of wrong altogether. I'd put the cigarettes right back in the Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse cartoons, too. And if I were a parent, I'd show my little ones graphic videos of patients' lungs being removed due to smoking. "Yes, Disney characters can smoke, little Johnny, but don't you."

*I am reading over my last two lines, and my "terribly misguided, emphasis of rightness" line, hoping I didn't end this post in irony.

I hate smoking and have been trying to quit for almost a year, to no avail. But I agree with Ebert and many of the comments. But am I the only one who sees the 800 pound elephant in the room? ALCOHOL. I agree that celebrities can influence children to smoke, but the media can also make grown adults think that alcohol is less harmful. I kid you not, I've witnessed anti-smoking service announcements directly followed by advertisements for Budweiser or Miller on TV. Some studies in the UK have shown that alcohol causes MORE deaths than tobacco, and about twice as many diseases. Factor in auto accidents and it probably dwarfs tobacco deaths. So I can't help but roll my eyes when I'm sitting in a Chicago bar hearing some jerk tell me how nice it is that there is no smoking in bars as they swill on their liver-killing martini. This is a double standard of such ironic absurdity, that it seems like something Kurt Vonnegut (who preferred non-filtered Pall Malls) would have dreamt up 50 years ago.

Ebert: Hey, I haven't had a drink for 30 years. Alcohol and tobacco can both kill you, and are probably better at the job when they work together. But I loved "Arthur" and treasure W. C. Fields and Nick and Nora Charles. People get drunk. I regret that in real life, but it is a fact, and movies should be free to depict it. Whether I admire such a movie is a case-by-case thing.

Seriously, Jimmy Stewart wore a rug? I have to go break the news to my kids about Santa Claus now ...

Scroll back to "Jon's" astute post please, Roger. The National Cancer Institute just published a large study which showed that:
1)Big Tobacco COERCED and PAID "stars" to smoke, and helped to promote "smoky" movies SECRETLY on a huge scale.
2)Millions of impressionable underage kids started smoking while aping this "glamorous" addiction.
3)Millions died early, painful deaths or were disabled or bankrupted by tobaccoism. I've cared for thousands of these families. All society is damaged in one way or another by tobacco.

To a physician like me,all the rest of these comments seem beside the point--but that's the way the tobacco cartel wants it. Movies do NOT need to stay in bed with Big Tobacco--not with all that we now know about what tobacco does, and how movies are its #1 shill.

Sorry, but in case you haven't noticed, we are losing the war against tobacco, the landmark case penalizing them for lying and deceiving and enticing kids to smoke was overturned by Bush's Supreme Court, and hundreds of thousands keep dying, and tens of thousands keep lighting up every day...for every tobacco ad that may stop one kid from starting, it only takes one movie idol smoking to get 10,000 to start...kids emulate, adore, worship these people, and if the only thing Bette Davis had going for her was her ability to hold a cigarette, then she shouldn't be on a stamp anyway...she was a beautiful, intelligent, funny, artistic, fantastic actress, and why dumb her up with a cigarette...unless John Wayne's stamp shows him dying of lung cancer on his deathbed, I say it's better without the butt...Coach

I spent a long time on the day I first encountered this story looking for the original picture, because initially I wasn't convinced that the story was even necessarily true. I still haven't found one (and it strikes me that you have posted side-by-sides of the edited Robert Johnson pics but not the Bette Davis?) but the fact that you're writing about it raises the credibility about a thousand percent. Your article has further convinced me that it barely matters; choosing to portray Bette Davis without a cigarette is probably editorial political correctness, even without doctoring the photograph the portrait is based on. Anyway, like Josh Pounds said, does the iconic photograph this is based on exist somewhere? Can I see it?

Ebert: Here's a quote from (Hartford) courant.com: "Artist Michael Deas of Brooklyn Heights, NY, based his painting for the stamp on a black-and-white still of Davis made during the filming of All About Eve (1950)." The source cited for the quote is a USPS press release. This same quote can be found from dozens of sources. Deas himself, on his web site, only says the stamp is "coming."

I disagree with the airbrushing - all it is, is censorship, plain and simple. I am against censorship. Besides, I suspect it actually backfires.

People may think cigarettes look cool on Bette Davis or the other actors and actresses of that era. We also think the hairstyles, hats, and fashions look cool. But do we emulate any of it? No! It's retro cool, and to imitate any of it enough to become a habit would be to demonstrate nerdiness beyond measure - something also illustrated in movies.

And as I've gotten older and my constitution more sensitive, it's hard for me to watch those old movies without fairly cringing at the smoke-filled scenes, or thinking about how the stench of cigarettes would hang in, say, that poor old lady character's house after the other character lit up WITHOUT EVEN ASKING! - something that nowadays would be an unconscionable breach of etiquette in an age when the worst curse words seem normal, young people entertain themselves by denigrating peers on socializing networks, and people feel comfortable shouting for the assassination of presidential candidates at political rallies.

But then I lived with and among smokers for many years, and watched their and my own health challenges because of it. I recall the headaches and allergies, and having wash my hair and put my clothes in a plastic bag immediately after coming home from a bar. I think of my asthma and my mother's lung cancer, and then there's my own cancer that the doctors refuse to say cannot be related even though it was a long while ago that I refused to live with smokers or go to smoky bars anymore.

So seeing Ms. Davis with a cigarette would not influence me to start that filthy habit. It would make me think, "Hey, nice shot of Bette Davis," because it is. I'd probably give a passing thought to how annoying smoking is, but mostly I'd think about her movies. The airbrushing makes me just think about the cigarette and how the tiresome "politically correct" like to treat me like a child.

To anyone, including Ebert, shocked about how cigarettes are gradually being removed from images in a sort of revisionist history, I wonder if you would be so offended if it were images promoting bigotry being removed instead of images promoting smoking?

Anyone who has lost family members to cigarettes ought to be just as outraged at the crime tobacco perpetrated on society for a hundred years as those who have lost family members to hate crimes.

All that said, I agree one hundred percent that it's completely silly to choose an image of Bette Davis with a cigarette and then edit it out, rather than just choosing an image without a cigarette in the first place.

Ebert: Yes, I would be offended if such images were removed, in many cases. For example, I would not want to lose the second half of "Birth of a Nation," repugnant as it is. George Santayana wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." However, I believe Supreme Court limitations on absolute freedom of speech should be observed, and would certainly object to hate speech.

Smoking (and drinking) is obscured these days in Turkish television. Whenever you see someone light up, their hand and mouth are pixellated, and sometimes the smoke, too. I am not sure whether the practice puts kids off smoking, but it sure as hell puts me off watching Turkish telly.

A few years ago, HarperCollins reissued Goodnight Moon with the photo of the illustrator, Clement Hurd, digitally altered to remove his cigarette. Did they think the sight of a cigarette would inspire legions of toddlers to leap from their cribs, demanding a lights-out ciggie? I too loathe smoking but this sort of revisionism is pointless at best and probably adds to the allure of smoking for teenagers trying to be cool.

The next thing you know will be directors redoing their movies replacing shotguns with walkie-talkies.

Welcome to the post-moral world, where soul-cleanliness has been replaced by body-cleanliness, the ultimate boomer me-virtue. All cigarettes can do is kill you. But re-writing the past and infantilizing the present strips us of context and the challenge of free choice. And that, fellow cinephiles, leaves us with baby-pink lungs and empty heads.

By the way, I smoked for twenty years before I quit cold turkey, and I haven't touched tobacco for a decade. But of course smoking is cool, like plenty of things you shouldn't do. That's why they're cool. So smoke on--or not. Just leave Bette Davis out of it.

I can't imagine why someone would ever hold their hand like that if they weren't holding a cigarette. When I first saw the picture, I thought she had one because I hadn't looked closely to see that it was gone. The stamp as it is is comically ridiculous.

You mean the Caterpillar with his hookah, not the Chesire Cat.

The still may not be wildly available, but anyone who wants to see the scene it's from with the cigarette in her hand can see it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REhPPHHHj98

Ebert: That's it! Same hair, makeup, coat, gloves. The stamp gives her earrings. Remember that publicity "stills" were not frame grabs but were taken on the set after a take was completed.

bette davis without cigarette is the same as the cheshire cat without grin. enough said!!

Another example: the Jackson Pollack 33-cent stamp issued about ten years ago. They did the same thing they did with Robert Johnson--redid a famous photo, leaving out the cigarette. We need to coin a word for this; something like "bowdlerizing" but customized for smoking-related revisionism.

Ebert: FARK linked to this and the comments include pic of Pollack with drink and cigarette. USPS took out the cigarette, left the booze that killed him. Comments also include some hilarious PhotoShops, including Bette with a bong.

Ryan - wait, unprotected sex ISN'T cool??

Well, Mr. Ebert, you never answered the question:

Did reporters smoke at their desks like they did in the movies? And did they talk really fast while doing so?

Ebert: Yes, and drank at their desks, too. But didn't wear hats indoors so much.

They should have brought her up to date with the latest addiction... by photoshopping a cell phone in her hand.

And after history is rewritten, it will be taught to a new generation of children. Our generation lived with smoking as a common, even glamorous activity. When we're gone, only historians will know or care about the facts.
The National Cancer Society might applaud the stamps, but you notice that it is the government which is actually twisting the facts.

This is pathetic. I'm tired of the government trying to drag us inch by inch into a nanny state. Yes, I am a smoker. Yes, I know it's bad for me. But, it's my choice to make for my life. All these "avid non-smokers" need to grow up and get a life. I don't care what you do with your life. Let me do what I will with mine.

Guick response to a previous post about actor's smoking in a role if they aren't smoker's in life...

Billy Bob Thorton, who was a smoker, was required to smoke so often, take after take, in the Coen's "Man Who Wasn't There", that he actually quit smoking because of it! I find that to be astounding.

I agree with your opinion about stamps, but I'm surprised you don't object to the ridiculous overuse of smoking in movies, paid for by the tobacco companies to promote their product. It's clear it worked on you: despite your asserted hatred of smoking, you still associate it with beautiful women and even quality cinematography! Kids growing up today are influenced the same way. If an emotional connection is formed at a young age it stays with you. The adult brain might be saying of a smoking character "this person is a moron/is going to die" but the adolescent mind sees things completely differently. They see "this person is doing something I'm not allowed to do" and the concept of death means nothing to them.

Golly, does this mean when the postal people create a stamp for Cheech and Chong that the doobie will be airbrushed out?

I don't consider the stamp revisionist, because we understand the image to be an artist's rendering, not a photograph that has been airbrushed. Much like a filmmaker can take liberties with history, and still capture the essence of a story, we expect a painter's image to be an interpretation.

Besides, when I looked at the stamp, I recognized Bette Davis immediately, and I didn't realize there was a missing cigarette until I read the text. I think it's a bit strange that some people think that the essence of Bette Davis was a cigarette. I never knew that about her.

Roger,

This world has gone mad, of that I am sure.

Is smoking bad for you? Of course it is. So is life. As an adult and (supposedly) free citizen, I should be able to make whatever decisions about my body, and about what I put into my body freely, and without restraint by any other person or government, provided that by doing so, I am not incurring DIRECT harm upon another individual.

Don't tell me about "second hand smoke" - I said DIRECT HARM (it can't be direct if it is "second hand", right?). Furthermore, I have yet to see a conclusive and objective study (ie, one not paid for by anti-smoking groups -or- the tobbacco companies) that says second hand smoke is dangerous.

I honestly think that even if we as a species eliminate smoking and every other bad thing we do to our bodies (drinking, drugs, overeating, fats, etc) - people are still going to die of cancer, especially lung cancer. Why? Because we live in an industrial society, people. Pollution is EVERYWHERE. Even if you were to somehow eliminate that pollution, you would still have cancer (try to stop cosmic rays, I dare ya!). Cancer is a part of evolution, it is one of the drivers. You won't get rid of it - you can't, without causing death to the growth of species.

I don't smoke. But I reserve my right to do what I want, when I want, to my body. To not be able to do so means I am unfree in some small (but still significant) manner. For someone else to tell me I am unable to do things with my body means that they are my master.

Over my dead body.

Which reminds me - one day, EVERYONE DIES. Based on everything we know scientifically, there isn't a damn thing after you die, either. Nothing. Get used to it now, and quit living in fantasy like a child. Grow up, and accept it like a (hu)man.

I know this wasn't the crux of the essay, but the Jimmy Stewart comment has generated a large number of responses. Roger, can you please respond to this in greater detail? Thanks.

Ebert: John Wayne, too. Google James Stewart and toupee for all the detail you desire.

Video games are also without characters that smoke, and there are a lot of "film noir" games, which all don't have a smoker as the main character. The new movie "Max Payne", starring Mark Wahlberg, is based on probably the most "film noir" video game. Now, I don't really like video games. To me, they are instant gratification and always will be because they were once made for people when they were out doing things and if you had an awkward silence or whatever on a date, for instance, you could play a video game for a few minutes. But now video games are designed for you to never to leave your house---a 10 hour long video now, is considered to be short. Now, its instant gratification, without the instant gratification. I used to think, when I was 13, that video games that were movie-like, games like "Max Payne",were good games, but now I see an angle in that video games are probably just hoping to get their games made into movies...they are like hours and hours long movie storyboards to pitch movies to producers more than video games, or movies for that matter.

The picture/stamp of Robert Johnson are not from the same photograph because his fingers are in a different arrangement on the guitar so he might not have had the cig for that picture.

And why the fake indignation over a missing cigarette? Seriously, isn't there something else better to worry about? Some harder questions to answer: Would you be against a stamp that showed John Belushi snorting a rail of cocaine? How about Kurt Cobain or Courtney Love shooting heroin? Elvis Presley swallowing a bunch of pills? Janis Joplin downing a bottle of Southern Comfort? Can you explain why those would be any different from the Bette Davis stamp without attempting to dodge the fact that nicotine is also an addictive drug or that cigarettes are likely responsible for countless deaths?

I'm not saying you don't have a point, I'm just pointing out that those who removed it may have had a better idea: glamorizing the person rather than the props they carried, hence the reason you don't see all of Robert Johnson's guitar which is something he TRULY was not without.

Ebert: Same photo. In fact, the only photo of Johnson known to exist. look hard and you can see the tip of his left index fingr.

"This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs -- to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct, nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record."

--1984, G. Orwell.

As absurd as this is, I still argue that the prohibition against marijuana is taken even further than cigarettes/alcohol (probably 'cause they're actually LEGAL, unlike marijuana, which further doesn't make any sense). Taking the butt out of Davis' hand is like having a picture of Bob Marley on a stamp and taking the joint out of his hand. That'd disgust me even further. The government is ridiculous.

One thing my health book said in high school about teen smokers was that they were insecure in social situations. I can't remember if it was the same for adults, but if it was, then I wonder if Bette Davis, and the like, were insecure in that way.

Everyone probably has a family member or friends family member who had the uncle, if you like, that smoked very often, and maybe even tried to take a puff. I wonder if smoking was Bette Davis way of trying to gain acceptance of her older uncle or whoever.

One more thing, I agree, that smoke covering someone's face is beautiful on film. And it's hard to imagine them, just as in real life---your uncles or whoever that smoke--without them. It doesn't even have to cover their face for me sometimes, just seeing around their face or seeping out in front of them in a cloud is pretty amazing to look at. And the hat, too, covering the face, is great. Imagine if Heath Ledger could have worn a hat and smoked in some dark alley...it would have been beautiful and frightening.

Roger,

I remember about 7 or 8 years ago Penn State University's Library had sort of history of the PSU Library photo exhibition--they too strangely took the time to airbrush (poorly) cigarettes out of the hands of the students smoking !indoors! in various photos.

Tragic, silly.

Next they'll CGI out all the hats, because no one should wear them anymore, either. Mercury in the felt, y'know.

Meanwhile, millions of kids are wondering who the hell Bette Davis was anyway.

I smoke, have since I was 14 or so. I can understand the notion of not wanting kids to pick up the habit, but let's get real, how many kids do you know right now that would even know who Betty Davis is, let alone think she is cool??? It is just silly to censor a photo like that. I can tell you one thing, if anyone censors a photo of me like that after I am dead and gone, there will definitly be a haunting!!!!

I've always wondered how seeing a cigarette will cause you to start smoking, but seeing someone murder another person has no effect.

Mr. Egbert, I am writin to protest your stand against smoking and chewing in movies. As a fellow critic-I write the red neck reviews at godblesssarahp.org- my readers want more-not less-tobackie use. A good smoke or chew never hurt nobody. That's just more pinko-liberal hooey. Sure you might lose your teeth- but I never felt better since I got my falsies. And no more pinko dentists to overcharge me. We want to see more smoke filled rooms-
raspy voices-ashtrays-spittoons-just like the good ole days. Did you know most of the greats of the silent days chawed tobackie?

Also read your commie remarks about Sarry. Lefties like you ain't goin to like it when she's runnin things. God's truth found in the sacred text of gennisis will again be instilled in the souls of our kids during their current godless sudoscience classes. Also they will be taught the good lord's language-the speaking in tongues- along with their english. Lives and souls will again be saved by their reeducation in health class with god's miracle-the laying on of hands- which will also save the them down the road from overcharges by the medical quacks of the ama.

Not until you've gutted a deer or a moose- or hunted by plane satan's spawn-the wolf- will you know what we true Americans think. God bless our sainted Bloody Mamma. May god soon ordain her to to be his chosen guide to all of us-the true believers-as we enter our final days of tribulation.

Finally as Joe McCarthy's son,Charles,stiffly wrote,"For the godless-may they eat rancid moose in hades for eternity."

The political correctness exhibited by the majority of you is killing the culture of our country.

I am SO CERTAIN teens are looking at Bette Davis as a role model.

Please. Stop projecting on America's youth; most are smarter than you think.

Squinting like Eastwood when taking a drag? It may look the same, but that is an idiotic statement. Do you use the bathroom like Elvis?

According to this extremely lame argument, the wine glasses should be removed from "The Last Supper" or Norman Rockwell's "Self-Portrait" since he has a pipe in his mouth as well.

It is people like yourselves that will elect another idiot to the White House further destroying a great country.

All you "soccer moms" female AND male need to move to Iowa where it is nice, antiseptic, and WHITE.

Ebert: People like who? Don't look at me.

I know I'm in the minority here, but it looks more to me like she's holding her coat closed than missing a cigarette. Besides, wouldn't the thing have been in her other hand anyway?

Ebert: It wasn't in the original scene. See YouTube link above.

Smoking didn't take my parents, a genetic pre-disposition to lung cancer did. My grandmother didn't die of smoking related heart issues, she died of not getting off the couch. Saying that cigarettes "took my" relative is about as meaningful as saying food "took my" extremely obese and diabetic uncle's life. I smoke, and when I die, I won't tolerate anyone blaming my death on a corperation to make their grieving process easier. Deal and move on.

If we're giving examples of scenes made great because they featured cigarettes: How about that great sequence in the original "Dawn of the Dead," when the two soldiers, smoking, decide to go ahead with the seige of the mall because one of them "needs lighter fluid." "You got it," the other soldier says after lighting up, and then they proceed with zombie killing. It's the end of the world, and people will still fight for tobacco. I wonder how the MPAA would re-edit that scene these days, if they could get their hands on it...

When I get my stamp, I hope multiple chins are un-PC, and they airbrush chins 2 through 4.

Ahh, to be a fly on the wall during all those meetings leading to the decision to airbrush the smoke. It smells of one those "I personally don't mind, but others might..." type of things. It's always 'others'.

Hey Ebert this is LIBERALISM run amok. All the above comments are missing the point. This is left wing fascism. Pot is ok. Legalize drugs but you can't smoke. This anti smoking jihad is part of the new "Religious Left" that worships Al Gore, puddles of mud ( sorry WETLANDS) and the government. Read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism". Our liberty is being threatened by both the left and the right. We must be vigilant.

That same Fark entry shows a shot of Barack Obama with a butt hangin off his lip. I remember early rumblings about his smoking, as if commentators were throwing it out there to see if it 'caught fire' as an issue. It didn't.

I don't think the analogy of a nanny is very accurate. Someone who lives in or live out your house to take care of house and kids? Stamps usually end up in the mail trash pile. Well, I guess some people would collect stamps, but who would collect this particular stamp of Bette DAvis, except some superficial person who is obsessed with her looks only...never mind. Nanny is too good a word for this. I don't see Mary Poppins airbrushing a cigarette out of a stamp...without getting caught, then embarassed by it. Revisioning was good enough for me. But as for an ironic description for analogy, I think "pinocchio-ing" is pretty good...the cigarette is there, and it's getting bigger and bigger the more it lies to you.

One point I've yet to see raised is:

Is Betty Davis going to be that much of a pro-smoking role-model to anyone who is not already "old enough" to buy cigarretes legally and have made that particular choice along time ago already? I sincerely doubt she will have much more influence on the teens and twenty-somethings than a more contemporary celebrity. I'm a non-smoker in my thirties, and I don't see her as

i'm opposed to revisionism, but it's really hard to imagine a stamp with a picture of someone smoking. of course, they should never CGI out the smoking in old films or bar children from watching them.

they could have issued a "fasten your seat belts" public service stamp.

This reminds me of when they tried to take out all the images of the World Trade Center in all the movies made pre-9/11.
Look, people smoke. They're going to smoke and they will smoke for many years to come. Tryin to cover it up is just as detrimental to moviegoing audiences as censorship in general.
By the way, to answer Roger's question about secret female smokers, Anne Hathaway used to be a secret smoker, keeping it hidden from pretty much everybody, but she recently quit.

As a closet cigarette smoker (I've recently cut back from about a pack a day to about 2-3 cigarettes a day total), I found this article fascinating. I acknowledge and understand how bad smoking is for you, but at the same time I can hardly picture certain movies absent of cigarettes (8 1/2 is the first that comes to mind). Us smokers are demonized often enough in real life, hopefully we can at least keep the movies unbiased.

Also, farbeit for me to correct you, but it was the caterpillar who smoked the hookah, not the Chesire Cat.

Great journal as always, keep it up.

I remember lying on the floor and watching the air move th smoky dust particles around in the light coming through the window. I think they were crazy to start with a picture that had a fur coat and a cigarette in it. And what was the name of that hour and a half long cigarette commercial/movie that starred Sharon Stone's Vajayjay?

This comes down to a question of simple common sense. There are a thousand picture of Bette Davis and probably half of those pictures don't feature a cigarette. Why did they have to go with this one? Plus, apparently no one thought about that fact that she's wearing an even further offensive fur coat.

I think this would be a much better world if everyone would just use an ounce of common sense.

Hi Roger,

It's the sanitation of history, and that's what bothers me. Sure, I agree that celebrities smoking is an influence on kids, but it's not the only one. To me, it's the slippery pole, where do you stop? My parents died from smoking related diseases, and my father drummed it into me when I was very young never to start, so I am totally against smoking absolutely, completely. But to start airbrushing cigarettes out of photos taken in the past, before the current revulsion, is completely wrong. Photographs represent periods of time, a fraction of history, and once we start changing the images, where do we go next. Do we change the text of books to reflect current values. You cannot learn from the past if you change it to appease modern sensibilities. Photographs should never be altered for this purpose, it is dishonest and a false representation of a great actress whose image is distorted in this photo.

Old black and white movies wouldn't be the same without smoking. Can anyone imagine Bogie without a Chesterfield? The mind boggles. I don't care one way or another if a film character smokes. Watching old movies as they all puff away makes me nostalgic for that time in history--that never existed in reality. It does not make think smoking is glamorous.

It's insane that movies can depict the worst sort of violence and yet not show someone smoking or having sex (and when they do show that in non-porn films, it'd be nice if they at least made some reference to birth control but I digress). I confess I don't understand MPAA rating criteria. Smoking is evil, but driving without seat belts, drinking constantly, shooting people and wrecking cars etc--these things are ok. What odd peccadilloes they have.

I don't think they should have changed the pictures on either of the stamps in question. But I think they did so to stave off cries of indignation from people who genuinely think that such things matter.

And just FYI: the YouTube link no longer works. That particular vid has been taken down.

Bette would pitch a fit. A massive fit. And yes, I can imagine a world where gun violence is so taboo that John Wayne's movies are considered vulgar trash (some of them already are, of course, for very different reasons, but The Quiet Man redeems him somewhat: who knew the big dumb lug could act?).

I bow my head in shame to admit it, but I'd never seen that painting of Bette Davis before (or "All About Eve", a deficiency I intend to correct someday). I didn't realize she'd had a cigarette airbrushed out. So I suppose it depends on your context as to whether it's offensive or not.

I remember going through this debate when the Beatles single "Real Love" was released in 1995. EMI airbrushed out their cigarettes, too. I have mixed feelings on the issue; I'm anti-smoking, but where do we draw the line? I can't see taking all the cigarettes out of "Casablanca".

The thing that annoys me about these anti-smoking people is that most of their prohibitionist views are religious based, but they wrap their opposition in health reports. The leaders of these anti-smoking groups are all Baptist and Pentecostal leaders -- the same groups that got alcohol made illegal 100 years ago.

In 8 1/2, the priest is smoking, except it is not a cigarette, but it looks like one. It is some kind of medical one that was for his lungs or something.

So if Davis, Stewart, Sinatra et al were all on heroin instead of nicotine, and they posed for their publicity shots with a loaded syringe in one hand and their sleeves rolled up to show the tracks on their arms, that would just be more Hollywood glamour?

One thing I find rather funny (in a ghoulish sort of way) is to check the author photos on book jackets and note how many writers (mostly dead ones) take the Pet Cigarette Pose. John Steinbeck's is iconic. He holds the last inch or so of his smoke in his fingertips about an inch from his nose, pointing straight up. He seems to be saying, "This is Joe, my pet Camel. We go everywhere together, we take long walks, we go to the movies, everything. He does tricks, too! Would you like to see one?"

The Soviet Union? You obviously haven't been paying attention for quite a while. Editing reality has been done routinely in the media going on a few decades. Government plays Hollywood very well; most "interviews" with high-ranking officials are staged. It's all in the name of making sure that at some point we can't tell fact from fiction. Seems to me there was a blog entry a few weeks ago where you did some creationist satire, Rog, and a lot of people had a hard time telling the difference, thought you were turning fundamentalist. Coincidence?

Wait....is this really Roger Ebert's blog?

Censorship is wrong--just plain wrong. It's as simple as that.

One other thing I'm trying to sort out: how could a coat be offensive?

While I am a reformed smoker, and my mother died of lung cancer from smoking camels every day since she was 14, I do not like smoking.

However, Bette Davis is now flashing the British equivalent to the infamous "bird" of America...

It is quite a statement to the revisionists having her now say "UP YOURS" for the removal of a little white stick.

My parents married during the middle of the Depression. My mother told me my Dad dug ditches for 25 cents an hour and she looked after her grandmother. They smoked because cigarettes were cheap, and when you didn't quite have enough to eat, they kind of dulled that hunger. I wonder how many other people, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and others who were just starting out in films felt the same way. Or if they had enough, cigarettes would keep you from eating too much and help you be slender. I wonder how many kids who smoke today feel smokes keep them skinny.

I haven't smoked for 43 years, but when I did, I often ran out of money and smokes at the same time. So I would just quit until mypaycheck appeared. I have heard that today's cigarettes have more nicotine than what was made all those years ago, so its very much harder for people to quit these days. And THAT is a huge wrong if it is so.

(linkback) Yes or No? Bette Davis stamp has cigarette photoshopped.Do you support this? [VOTE] - http://www.thriveorfail.com/b7ef9

To Jay Faulconer: I bought a DVD set of Tom and Jerry cartoons that includes "Solid Seranade," wherein Tom sings "Is You Is, O' Is You Ain't My Baby." According to Amazon.com it was published in 2004. If anyone is interested in buying the set, it is still available on Amazon. Incidentally, some of the cartoons in the set *are* edited, mostly making the cartoons with the 'mammy' character more politically correct. Tom AND Jerry still smoke in "Zoot Suit Cat" and other shorts.

Back to the topic, I agree with you Roger regarding the Bette Davis stamp. As others suggested, the Postal Service would have served their agenda by selecting a portrait of Bette Davis where she wasn't smoking.

April

I looked up political correctness in wikipedia. It is: Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term applied to language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen as seeking to minimize offense to gender, racial, cultural, disabled, aged or other identity groups. Conversely, the term "politically incorrect" is used to refer to language or ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy.

I don't see youth anywhere on there. And you are absolutely right about how if kids don't know smoking is bad, then they are in too much trouble for a stamp to save them. I also think you are right about the smoking, which means I must ask: why do you think smoking has been virtually vanished from the movies like this? Maybe I've been living under a rock, but I just don't get how something like this is happening besides the fact that smoking itself is being banned in restaurants etc., but I understand that one....but movies?

I agree it's silly to censor a cigarette, especially when you're portraying an era during which smoking was more socially accepted than non-smoking. With that said, I think images of people smoking -- attractive people especially -- does have some kind of effect. When I quit smoking, I tried to avoid movies that I thought might include smoking because watching it being done on screen was a major trigger for me. I know it's stupid to let cinema influence you like that, but if I were smart I wouldn't have started in the first place. But that's my problem; I don't expect everyone to change what they're doing for my sake.

When one of these ad hoc historians says "we know better now," the words I hear are "let them eat cake."

This airbrushed, revisionist stamp comes very close to government censorship. In a way, I would argue that the airbrush is censorship.

I can't help but be reminded of an example that makes me think this. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case in which the issue was whether a Texas law prohibiting "desecrating the American flag" was unconstitutional. The Court held, 5-4, that the law violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, declaring:

"Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms, a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol . . ."

The Court also wrote, "[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

I have never smoked and hope never not to because I don't want to kill myself. But people have a right to smoke, and even to think that doing so is "cool," if they wish to. While the government can try to persuade them that smoking is not cool, I would argue that the government cannot do this - try to carve out a symbol of unity and approved messages - by rewriting the past to suggest that not only is smoking unglamorous, but that it was not commonplace in earlier pictures. This kind of government activity goes beyond persuasion - and veers into government's doing what Justice Jackson, who presided over the Nuremberg trials, worried about: creating an official, 1984 Orwellian newspeak-style orthodoxy.

As Jackson wrote, "if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." The government is trying to do exactly what Jackson said it could not by producing these stamps, with the attendant "message" going along with them.

"History" - our children and grandchildren, and our contemporaries - may declare that smkoing was inappropriately glamourized. Fine - let history do that by making the ARGUMENT - not by erasing itself from the books.

I have the utmost respect for your proud support of Barack Obama and for your standing up to some of the online bullies that, I'm afraid, support candidates who are not as appreciative of freedom of speech (not to mention other Constitutional liberties) as you are.

Regards,

Dan L.

If I remember right, I think Brosnan smoked a cigar in Havana in 'Die Another Day'.

We can just re-write history until smoking never existed. Then we will all be safe.

"The past is erased, the erasure forgotten. A lie becomes truth and then becomes a lie again." 1984

I do think that smoking on screen has negative impact on young viewers. In India, there has been a raging debate among the movie stars and the health minister (who wants to ban smoking on screen).

But sometimes it is so embodied in the character, we cannot do without a cigar or a pipe. Imagine Sherlock Holmes without a pipe!

The stamp should have never been made without the smoke. Even as it is, the image still makes us think of smoking, so the point was lost. Just ridiculous. A stamp could have been made of a close up of her face, with no smoke. She may have smoked constantly, but she didn't always have one hanging out of here mouth... As far as smoking in the movies goes: People smoke, that's reality. People kill each other too, in life and in the movies, but does watching a violent film inspire others to kill? That's another blog, albeit a played out one...I loved the "South Park" where they made a mockery of Rob Reiner's anti-smoking in films campaign. I thought that was a fair attack. Filmmakers aren't babysitters and censorship is un-American. Everybody knows smoking is bad for you.

One Angela (last name suspiciously missing) spokesman for the post office said that the portrait used didn't have a cigarette in her hand. I don't have reason to believe until she shows us the original portraite.

http://boxwish.com/blog/view/344-bette-davis-commemorative-stamp-sparks-debate

Ebert: See above for a link to the YouTube clip of the exact scene in "All About Eve" (same hair, coat, gloves, makeup). She lights a cigarette and uses it for the whole scene. The portrait used didn't have a cigarette, because the artist didn't paint one. But the still photo almost certainbly did.

I've tried to have my own content for reasons of public and personal interest. I wanted my privacy back and I didn't want people to believe what I once believed. Then I realised that anyone who uses the word "Archiviolithic" in a sentence should probably have more respect for the archive. I was wrong, I accept it.

Privately I am a non-smoker but sometimes publically I smoke. A cigarette is an alibi if you're wandering around at night and you can use them to bribe your way out of trouble (most people who rob you do so because they are bored and you happen to be there. A cigarette would do), you can use it to bribe conversations out of locals if you're a tourist, and it's great if you're posing for a photograph. If someone tried to remove the cigarette from the lips of Albert Camus in the portrait by Henri Cartier Bresson, I think I'd be outraged.

I learned in Paris, however, that kissing and roses are better diplomatic devices than smoking, since you cannot kiss a non-smoker if you smoke. Drunk in the "Peace and Love Hostel" a local haggled with me over the price of a single rose. Eventually I paid four euros for it, though initially I think he offered me four for two euros. Was it worth it? Of course it was.

What an interesting question?At the very least the situation was avoidable........its an act of ineptness,certainly..One has to remove one's (now proverbial) hat to the person who not only noticed the incongruity but grasped its less than innocuous element......... eternal vigilance as they say......Implicit in this sanitisation of the great Bette is a dim view of humanity as a whole,a disrespect to human intelligence ,the "we know what's good for them" bureaucratic mind set.....people have the right to demand to be treated as grownups....last but not the least the act subtly demeans the memory of a beloved star while trying to honour her......

This controversy about Bette Davis' missing cigarette would have been avoided if the US Postal Service had chosen a portrait that doesn't show her holding one.

There are about 40 photographs in the photo gallery of Davis' official website, none of them showing her holding a cigarette. Some of photos would have made a great stamp. A Google image search reveals even more images of Davis; my favorite would be the one used by the New York Post, but that one shows her holding a glass that could contain whiskey, bourbon or ice tea.

By taking the easy expedient of airbrushing out the cigarette, the USPS called attention to very thing they probably didn't want to people to talk about: Davis' smoking habit.

I think that a lot of people are missing the point on this one. At the heart of the issue isn't a debate about whether or not smoking is cool or acceptable. We all have our views on that, I'm sure. The issue of smoking tends to stir up a lot of strong feelings.

The issue is about the revisionism that we see evidenced in the photo. That's the disturbing part. They could have very well chosen a less iconic shot of Betty Davis that didn't involve her smoking a cigarette. I just did a image search on google and came up with a couple on the first page alone. Sure, she was famous for her smoking (among other things obviously) but she did put the smokes down sometimes!

We start walking a dangerous line when we do things like this. Think of how many children pass through the great museums of the world. Should a man walk around the halls with a container of white-out and start removing all the parts of paintings that could possibly be a bad influence on the viewer? A cigarette here? A battle scene there? John made a good point, how long before we go back and start removing the evidence of obesity from art? Obviously it's not exactly the same thing, obesity is rarely romanticized in art.

By removing the cigarette from her hand in that photo we are essentially lying to the younger generations, or at best obfuscating the truth. This is wrong, even with the best of intentions. Bette Davis was a smoker. It's as simple as that. By attempting to remove this from the public recollection of her like that, we are being fed a lie.

If smoking is such a problem, then we need to address it through better education and better parenting. Maybe we should even outlaw it. However, no matter how illegal it is made now, it will always have been legal for Bette Davis to smoke. No matter how reviled the habit is now, it will always have been acceptable for Bette Davis. Do what needs doing to my present and my future, but please leave my past alone.

A youTube video from the film has been put forth as "evidence" that the still from the same movie had a cigarette in it. And that's the Bette we remember, isn't it? Her performance on the silver screen rather than the stills.

A patient guy over at the Pentax Discussion Mailing List (Link to his post: http://pdml.net/pipermail/pdml_pdml.net/2008-October/142071.html) trawled with a finer mesh and found this:
http://classicmoviefavorites.com/davis/davis051.jpg

To me it looks more like the stamp artist has repositioned the hand to hint the viewer at something which is not there, and thereby reminding the viewer more strongly about the lady's habit than the original photo does.

Best,
Jostein Øksne aka. AlunFoto

Most nicotine-stained film ever?

I nominate John Wayne's HATARI.

Many of the people who blog about "Mad Men" say they are disgusted by the constant smoking. Most of the bloggers are too young to remember the early 60s, so they can't accept that this is realistic. They certainly aren't finding the smoking attractive.

One thing to remember about all that smoking in films of the 30's and 40's- the uncertainty of the times, the perilousness of the War meant no one knew whether there would BE a tomorrow. Men at war were facing mortality every day, and those habits- that fatalism- was something hard to leave behind. Smoking was an expresion of this, perhaps a prop to relieve anxiety, - the health damage wasn't even in the equation, when people thought that the civilized world was collapsing into war and destruction.

The characters in "Casablanca" for example, are at the whims of fate in a perilous world. The excessive smoking was part of the ethos of living for the moment, because no one could know what tomorrow would bring. Just saying, it's key to try and think of how people thought in the past and not project our modern prejudices. We know how the story ended- Allied Victory- but at the time, in the midst of it, people had no such assurances.

I saw the youtube scene and of course, I agree (the anonymous about the post office spokesman was from me). I'll believe Angela when she shows us the still photo or photograph...I know it's not gonna happen. I just posted that link to show where I got that "information" that clearly read your blog and stole your line "political correctness run amok", for shame.

I wanted to comment on the "Sarah Palin the Rabble Rouser" article. There are two times I can remember really dying inside: Once, when I was a teen and just kind of sat there lying, kind of meditating, on my bed with my eyes closed trying to feel whatever the lifeforce was dishing out. (It was kind of a good feeling I had when I think of it...kind of a teenager realizing his mortality.

The second one I had recently was when I was meditating on the all the hate going on the republicans.

I was raised in Houston, Texas and have seen a lot of racism, but I don't look at as racism so much as bad parenting prying into the lives of its offspring, being unable to express feelings, hypocrisy--very deep hypocrisy and a grossly misguided sense of entitlement. I say this because a lot of people are "racists" that are going to "vote".

( I reposted and edited one word---with republicans not on)
I saw the youtube scene and of course, I agree (the anonymous about the post office spokesman was from me). I'll believe Angela when she shows us the still photo or photograph...I know it's not gonna happen. I just posted that link to show where I got that "information" that clearly read your blog and stole your line "political correctness run amok", for shame.

I wanted to comment on the "Sarah Palin the Rabble Rouser" article. There are two times I can remember really dying inside: Once, when I was a teen and just kind of sat there lying, kind of meditating, on my bed with my eyes closed trying to feel whatever the lifeforce was dishing out. (It was kind of a good feeling I had when I think of it...kind of a teenager realizing his mortality.

The second one I had recently was when I was meditating on the all the hate going on with the republicans.

I was raised in Houston, Texas and have seen a lot of racism, but I don't look at as racism so much as bad parenting prying into the lives of its offspring, being unable to express feelings, hypocrisy--very deep hypocrisy and a grossly misguided sense of entitlement. I say this because a lot of people are "racists" that are going to "vote".

I loathe cigarettes and I have never smoked tobacco. Still, this is stunt amounts to futile censorship.

Prohibition of liquor only served to make alcohol more attractive. Smoking isn't illegal, no matter how bad it is for human health. Taking the cigarette out of this picture no more makes Bettie Davis smoke-free than taking shot glasses out of bar pictures make taverns alcohol-free.

Perhaps The worst example of cigarette removal is the Edward R. Murrow award. For years it had a picture of Murrow with his ever present cigarette on it. A few years ago they airbrushed the cigarette out of the picture on the awards. Doctoring a photo on an award named for one of the most respected tellers of unvarnished truth in American history, how very 1984.
"He who controls the present controls the past, he who controls the past controls the future." This is just part of the desire some have to purge American history of anything less than ideal
This rewriting of history is horrible. I hate cigarettes, but this is the truth of history. From the Late Victorian era through the mid 1980's most people smoked cigarettes. A lot of people died from that, but it happened. Few smoked regularly before that, fewer are smoking all the time.

While I am not a smoker, I don't think that is the issue. The removal of her cigarette is definitely revisionist bunk. If they didn't want to use the image as it really was, then they should find a different one!

Mr. Ebert,

This is unrelated to your blog post, but this question just came to mind:

Do you still get excited about certain movies? Do you say to yourself, "Oh, a new Ridley Scott movie! I can't wait to see that!" I ask this because I assume you consume more movies on a regular basis than most people and I wonder if you've been left slightly jaded. Do you look at your schedule and say, "OK, Body of Lies on Tuesday, Rachel Getting Married on Wednesday...etc."?

Ebert: Yep, I think things like that.

I guess I'm wondering if you still look forward to movies and which movies do you look forward to?

I have a strong suspicion that Michael Deas wants us to see the cigarette in Bette's hand. Why else use this pose? Could it be that the artist has gotten away with a protest against the U.S. Postal Service's cigarette ban?

Cigarette smoking in the movies calls to mind Hitchcock lauding TV for putting murder back in the home, where it belongs: it's one of those cheery gimmicks in a good filmmaker's bag of tricks, but ain't so funny in real life. As one who's grappled with cigarettes for years, is sometimes soothed by them and sometimes repulsed, it has special significance: it may stand for a femme fatale you just can't quit; a public exhibition of private self-loathing; a moment of resignation, or of exaltation; a steady emotional lifeline; the trite posturing of an attention-seeker; or something to quietly connect disconnected characters.

Bad films may belabor the point ("BASIC INSTINCT"); good ones are more subtle (Harrison Ford lighting up after the climax of "WITNESS"); and in black-and-white it's merely an ice-breaker. I'm glad it's marginalized now, where it should be--in real life and in films. Indiana Jones, who owes plenty to classic screen smoker Humphrey Bogart, does not partake--the kids are watching. But can you imagine "JFK" or "GOODNIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK" without? How about a David Lynch picture? Or "IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE", where the lovers skip the sex and go straight for the cigarettes? I'll be happy to let those characters keep smoking, just so I don't have to.

Oh, and I submit my request for filmmakers to bring back the liquor cabinet--many a classic scene has begun with a character crossing the apartment to mix a scotch and soda.

I agree 100%. Taking cigarettes out of Bette Davis' hand - and Bogie's, and others, is an ill-advised attempt to "sanitize" history.

The other blasphemy is "colorizing" old movies. Can you imagine "Citizen Kane" or "The Third Man" in color. Welles had the right idea, speaking of Ted Turner: "Keep your damn mitts off my film".

Then there's the photo of Churchill, where Karsh took his cigar away - resulting in one of the most famous portrait photos.

But it wasn't air-brushed out.

After all one wouldn't remove a cigar or cigarette off a picture of Churchill or FDR or for that matter one's parent....

This discussion reminds me of traveling to Italy in 2000, and being able to see the Sistine Chapel after all the restoration had been completed. The story is that originally Michelangelo painted the chapel and quite a few of the figures were naked...back in the Renaissance, nudity wasn't taboo. Years later, it was declared immoral and teh Vatican had artists paint clothes on them. It was only in the 1990's when it was finally decided that it was more important to show the original work, so they went through millions of dollars and years of painstaking restoration work to take the clothes back off... it jsut entered my mind that this was along the same lines, society deeming that artwork from a previous time is offensive, so just change it.

And in reference to a comment about knowing if any current actresses smoke... I think Kate Winslet is a smoker, isn't she?

Am I confused?? I thought stamps were 42 cents now. The first thing I noticed is the 41 on the bottom?????

In my collection of old TV episodes, I've got many wonderful moments of cigarette use from those innocent '50s and'60s - none more so than commercials by the stars for their sponsors' brands. A particular favorite: John Cassevetes looking out from a cliff, then smiling down on a young couple in a rowboat, as his voice on the soundtrack extols the wonders of Salem ('take a puff - it's springtime!'). This was from Cassevetes's short-lived series JOHNNY STACCATO, circa 1959. (The accompanying episode was pretty interesting too: Cloris Leachman, Elisha Cook, and Cassevetes were the only actors in it, and Cassevetes himself directed.) And all the other examples fom those years, from Jack Webb and his Chesterfields, to Matt and Kitty outside the Longbranch with their anachronistic L&Ms, to Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble lighting up their Winstons, and on and on and on (cough, cough). I remember all the commercials, and all the jingles, and I have never smoked in my life (though I was briefly tempted by cigars - George Burns, Ernie Kovacs, John 'Gomez' Astin. Could you imagine a stamp of Burns or Kovacs with no cigar? Not even close.) And (as another cigar smoker of note would say) one more thing: I'm against handguns too, but if the USPS ever does a Mickey Spillane stamp, they damn well better keep the .45. In the meantime, keep watching those PERRY MASON and TWILGHT ZONE episodes on MeTV and MeTOO - you may be looking at the next endangered species.

To some previous posters, there is no "war against tobacco," because a war is fought by two opposing armies with the intent to kill one another. I can be more forgiving of such a metaphor if you'll admit that the war is within individuals and maybe, well, yes, obviously, within individuals and their close friends and the abilities of intelligent persons to choose wisely and influence those they know to do similarly. A lot like... life decisions.

For example, like a very large number of others I know at my university, UW Madison, I smoke when I'm drunk, and yes, it is doubtless in part because of the culture of smoking, because Peckinpah's men light up when they're being their most badass, &c, but it is also because I am being an idiot by choice, and I know this. It is an aspect of life, during occasional moments of my life, which I've willfully chosen and will shed when I'm out of the immense temptations of college life. And I don't care too much about those who don't notice that it's a stupid thing to do and keep doing it while sober, all the time, five packs daily, etc, since I don'st know anyone like that, since I tend not to get along with people who are that dumb or weak or susceptible. It's a fascinating disproportion, that of those who smoke while drunk to those who smoke regularly-- a vast difference in number in my generation. That's not to say "those people don't matter," that's to say "those people... well, hm. They'll either learn or die." As it is with any mistake-- as it was, is, and ever shall be. Mistakes the like of which we should not be afraid to make; even a lifelong mistake and perhaps as long as eternity too.

Alcohol does not kill more people than cigarettes for one simple reason: heart attacks. Heart disease is literally the number one killer in the world, causing 30% of deaths, and by its nature the exact cause of each heart death cannot be tracked, but it is known that smoking drastically heightens the risk of heart attack, and that sh*t-tons (this is the official term) of people smoke worldwide. It's a small leap to make. John Steinbeck, that human smokestack, he'll tell you.

Here in Quebec we have a situation very similar to the FDR memorial mentioned above. A few years ago the Quebec government put up a statue of Rene Levesque, the first separatist to be elected Premier of Quebec. This was a guy who started his career as a radio and then TV journalist, who would smoke on-screen while reading the news. He was never seen without a cigarette. The statue features an arm raised with two fingers in a v position as if holding a cigarette, but nothing is there. Luckily he was a small man, so the hand of the life size statue is accessible to passersby, who often put a real cigarette between his fingers, allowing him to smoke through eternity. I have to think that Rene would be pleased with this solution.

Seems it could go either way. I can see where one might think a cigarette was removed, but I can also see where this may have been a normal pose sans cigarette. Here's a still from the same scene showing her without a cigarette:

http://cache.gettyimages.com/xc/3092700.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=552D90A84D8CF9803232E09BF1B47BFEA55A1E4F32AD3138

Seems easy enough for the PO to clear up. Just release a copy of the source image.

PS- Looks like they also had a beef with plain ears, and added some sparkly earrings! Those monsters!

Rewriting history serves no good purpose. It's like saying slavery never existed... smoking never existed. Are we supposed to pat ourselves on the back for being so clever, for righting a wrong retroactively, even if it's only in our minds? This is the ultimate, mindless feel-good gesture. It's also a kind of censorship and I think it's just plain wrong.

A little googling leads to this snippet from

http://www.photobooth.net/mt/archives/2005/03/24/robert_johnson_photobooth_controversy.php

"The cigarette that dangles from Johnson�s lips was famously removed at the order of the USPS, an interesting change that is analyzed in great detail in Patricia Schroeder�s excellent 2004 work Robert Johnson, Mythmaking, and Contempory American Culture. In order to accommodate the dimensions of the stamp, Johnson�s guitar and hand are also moved slightly, and the drapery background of the original portrait becomes a wall of shingles in stamp designer Julian Allen�s version."

The photobooth website also notes there's a second photo of Johnson, and includes a link: http://www.guitarnotes.com/rmmga/legends/robert_johnson/robert_johnson.gif

@ Chris Ortman (10/12, 11:49 AM)

Having met Billy Bob Thornton when he was in Chicago shooting The Ice Harvest and seen him 9/5/08 at a concert he did in Vegas (see pic at link), I can categorically state that if he quit smoking, he's taken it up again.

Wow!!!

I am stunned, completely stunned. I knew that smoking was the "scourge" of our time but this is just too much. In all of the comments I've read only one that mentions atmospheric pollution.

Take a good look at your venting system in your building, see how "clean" it is, next take another good look outside, do you see any white clouds hanging above your city... No that can't be dangerous, only the anarchist who sits next to you with his cigarette between his fingers will harm you.

There is 170 hours in a week if you take out sleep, work, time spent at home and so on that leaves you with about 6-10 hours in which you can spend in restaurants, theaters, parties. In other words, times in which one could breath secondhand smoke.

Do you think that 5-8 hours out of 170 could actually lead you to great harm? That's like saying that 2 beer a week will give you liver cancer!

Now the air you breath, the air that is part of that white cloud (90-95% of the north american population lives in urban areas so I assume you are one of them), the air the passes then through filthy air systems and comes to your apartment, houses, offices. That air you breath it ALL the the time, even when you sleep.

Don't you think that this is more an urgent problem and we should've solve that one first?

One striking image came up to me one day. I was walking right in the middle of downtown (Montreal) and a bus passed in front of me. There was an anti-smoking advertisement on its side that had this HUGE non-smoking sign (that was right before the law to prohibit smoking in public areas came through in our province). It said: "For a cleaner breathing environment".

As the bus passed and I looked at the ad I then looked up at the sky and I couldn't see the tip of the buildings. They bathed in this yellowish fog even though it was a clear and bright sunny day.

Dear Solomon Wakeling,

Your admission, "Privately I am a non-smoker but sometimes publically I smoke", was worthy of a character from Oscar Wilde. It reminded me of his "The Importance of Being Earnest" when Lady Bracknell asked Jack/Earnest if he smoked. He admitted to doing so and she congratulated him for having an occupation of some kind, other men in London being so idle.

Perhaps it is also "revisionism" to forget that Studio Era stardom was a deliberate artifact. It takes away nothing from such a brilliant commercial creation to look at it from several angles, including what studios and advertisers put into it and got out of it.

In the case of Bette Davis and cigarettes, I think the commenters to this blog have established (1) that Davis' character wore a mink and smoked in the film All About Eve; (2) at least one surviving publicity still of Davis in the mink shows her without a cigarette; (3) no publicity still can be located showing her in the USPS stamp pose with mink coat AND a cigarette; (4) there are plenty of Davis photos where she is not smoking.

We do know that Davis' smoking as a star had a commercial dimension to it. To read the Lucky Strike ad copy she signed off on in 1937, see http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pxu51a00/pdf (p. 68). For how it's used in a Lucky Strike ad plugging her film Jezebel, see pp. 67-68. Similar testimonials were worth $75,000 a year (2008 dollars) to top stars and millions of dollars to the studios, much of whose print and radio advertising in the 1930s and 1940s was paid for by tobacco companies.

This was such common practice that two-thirds of the top box office stars in the 1930s and 1940s participated in studio-brokered advertising campaigns for cigarette brands. Top stars advertised brand after brand over the years, as one tobacco company after another took turns launching Hollywood-based campaigns (usually the one that wasn't currently under Federal Trade Commission investigation for false advartising). Might so much tobacco money flying around possibly have influenced the amount of smoking in the films themselves? It takes a willing suspension of disbelief to think smoking was all show, no business. The craft was in making smoking part of the persona and plot. Some of this was superbly done, or we wouldn't still be talking about it.

Finally, to correct mistaken impressions among some commenters: The proposed R-rating for future movies with smoking would except the portrayal of actual historical figures (e.g., Churchill, Edward R. Murrow, etc.). It would not affect previously released films in any way. There is no U.S. proposal to edit or pixelate films with smoking, or to "ban" smoking in films. An R-rating simply means the film industry would calibrate smoking in future films just as it now routinely calibrates other content for desired ratings. Any filmmaker could still include tobacco for any reason: 84% of R-rated movies featured smoking last year. On-screen smoking is a major recruiter of new young smokers, which is why the tobacco companies have spent millions in at least five out of the last eight decades exploiting the medium through cross-promotional deals pre-WWII and product placement afterward.

Thanks for posting such a provocative subject, Mr. Ebert. I'm waiting for the Barbara Stanwyck stamp, myself.

I'm with Roger on this one. I'm a great fan of Thelonious Monk, and while viewing a showing 15 years ago of Herman Leonard photos taken of the jazz greats over the 40's and 50's, I came across 'Monk at Mintons' - and just had to have a print. Leonard's jazz musicians series are some of the most beautiful photos I've ever seen, all in black and white, and most with his signature: a cloud, or wisp, or stream of smoke.

There's Monk leaning over the piano with a cigarette in hand writing out a new tune, or Billy Eckstine in the studio, or Errol Garner sitting at the piano, or Frank Sinatra on stage, or that great shot Sonny Rollins (another favorite shot of mine - he looks liked he's been folded up just to fit into the frame) or the classic shot of Lester Young's hat and a burning cigarette balanced on a classic Coke bottle - he's not even in the photo but it's unmistakably "him".

http://www.hermanleonard.com/

I can't imagine what this body of work would have looked like w/o the smoke: great photos, to be sure, but not the classics that the smoke in all its various forms has imparted. He used it not just for the effect (it was after all his signature), but because it shows these musicians as they were.

Like Roger, my parents both succumbed to smoking so I too understand what it can do - but this is ridiculous. Use another photo, or leave the cig in and make an educational point of it; don't doctor the art.

Steven Spielberg used CGI to remove weapons in a re-release of "E.T."

In a way you have to agree that the revision has been done in style. Although there is no cigarette, the pose is so obvious that everyone immediately thinks of the missing cigarette. It's a case of the lack of something emphasising the thing that is missing even more than the real thing would have done.
What we have here is a politically correct stamp with underlying social commentary - not just another stamp but a cause for debate.

Next I'd like to see Marilyn Monroe standing above the subway vent in her familiar pose but instead of a white dress, she would be wearing proper jeans to remove any politically incorrect sexual innuendo. Now that would be something to chew on.

There is no"war on tobacco" yes, and there is also no "war on terrorism" either. A lot the terrorists were just regular people until their government propaghanda in the newspapers made them decide to get up and go kill america soldiers because they think the soldiers are looking for wounded victims and selling eyes for 10 dollars and 40 dollars for kidneys. It is an ideology, just like every other war. THe only way to really wage a war on terrorism is if they attacked us and then we have to go blow up every village we think they are in to make sure they don't attack us again....like if they had weapons of mass destruction, used it on us, and we go blow up the rest of them at the villages.

But the real solution is stop using oil so much, because that's where terrorists got their money from. That means we need flex-fuel cars, and all of them to be that, like Brazil. 15 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian, where 25% of the world's oil reserves lie.

It's synonymous with adding a beard or moustaches to someone's picture.....

Many nations now censor images on stamps. Santa can't even have a pipe. Churchill has lost his cigar. Edward R. Murrow is without a cigarette.

Will images on stamps really influence kids? Nope. The erasing of fact is one step short of blowing up statues of Buddha.

The basic fact is that it's rewriting history. Like, dare I say it, a communist country would do. Might I also add that it's defacing art? Couldn't they find pictures where these people weren't smoking, instead of applying their heavy-handed agendas to these particular pictures? If not the pictures should not have been used in the first place. It's laughably absurd.

Actually I disagree since I believe that certain celebrities can be influential in aiding young minds make unfortunate decisions like smoking but I doubt any youngsters out there are going to pick up smoking by seeing Bette Davis? Come to think of it I doubt any youngsters use stamps anymore?

The assumption of many of the anti-smokers is that impressionable youngsters these days might write letters which they might then snail-mail using postage prepaid.

Even without her favourite ornament,you won't deny it's a magnificent portrait....the beauty,the allure,the charisma,the intelligence,those heavy eyelids....that movie stars appear on postage stamps is a tribute to the great importance and influence of movies....as for the missing jewel,one might empathise with the person who had to make the choice between selecting a lesser picture and removing the "thing".....presumably an admirer of the great actress himself,he chose what he chose.....and one sees this stamp and a flood of memories,even the voice....realistically,it would appear,in 2008 , in the USA,it is not possible to publish a postage stamp with Bette Davis smoking a cigarette...the time has just not come.......and thanks for the beautiful stamp!

Maybe if you lick the back of the stamp, you can taste her cigarette.

What about that great scene in "The Night of the Jackal"? I guess if producers don't want to show cigarettes, they'll have to come up with other "smoke" sources: candles, dry ice, burning pies, etc.

They'll re-write the last scenes in the movie Misery. James Caan as Paul will always have a piece of celery, rather than a cigarette, when he finishes a novel.

did anybody else noticed Mr Ebert say and I quote"even if it's the Cheshire Cat and his hookah" oops Rodger you need to go back to reread Alice. It was the catepiller that had the Hooka,not the Cat. The Cheshire cat had the disappearing act.
Dave

As much as I can't stand the over used term, "politically correct", I agree with you, Mr. Ebert, that we should not edit history. Bette was often seen with a cigarette, and of one obviously lifted from this photo and it looks absurd! There are plenty of great photos of Davis without a cigarette. Well, not plenty, but a few. And considering this was "All About Eve" era Bette....she was chimney. I realize the article's main focus is on the history of smoking in movies and Hollywood, but I really appreciate you writing about Bette in any way. Thank you for keeping her memory alive.

"The horror, the horror"

Or perhaps more properly,

The absurdity, the absurdity!

The elimination of the cigarette from the Bette Davis stamp brings to mind a somewhat similar issue I have with the the censorship and "over anal" nature of the whole PC issue.

While watching a recent airing of Patton on TCM, I was amazed and literally almost pissed off at the censoring of the word god at perhaps one of the funniest scenes in the movies.

This of course was when George C. Scott as Patton responds to one of the priests. When asked by the priestif he reads the bible, Scott responds "Every God damned day!"

Now this line exemplifies "old blood and guts", and was written or perhaps was an actual quote (It probably was as Patton was quite fond of those two words.)

His use of this type of language projected and deepened his mystique and image. The censoring and removal of the language clearly loses the subjects and scenes inherent substance, effect and humorous nature.

Now I did not know that "god-damned" was on Georges'" list of the 7 dirty words.

But more importantly, in this day and age with more TV shows and broad casted movies portraying and incorporating say violence, alternative life-styles, drugs, and far worse language, I find it totally, totally absurd that a cable based "classic" movie station would censor this at all.

The elimination of the cigarette?.... A classic image ruined!

The censoring of "god damned"?.......A classic movie ruined!

John H
Milwaukee

By this logic, I would hope that any stamps of William Burroughs (or, say, Kurt Cobain?) would show him tying off with a syringe in his arm.

Because smoking is drug addiction, plain and simple. And it kills millions of people every year. It's time to stop romanticizing this.

Sorry to wreck your little film world where smoking has no consequences, Mr. Ebert.

Anna Maria, you made me smile. I formulated my excuse considering what I would answer should I ever be asked in a court of law: "Do you smoke?" "No." "How do you explain this CCTV footage of you with a cigarette?"

Point taken and can't say I disagree with your tack, but there is something about role models sanctioning smoking. I can't help but wonder how many women of the 30's, 40's, and 50's took up smoking to try and capture some of the glamour and strength of Bette Davis et al. There are at least a cetain number of teens who will put a cigarette in their mouth if Ellen Page seems to be enjoying one. It's a complex issue, more centered, probably, on parents and peers than screen idols, but there wouldn't be much of a reason to stick a cigarette in your mouth without them.

What do you think of Hentai Roger? While understand with the rise of Gonzo and the lack of a need to avoid obscenity charges todays adult fare is beneath your station. However Hentai is an amazing erotic genre of animation whos quality and character development in films such as Kite and Mezzo Forte rival that of Disney.

You wrote reviews for erotic trailblazers such as Emmanuelle and "the devil in mrs. Jones". I am disappointed you have so far ignored this genre

Maybe the artist was directed to paint a portrait that did not include a cigarette, thought that was absurd, and as a result painted one where the missing cigarette would be blatantly obvious. ???

Roger,

It's trU that it was the caterpillar hU smoked the hOO-kAA. However, I think I understand why you associated the hookah with the Cheshire Cat. In the Disney film, the Cat is the only character able to transcend everything and everyone else in that world down the rabbit hole. With his silly grin, his hazy, indifferent talk and lazy manner, one can say that he is the quintessential psychedelic loafer. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that he smokes his own personal hookah somewhere between his disappearing acts.

The Chesire Cat is the epitome of the realm he inhabits.

Roger, I have to disagree with your take on this. Cigarettes didn't make beautiful stars look sexy or more glamourous.... beautiful people made cigarettes look sexy and glamourous. Bette Davis doesn't need the cigarette to do her justice.

When you realize why it was so important to tobacco companies that their products be seen in the hands of celebrities, you understand how truly depraved it was. Cigarettes were not, and never will be art. They are disgusting death machines.

"All About Eve" is my favorite film. I've seen it more times than I can count, beginning when I was around ten and the local PBS station showed it on their classic film program.

That shot is from the speech in the car about the costs of being a woman with a career. I recognized the image instantly. (Believe me, if you are female, and a film fanatic, with a career, you know that speech.) The scene is a bit longer than the clip that I posted above, but you never see Davis's hands in the part of the scene where Lloyd is in the car.

The painted portrait may be a composite or many images of Davis. Others have pointed out stills with the earrings and fancy gloves instead of the knit gloves.

And to anyone who cared enough about this issue to read this far into the comments, I suggest the book "All About 'All About Eve'". It's a delight.

P.S. Roger, it would be great if you could number the comments so that readers coming back to the site could use the numbers as a bookmark to continue reading.

What's funny is that Betty with the prop looks classic, but those billboards for Californification with Duchovny and the same prop he just looks like the biggest dork. At some point you say, anyone smoking at one point wanted really bad to look cooler or older than they really were, and that's pretty lame.

Roger, you should write a column on the cliche of the main character who all of a sudden is overwhelmed, and out of nowhere begins drinking and smoking. Very unimaginative.

Kudos to this article for it is a good debate.

For some reason, this editing reminds me of a dubious change made by George Lucas when he reissued Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. In the original release, in the Mos Eisley cantina, Han Solo shot Greedo first from under the table. That helped establish his character and both increased the sense of menace in traveling with him, and also made his change later in the movie more meaningful. When he re-edited the films a few years ago, he had Greedo shoot first and miss before Han shot him (not much of a bounty hunter if he'd miss at point blank range, eh?). Another example of this artificial sanitization of the way life is in favor of how we'd like it to be....

I (a "senior" citizen) know a lot of young people. If I should ask what they think of this stamp, all of them would ask "Who's Bette Davis?" BTW, most of them smoke.

I might assume the paparazzi is partly responsible for this, because they once had a decent relationship with their stars, or our stars and were welcomed by the celebrities except at times when it was indecent, such as during a tragedy etc. Part of Bette Davis persona was the cigarette and that was partly, maybe, because of the paparazzi's help: showing her with her ubiquitous cigarette everywhere she went. Now, when most of the stars smoke, (when they do), perhaps, it is because they are insecure in social situations, (if that is why smokers smoke), and if so, then that multiplied because all their insecurities are being shown or if not, making them now insecure from shamelessly and valuelessly photographing them even when asked not do so--who are like a symbolic sign of the time our times of cell phone picturing everything etc., but that would be putting down signs.

(re-edited the end sentence...sorry, if this sounds like a defense for smoking, i wanted to show both sides, however)
I might assume the paparazzi is partly responsible for this, because they once had a decent relationship with their stars, or our stars and were welcomed by the celebrities except at times when it was indecent, such as during a tragedy etc. Part of Bette Davis persona was the cigarette and that was partly, maybe, because of the paparazzi's help: showing her with her ubiquitous cigarette everywhere she went. Now, when most of the stars smoke, (when they do), perhaps, it is because they are insecure in social situations, (if that is why smokers smoke), and if so, then that multiplied because all their insecurities are being shown or if not, making them now insecure from shamelessly and valuelessly photographing them even when asked not do so--who are like a symbolic sign of the times--our times of cell phone picturing everything etc., but that would be putting down signs.

Thanks Mr Ebert for writing this.

This stamp issue is political correctness at its finest, by that I mean at its worst. EVERYONE who knows who Bette Davis was, knows she smoked. It was part and parcel of her image. Bette herself knew it.

Up until the (say) 1980s, people smoked. Everyone smoked. It was just part of society - nobody knew how destructive smoking could be and the movies, and later TV, with glamorous stars smoking constantly, furthered the allure of smoking as sexy.

Alcohol, however, is much MORE destructive than smoking. Nobody ever crashed their car and died because they had a "few too many" smokes at a bar. They did, however, with a few too many drinks. It is appalling and hypocritical in my opinion for society and "Watchdog" groups to be foaming at the mouth about smoking, airbrushing Bette, while there are alcohol ads plastered on the side of tall office buildings and all over everything. I live in Los Angeles, right below Sunset Blvd. Recently there was a tequila ad draped across the side of an (at least) five story office building. THAT is acceptable? What about all the young people and children who saw that - they couldn't have missed such a flashy ad, the lovely golden liquid floating in its attractive cut glass jar. Where's the outrage? Not to mention watching drunk people in action is much, much more vile than watching people smoke.

Yes, smoking kills. But so does drinking, and so does driving 90 miles an hour on the freeway. So does going to McDonalds and filling up on greasy, artery-clogging burgers. Heck, walking down stairs can be dangerous.

I wish society could get its priorities straight, see things for what they are, and not choose to honor someone while simultaneously whitewashing an aspect of what exactly became that legend most.

One of my favorite films in my youth was "Hatari" with John Wayne. My young son now enjoys that movie, and we discuss how people didn't know about the dangers of smoking in "the Old Days", and it provides a point of discussion about smoking today. Along with the other politically incorrect ideas in the movie about a woman couldn't be capable of taking pictures on location, and the locals are referred to as "boys". Times have changed, but its not correct to change history.

Interesting observation and commentary. This reminded me of a news article blurb that I got off a website which noted the following:

"A Welsh oil painting, "Newport Nudes," which was mothballed 60 years ago for being too brazen for public display because the model is naked, drew fresh criticism when reintroduced in July at a public gallery in Wales but this time only because the naked model is holding a cigarette."

My how times have changed and how much more advanced and enlightened (or de-lightened, as the case may be) we are now.

Not that I advocate smoking, but we seem to try too hard now to make everything a perfect picture. Some of the absurdity today is that movies can be very violently and sometimes sexually graphic, which is accepted if the part of the character warrants, but if they are shown smoking then God forbid it's taking things over the line.

Roger

I completely agree that removing the cigarette from Bette Davis's hand is taking things too far. I am very sensitive to smoke, and I cannot stand being in an environment where someone is smoking, but the reality is that Bette Davis smoked and so did the iconic characters she played...why must we erase that from history?

I am 19 years old (I guess that would probably make me towards the end of my impressionable years) and I can say first of all that kids today don't even use stamps! With e-mail, text-messaging, facebook, ect., I can probably count on my fingers and toes the number of times I needed a stamp as a teenager. So the argument that others make that children will just be bombarded with the image of Bette Davis smoking and will run out and bum a cig off the next smoker they see is seemingly illogical. Also, as unfortunate as this is, I would venture to guess that I am in the small minority of people my age that know who Bette Davis is. Very few people I know are interested in watching any movie made before 1980, so the notion that kids will see glamorous Bette Davis and yearn to replicate her celebrity by smoking is also off the mark. My guess is they'll see it, observe "what's with the weird old lady (remember--these are their thoughts, not mine)" and continue on throughout their day without thinking twice about it.

According to my calculations then, the only people who will even come in contact & pay any attention to this stamp are adults who probably already grew up in a fairly smoke-filled world. They are no longer impressionable (for the most part), they've already made their decision to smoke or not (I pray not), and they probably grew up watching movies like the ones Bette Davis made. Why deny them the image of an icon in the form they are used to it being? If the post office opposed the cigarette then they should have chosen a different image, but to insinuate it was never there; that I do not agree with.

Is this symptom of the new "you" generation, and an end to the "me" generation? The "you" generation just basically meaning whining about something instead of doing something about it, which may also entail "helping" everyone else at the expense of yourself, which turns out to be some kind of projecting of problems rather. Then there is the "me" generation" of the fads of self-help, or whatever like scientology or what have you. Part of that is still going on, the "churchy" generation (still running very strong)...I forgot what it's called...basically the domination of religion into politics: having their own shows on tv, radio stations etc.

Is this "political correctness" a part of the "hey, let's blame stamps today" world?

Removing the cigarette is an error.

In addition to Ebert's argument, let me add something else...Smoking was, and is, a character flaw.

And what's wrong with seeing icons with their flaws?

I just looked at a picture of the Elvis Stamp. (Or is there more than one? I forget.) Elvis is pictures with a tie on, but his collar open and his tie undone. He is leaning forward, eyes twinkling, and that very, very unwholesome sneer on his face. The pre-army "bad boy" Elvis that it's sometimes easy to forget about. He's leering, openly.

Unwholesome leering is a character flaw, like smoking. Should we take that away too?

If they ever make stamp for Nikki Sixx (the bass player, song writer, and founding member of the heavy metal band Motley Crue), should we give him straight, short hair, a tie, and take away his angry, predatory gaze?

Ebert mentions the James Bond character in this article. I love seeing Bond smoking, or at least with some dialogue implying he's recently quit ("The World is Not Enough" and, to a lesser degree, "Tomorrow Never Dies"). I'd have loved to have seen Daniel Craig's Bond smoking, enduring remarks about what a filthy habit it is.

Why? Because smoking is a character flaw, just like Bond's womanizing is. Isn't it nice to have a guy who's so flawed, yet is still the hero because at least he's on the right side?

Isn't it nice to have an icon like Bette Davis or like Elvis Presley, whose flaws we can openly acknowledge? Or do we have to either whitewash or scorn someone, with no in between?

I would really hate to see the contemporary re-edit of "The Big Sleep" without the smoking and drinking. How did they ever get away with "Good Night and Good Luck?"

-Nighthawk

Shaw defined a cigarette as something with fire at one end and a fool at the other....
As an ex victim of the pernicious habit.....it starts as a psychological crutch before it achieves a stranglehold as an addiction......the coughing,the,phlegm,the oftentimes desperate search for a stub at midnight.....the humiliation of slavery to a harmful habit......the smell of stale ash....
I would not be filled with pride to see my own old photograph with my crutches attached....
Shall we say it's Bette without her crutch....maybe smoking has not achieved idiocy stature for us to miss it so much...but what is so endearing or aesthetic about smoke coming out of one end of the alimentary canal like a chimney....it's as ridiculous as other elementary human functions.eating included...an ET would have a good smile....
My own son smokes and it bothers me...
Come to think of it,she's no imposter...

The best thing about all this, for me, is that we here have a posting with nearly 200 responses about a cigarette missing from Bette Davis's hand. While the missing cigarette speaks of the subtle horrors of historical revisionism, the backlash from the rabid readers of EbertBlog in kind speaks of the fact that a large armada of us will ALWAYS pipe up and say "Hey, I know that still, and where's her damn cigarette?"

Also, since watching OLD ACQUAINTANCE some years ago, I've developed a huge crush on Ms. Davis. Since she's departed this world for one of ether, it's nice to simply be able to focus on what is or isn't in Bette Davis's hand, circa 2008.

The more the revisionists come at history with the knives, the more anal we will get! And more power to us. And should the stamp actually inspire some neophyte to seek out DARK VICTORY or THE LETTER, they will see cigarettes a-plenty. (Actually, I'm not sure if Davis smokes in those two films - pretty sure she does in THE LETTER - but there will be 50 or more of my EbertBlog brothers who will correct me if I'm wrong)

Having quit a good sixteen years back,I still like the smell of tobacco smoke...never object to passive smoking,as it is called....at rare moments I feel nostalgic for it....ah,the weed,my ex good friend,next to money !!....what a hold it has ......
Ofcourse the question here is of censorship and freedom.....of philosopher kings.....it is not whether or not they should exist but where the thin lines should be....and the answer will shift from era to era....

For heaven's sake, this is a stamp! They didn't remove the cigarette from the movie or the original photo. Therefore, no censorship and no revisionism going on here. People are overreacting.

Bette Davis is Bette Davis... with or without a cigarette.

I'm still willing to believe that if there is an exact source picture, it will be without a cigarette.

There is a ride at Disneyworld/Disneyland called the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror (great ride, by the way). While you wait to board the ride, you are shown a short video explaining the premise of the ride in the style of a Twilight Zone introduction. In fact, it is a real intro to a Twilight Zone, heavily (and brilliantly) doctored to change the background, the words, etc. to fit the ride. A much repeated rumor held that Disney had doctored the intro to take the cigarette out of Rod Serling's hand. It does look Serling is holding a cigarette in his hand. Serling was a notorious chain smoker, and many Twilight Zone intros feature him with lit cigarette. But I know the episode from which the footage is lifted--the classic "It's a Good Life"--and there is no cigarette.

I've known many heavy cigarette smokers to unconsciously hold their cigarette hand as if they have a lit smoke, even if they are not smoking. Maybe Davis had the same habit...

Makeup is a crutch, too. So's styled hair. So are stockings and nice dresses. Clean up her face of that godless actor makeup, turn her hair into dirty tangles, put her in a sack, and take off her high heels -- and then, take her out altogether, because celebrity is a profiteering corporate construct and acting and theater are all just lies.

Yeah, buddy. That'll make everything all better. Enough airbrushing, and we can pretend like nothing ever happened, anywhere, to anyone.

Oh, and send all your money and property to me.

I've already commented and so I don't know if it's considered rude to comment again but... it's funny to me in a way how people choose one vice over another. My vice isn't as bad as your vice. In fact, my vice is perfectly understandable and I wish people would quit bugging me about it. But smoking, that's right out. Or drinking. Or eating too much, or screwing around on my wife, or lying, or not paying enough attention to my kids. But smoking, that's one we can all agree on, even smokers. What choice do they have? It's unforgiveable. Kind of like the N-word. You cannot justify using it. It's the worst thing ever. Except to a lot of black people who use it all the time. But that's different.
As Art Linkletter said, people are funny.

I wonder what other parts of history are being erased besides the one where we have to make movies about them to show it happened, like SPike Lee's new movie and George Lucas' movie about african americans.

But people, there are classes called "American History Through Cinema" where something like this is getting in the way of showing movies value with history. A teacher is going to have to stop teaching and explain the stupidity of things like instead of teaching his class. This isn't just a stamp. It's part of history, and movies are a huge part of America. In those classes they teach about how American ideals are portrayed in genre's such as westerns; so westerns aren't just westerns either and so forth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Rumfb5kyU

Enjoy.

Well, I wonder if we'd feel this way if the brand name was visible. A lot of these stars took up smoking to help get some extra money from the cigarette companies, so having a cigarette is pushing that legacy along. I also wonder how we'd feel if another star, well known for drinking alcohol, had a bottle of booze in his hand.

The cigarette omission here is easy to criticize because it looks goofy, but have a picture of just her face and I don't think anyone's going to complain that she didn't have yellow teeth or a cig hanging out from between her lips.

There are actually a bunch of different issues here that get all tangled up. The part that I don't care for is that I think we often find ourselves living in a nation that seems to believe it's best to keep things at what we pretend to be the child-level of acceptability. What we do in our own homes few will or can control. In public, though, people seem to think culture should be dumbed down. Violence is clean, no one dies (or if they do it's like sleeping, and nothing cures insomnia like pistols), no one has sex, no one does anything to damage themselves or others.

As a kid, I sought the reality out. I wanted folks on the screen to meet horrible ends exactly because I knew the self-censorship in the shows targeted toward me wouldn't allow anyone to die. Swearing was my rebellion growing up in school, and sex or drugs (and I include alcohol and cigarettes in that) were the tools of rebellion for others. Now adult is synonymous with misbehavior and sin, and it's like culture as a whole never gets out of that adolescent rebellion stage and gets on to the big problems.

At least here the issue is over a cigarette. In Britain they put out a stamp with a pro-eugenics advocate. Now there's a discussion starter :)

Hi Roger,

It seems that the prerogative to exclude the cigarette from the painting wasn't entirely Michael Deas'. It says here in this link that he worked under the direction of somebody else (scroll down to the middle of the page).

I find it odd that the painter should portray Bette Davis in such a manner (note on the hand). There are many stills of Bette Davis without a cigarette that attain the same level of chic, and that could have made better portraiture composition-wise (evading any issue that might arise from the absence of the cigarette). It's as if the designer willfully intended the evisceration so as to be noticed and taken up, rather than just be a simple slogan against smoking. After all, stamps are historical memorabilias, and history is discussion. In this case, I would have to say that Michael Deas didn't do any injustice to the portrait. The cigarette is there all right, but the artist chose to kill two birds with one stone.

.... by Jove, I see three birds, not just two!

I agree with Ebert here...I can remember the same thing being said of cartoons that promoted violence or even smoking (I can remember a few lighting up)...I watched Looney Tunes and Disney cartoons as a child and today I am pretty much a pessimist in regards to violence...I think one key factor that we are ignoring is PARENTING...it is our job as parents to instill morals and values in our children...if we rely on Hollywood or television to do that for us, then of course our children may get the wrong idea about smoking, violence and sex...we as parents must be the ones to teach our children the dangers of certain behaviors or actions...

But to lay the blame on the heads of actors who have been dead for years or even current film actors today is a tad ridiculous...isn't this the same argument that Charles Manson used in his trial- that because he believed The Beatles White album told him to begin a racial war and murder, that he should be exempt from blame? I don't remember the prosecutor also charging John, Paul, George and Ringo for promoting violence...

Children are exposed to numerous activities we may find offensive (who has ever had their child in a room where someone begins cursing or smoking or drinking)? Do we cover our kids eyes and run away or ban family members from interacting with them because they may get the wrong idea about certain behaviors? Of course not...we explain to our children that those behaviors may lead to cancer, alcoholism and that cursing is inappropriate...

My mother allowed me to partake in the watching of television icons (like Lucille Ball or Desi Arnaz) and film stars who smoked or drank and cartoons where characters died 50+ times in one episode. Today, I don't smoke, nor drink nor run around hurting people...so I don't believe we can fairly blame everything inappropriate our children do on their icons...we raise our children with the morals and values we believe in and once they are adults, we hope they remember those lessons and choose the right path...if my child chose to smoke as an adult, I don't think I'd immediately lay blame on a TV show or movie they saw as a child...

This argument relies on the ridiculous to explain behaviors of children or behaviors of adults...try parenting your child and then taking responsibility for your failings rather than blaming Bette Davis for cigarettes or Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner for violent acts...

To Aaron Teschner:

The issue here is not about a cigarette. It's about polictical correctness, and about history, because after all, there are classes taught called "American History Through Cinema". American cinema has deep roots in American history. I'm not exactly sure what Bette Davis films have deeply rooted in American history, but I'm sure there are classes teaching it, and that cigarette may be a part of her persona because smoking was part of her feminine independence, something we still struggle with but not as much as then; it was sexy then, which I would imagine, yes, made it glamorous too.

As for Britain's stamp of Marie Stopes: it was like a soundbite stamp. She opened the first women's birth control clinic, and that's how they wanted it to be seen on the news, period. Yes, she was a nazi sympathizer as well, but Britain doesn't have the racist problems we have, so, you can take racism out of the equation. We all saw the movie "Gattaca", and that's more of the kind of thing that eugenics touches upon: the kind of fascist police state that hardly at all seems like any kind of potential threat today, unless it's by the kind of people who take sides with the oil cartel, believing that we need some kind population control to stop global warming and that we should all be glad for OPEC's manipulation of oil prices (they should only be about 30 dollars a barrel)--mandating all cars flex-fuel will bring it down to 50 dollars (2.50 gallon price range)--then we have trouble when that kind of thinking prevails, and I don't believe it will. Obama tried to mandate flex-fuel cars in 2006. McCain caught on a few months ago. The Bush administration has Saudi money flowing around...Spencer Abraham issued a hydrogen energy policy that will never happened (fuel cells 20,000 -for one part, the elements floating around in the air can render the car out of commission--unusable) and he is now taking Saudi money...Colin Powell received a Jaguar from Prince Bandar who came to his door, the ambassador, a week after his retirement to give it to him parked outside. Saudie government newspapers Al Watan in 2006 said that american soldiers are taking 25 dollars an eye and 40 for kidneys of wounded victims making people want to go kill them, and they are.

It could just be that like me, the post office judges find cigarettes unredeemably hideously ugly and thought the stamps looked better without them.

Also, sometimes small, narrow items don't look right when shrunk to postage-stamp size. A cigarette may look like a printer's defect.

What about the fact that by removing the cigarette, it makes the picture look downright strange? It looks like Bette is giving a papal blessing.

I've seen this discussed in several blogs now, and I am now more certain than ever that there was no cigarette removed. Compare the publicity still linked to above to the painting- those are the same earrings (which you admit she wasn't wearing in the scene from the film). That is no coincidence. The painting is clearly based on publicity stills (which may have been wardrobe photos and not on-set ones) not on the movie scene itself.

Secondly, her face is exactly the same in both pictures. Some have said the crooked position of her mouth is a giveaway she was smoking at the time, but clearly, that's not so. The hair and the lighting is exactly the same as well (as near as a painting will show at least).

Third, the position of her hand looks very much like she's clutching the collar of the coat. In the still it's obvious her thumb is inside the coat, as it appears (or would if you weren't convinced she's smoking) in the painting. Does it look like she's holding a cigarette? Maybe, but not as much. I believe her palm would be turned out (as in the other picture in your entry or the others I see of her with cigarette in hand), her two smoking fingers would be straighter, and the other two would be more curled.

I'll agree with the other poster who suggested the artist may have raised her hand to suggest a smoker's posture, but I really don't see that there's a reason to believe she should be smoking in this picture to match its source material, although, yeah, she's as famous for smoking as she is for anything else.

I. Don't. Get. It.

We have SEEN the original still photo which the portrait is based on. It is here:

http://classicmoviefavorites.com/davis/davis051.jpg

The still photo the painting is based on has Bette WITHOUT the cigarette!

Same agle, same facial expression, same earings, same hair, same coat, same gloves. The only difference (as AlunFoto points out) is that the artist changed her hand gesture to hint that there cigarette in it - which is the exact OPPOSITE point Ebert is making!

The post office "added" the gesture to create the illusion that she is smoking, even though she clearly was not in the original still photo.

How come only one person has pointed this out, and why has Ebert not responded to this????

Ebert, please respond. You yourself said that the "The portrait used didn't have a cigarette, because the artist didn't paint one. But the still photo almost certainbly did." Clearly, the still photo certainly does NOT.

Please retract.

A lot of good discussion, but I'm puzzled as to the sentiment of some commenters that those of us against blanking out the cigarette in Ms. Davis' hand are therefore for stamps that feature other stars doing drugs.

Certainly a guy like Jim Belushi is known for his cocaine addiction, but people identify him as a Blues Brother or as Bluto or as the triumphant Not Ready for Primetime Player, dancing on the graves of his castmates.

The argument for Davis' or Johnson's cigarette isn't speaking up for the act of smoking, but for the iconic nature of the photos that are doctored for the purposes of the stamp.

Claiming to be OK with the alteration of American culture is a bizarre, strange ground to stand on. Claiming the moral high road is, in a sense, sad.

Not too long ago, my place of employment took a photo of the employees to post on the wall. When I went to look at it a few days later, I had been airbrushed out. I work in a wheelchair. I guess they didn't want our super-rich clients to know that imperfect people were employed there. My co-workers nearly had a riot, and then my clients nearly had a riot. They threatened dire consequences if that revised photo was not removed. It was some of the middle managers who thought that it would be bad for their image to show a cripple at the front door.

Anyway, more to the point, I think revisionism is the devil. It wasn't good for Hitler, it wasn't good for Stalin, and it's not good for us ;p If we didn't have the opportunity to watch the old Bugs Bunny anti-Jap propaganda cartoons, or read racist texts, or watch people puff away like smokestacks in movies, how would we know how bad those things really are, and why people worked so hard to get rid of them?

Other people have mentioned the classic "1984" but I'd also like to throw in "Animal Farm" and "Fahrenheit 451", as relevant literature. Revisionism is not only a tool for political correctness but also for control of a population. You can't allow it one tiny little foothold anywhere.

This thread sure did make me run over and load up my Netflix list with Bette Davis movies, though.

Ebert: That is enraging Employees who do things like that should be fired. Or better yet, their employers should be sued.

Given that it's just a stamp, I really don't think it needs the cigarette. It's still an extremely beautiful portrait. In fact, it's such a classic and appealing image that if she were holding the cigarette it would most certainly make me want to go out and light one up. The point is, you can't show that iconic image of Bette Davis with her cigarette without advertising smoking and potentially spreading the addiction. So you make some silly sacrifices and maybe you save a life. I don't think Bette Davis would object to that.

I just hope that if they honor Groucho with a stamp, they don't take the cigar out of his hand. THAT would be a crime.

Sanitizing historical memorabilia is hypocrisy and not correct, politically or otherwise. Not all of our truths are clean and beautiful. But this is not to say that monuments to travesties shouldn't be torn down when given the chance.

As Robert from Taiwan mentioned (Oct. 15, 8:37 a.m.), history, how we understand our past, is discussion.

To me that means history is continually revising as we gain ground and perspective. It always seems to go back to intent. Are we revising history for the purpose of sanitizing it (hypocrisy) or for greater understanding (vital).

"Thought fights with thought; out springs a spark of truth from the collision of the sword and shield." W.S. Landor

That would make it a commemoration of Baby Jane.

Modifying history for the persuasion of a politically correct agenda seems unervingly deceptive. Sure, altering a portrait for a stamp won’t lead to any revolutionary dystopia, but it’s the premise that’s disheartening. Despite the obvious personality they’ve robbed from a cultural icon, which, in itself, is a form of disrespect, the underlying issue is the concealment of truth. Burying an act or an image from history seems irresponsible and dangerously ignorant to me. When you conceal the truth of a the past you erase important historical hindsight into the era of which it was prevalent, thus glossing over an integral chapter of humanity, which in turn (if left unmonitored) becomes the catalyst for misinformation. Consider removing the racial slurs from Mark Twain’s prose, digitally removing Al Jolson’s black-face makeup, or snipping away the vehemently stereotypical representation of the Japanese from Looney Tune cartoons. Disturbing and politically incorrect as they are in the current era, these depictions belong to the society in which they were defined. Granted, the image of smoking isn’t as detrimental to a person’s feelings as the previous examples, but the act itself is an integral part of a period of time.

That said, remodeling an iconic image to represent what a small group of people think is correct is a disservice to our trust and patronizing to our intelligence. Yes, we know smoking is bad for us. A tweenager isn’t going to light up because Bette Davis is holding a ciggy on a stamp that she’ll probably never even glimpse. There are far more detrimental examples of bad habits for our youth to absorb. As one post pointed out, just choose another image of the star to represent who she is, rather than distorting the reality of her persona and the era of which she thrived. If it doesn't represent the image you want to portray, choose another image that fits the social standards and cultural beliefs of the era, but don't alter a truth to fit those needs.

I remember when Joe Camel met his demise in 1997. What a controversy that was, huh? Apparently, his image was erased from magazine advertisements, billboards, and other print media because he was a negative influence and promoted that smoking cigarettes was … (what’s the word I’m looking for here, oh yeah … ) cool.

I don’t smoke. However, I don’t object anyone’s desire to do so. That’s their business and they know the health risks associated with it.

It does, however, upset me that the health nuts or conservative freaks put so much emphasis on the impact of a public figure (or caricature) lighting one up.

As far as movies are concerned, smoking is nostalgic. The act of smoking has never looked better than on classic B&W movies. It’s as though the smoke is a supporting character helping to move the plot and theme of the movie along.

Some of America’s most treasured movies have scenes in which its main characters are enjoying a few puffs. Important lines of dialogue are shared and memorable scenes are forever cemented in our memory banks.

It’s important to remember that while smoking is a bad habit, it’s one that is enjoyed by people who lead busy sometimes stressful lives. We, as a health-conscience society, may limit where smoking is allowed, but we should never eliminate it from our rich history and its rightful place in it.

I’m just glad that stamp didn’t omit those gorgeous Betty Davis Eyes … I’m pretty sure Kim Carnes would be upset. After all, she didn’t spend all of those countless hours at smoky bars perfecting her raspy voice for nothing … 

As always, Mr. Ebert, I wish you happiness and health.

Roger, your mention of Joan Crawford brought to mind "Mildred Pierce." I had the fortune to see the film earlier this year. I love Joan Crawford. Her performance as the overly doting mother won the Best Actress Oscar. Ann Blythe's "spoiled" performance [pun intended] as the daughter was equally riveting. It was actually the presence of Ann Blythe in the film that lead me to see "Mildred Pierce." Around twenty years ago, I was smitten by her in "Kismet," a B-grade '50s musical by Vincente Minelli.

By Musical standards, "Kismet" as a film was lackluster. Still, I believe that the story can be revamped in our times and make it attain a more universal (and off-world) appeal, while retaining all the original music. And, the music will have to equal, or surpass, what this first-rate Phase 4 Stereo Mantovani Recording did to the musical. People who have heard this recording will note the verve of Mantovani's score and the artistic finesse of all those involved in the endeavor. This is important.

P.S. I congratulate you for clinching one of the top spots in Blogosphere. I put this congratulatory praise here so as to give your blog an anachronistic touch. I just hope no one inspects the date stamps. (^_^)

I collect lots of junk. I know it, my friends know it, and I'm even sure my dogs know it. Stamps are one of the smaller things I collect. I'm not "hardcore" in the sense I have to have all the stamps, just ones that are linked to other, more passionate, hobbies of mine. This means comic stamps and movie stamps. The Bette Davis stamp I bought. It sits next to my stamps of Alfred Hitchcock, James Dean, and Henry Fonda. Out of all the stamps though this one looks the least like the actor I remember, and I couldn't really figure out why until now. For awhile I thought the artist must have been off model, but now that I realize that an important prop was taken away...well, I guess it would have been the same result if the cigarette on The Beatles "Abby Road" album was removed. We'd know something was missing, it would just take away to figure out what that something was.

. Release yourself and yield to your desires . Everything is allowed to you nowadays . There are no people in the world who are totally indifferent to the sphere of intimacy . Your secret wishes exist and are haunting you everywhere and can’t ignore them . Give way to them and open yourself to this wonderful experience . You can develop your intimate sphere and enjoy every its manifestation . This sphere is one of the most topical today and gives people a wonderful opportunity to look in themselves and understand what they want . Today people are not divided into normal, that is reserved and restrained and those who have special inclinations . All norms are banned and many things are now socially acceptable . At those dark times people didn’t know how to make children before their marriage
[url=http://forums.megagames.com/forums/member.php?u=209893]lesbi lesbian video[/url]

They pulled the same thing with a poster of The Beatles' Abbey Road...

Today though, I decided to start ignoring John.
Although I appreciate his friendship and advice for the past 20 some years, it is not making me rich.
In fact, even though he’s a millionaire, I’m still working hard for a living.
I have most of my life ahead of me, and I cant keep listening to him anymore.

http://www.proprietarytrader.net/alc , www.proprietarytrader.info/canada-trader , http://www.proprietarytrader.info/day-trader/map.html

Хочу услышать ваше мнение, как поднять свою работоспособность. Подскажите какие нить действенные способы(методы), может о чем то таком подумать или представить стимилирующее к работе. Обычно на начальном этапе рвение просто бешенное, могу несколько дней подряд работать, а потом постепенно желание проподает, вроде видишь что нужно сделать, что исправить, но сука лень какая-то :evil: И вот в такие моменты нужно как-то себя заставить, но как? Как настроить себя на работу?

"Как настроить себя на работу?"

That's what I'd like to know, too - like, right NOW. :)

I read that Bette even refused to do interviews if she wasn't guaranteed to be able to smoke on air. (And I can understand that; she probably needed it - or thought she needed it - to "think better".)

Personally, I find the mentality underlying such cultural revisionism far, FAR more dangerous than any amount of nicotine - because it's insidious. And ultimately totalitarian.

Utterly ridiculous. I can't even imagine who ok-ed the plan to desecrate these classic pictures.

My earliest memory of seeing one of my favorite characters smoking was on Andy Griffith when Andy lit up after a long day with Barn. I thought, "He's smoking like daddy!"

Somehow it made him seem even more real to me. Andy, not my dad. ;)

Jeremy wrote, "Modifying history for the persuasion of a politically correct agenda seems unervingly deceptive. Sure, altering a portrait for a stamp won’t lead to any revolutionary dystopia, but it’s the premise that’s disheartening"

Jeremy, it's been going on for quite a while now. When I was first writing the drafts for "Brains" five years ago I wrote the following paragraphs that started with stamps but went a bit beyond:

===

Recent decisions to remove cigarettes from historical figures portrayed on stamps and in newspapers are eerily reminiscent of Hitler’s decision to airbrush Stalin’s cigarette from photos of the two leaders appearing together. Jazz musician Robert Johnson, artist Jackson Pollock and Hollywood legend James Dean have all had offending tobacco products surgically removed from their postal stamp pictures! (Reason Editor Charles Freund. http://www.reason.com/0108/cr.cf.ifs. html; Christopher Hitchens. “We Know Best.” Vanity Fair 05/ 2001).
The act of political editing that I believe most astonished me occurred in 2002 when the heroic stewardess who kept an airplane from being blown out of the sky by jumping on (and being bitten by!) the “shoe bomber” dared to light a cigarette upon her exit from the airport ambulance. The news networks almost universally consigned most of the 45-second scene of her joyful return to freedom to the trash bin. What should have been a celebration of this brave woman returning to solid ground and normalcy was sharply edited and cut to about 10 seconds just as she made the mistake of reaching into her pocketbook for what must have been a very long awaited smoke.
The entire scene DID make it unedited to MSNBC and it was only on this network that the public saw her gallant spirit as she lit up and joked with ambulance attendants after her ordeal. Stills from the scene are available on the web page of Darlene Brennan, founder of FORCES Maine (www.geocities.com/ shelioness/HerosDoSmoke.html).
The heroine, Christina Jones, despite saving hundreds of innocent lives at clear risk to herself, was evidently not welcome on camera if she didn’t behave according to the dictates of political correctness.

===

There are even indications that book publishers are leaning on authors not to write words about anyone except evil or depraved characters smoking. Patricia Cornwell, author of "Body of Evidence" stated on "Nightwatch" on 3/11/91 that her publisher had criticized her for having smoking characters and giving the appearance of “lobbying for the tobacco industry” because it would "offend a lot of people who are anti-smokers out there.”

It's not just a Bette Davis stamp...

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

nobody removed anything from anything

here is what seems to be the original picture: http://classicmoviefavorites.com/davis/davis051.jpg

see? no cigarette. sheesh. people really do want to invent controversy don't they?

This post reminded me of a book by Arthur C. Clarke called "The Ghost from the Grand Banks", about future expeditions to recover the wreck from the Titanic. It has little interesting details all around like fractal gardens and a futuristic windshield wiper, but the scariest one was a method used to remove traces of smoke and cigarettes from old films, apparently to protect the children. I found that possibility as horrific as inserting full frontal nudity to films made in the Hays Code era.

Having compared both the original and special editions of "E.T. the Extraterrestrial", I find there are instances where adding the digital alien made the character more believable, yet switching the law enforcement officers' guns to walkie-talkies had the opposite effect. It isn't because there should be weapons in a family film, but because YOU CAN TELL something's missing even if you'd never seen the movie before. Who holds a walkie-talkie like that, seriously? It detracts from the experience. Oh, and "You are not going as a terrorist!" is a funnier line; I'm sorry.

Yes, revisionist history is wrong, but I'll be the first to admit Billy Wilder's "The Lost Weekend" is near-perfect, with the exception of [**SPOILER!**] that stupid rubber bat. [**SPOILER!**]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that noticeable changes in any existing creative work (be it a photograph, a novel or a film) can be acceptable so long as a) the original artist(s) is(are) involved in them and b) these tweaks DO NOT change the nature of the piece.

In conclusion, Betty Davis smoked, the agents in "E.T." had guns and Han shot first!

Emilio Gomez wrote, "I guess what I'm trying to say is that noticeable changes in any existing creative work (be it a photograph, a novel or a film) can be acceptable so long as a) the original artist(s) is(are) involved in them and b) these tweaks DO NOT change the nature of the piece."

Emilio, what do you think Mark Twain would think of the new versions of Tom Sawyer that edit out the entire segment of the boys smoking pipes on the island with Huck Finn?

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

"In an ordinary context, giving a character a cigarette is saying either (1) this is a moron, or (2) this person will die."

Given the large number of Americans who are still smokers the above comment is naive and insulting.

This was definitely an interesting read and is great for people who smoke tobacco. It’s definitely informative and useful for people seeking information. If I may suggest a great new gadget for people smoking great tobacco, check out this great new Smoking Tool.

Since "they" took away the cigarette why didn't they remove the mink coat she was wearing???? We are "those" anti-fur people now???? No cig, no mink....so what the hell is left???? NO STAMP, NO RIGHTS....NO NOTHING ANYMORE!!!!

C Peters wrote, "No cig, no mink....so what the hell is left????"

Hmmm... tell you what, I'll take what's left. :>

On a more serious note though, the airbrushing of a cigarette from an individual picture means little. When airbrushing in all its forms, stamps, record albums, films, novels, tv shows, songs, and more is focused on changing the historical record of reality simply because we currently disapprove of what went on in that record it means a lot more.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Okay, we know smoking along with just about everything you do in today's society is unhealthy. I stopped smoking less than a year ago myself. But I hate political correctness and revised history a helluva lot more than seeing somebody light up. What a shame that honesty has taken second fiddle to towing the politically correct party line.

I lost my dad to smoking related cancer,too,and mom becam depressed & got Alzheimer's so I can also say it destroyed my family.I hate smoking & begged dad to stop; smoke always bothered my eyes,throat & sinuses. It's not allowed in my house or car. If I had my way it would be banned from the planet. I do find it interesting that folks say that a kid isn't gonna start smoking because they see it in a movie. If that were true then the advertising industry wouldn't be advertising toys & sugary foods during kids' TV shows & you'd never see Viagra/Cialis ads or cosmetics/weightloss/fashion ads on TV aimed at adults.Many people DO copy what they see. HOWEVER, I agree with Tiffany :"I think one key factor that we are ignoring is PARENTING...it is our job as parents to instill morals and values in our children...if we rely on Hollywood or television to do that for us, then of course our children may get the wrong idea about smoking, violence and sex...we as parents must be the ones to teach our children the dangers of certain behaviors or actions..." As a teacher I see the results of bad parenting all the time.I say leave the movies the way they were but there should be disclaimers somewhere stating which performers died from smoking related illness.

While I agree that smoking is bad for you, it is the height of hypocrisy to suggest that this is the main way the movies encourage bad habits. During all the years we've been blaming smokers for making us sick, alcohol and global warming have been costing our society lives, productivity, and in the case of the latter may cost us our home. You can tell me not to smoke around you and I will, but what do I tell people who drive Hummers? I have to breathe polluted air, risk skin cancer, and watch my species kill all life on my home planet slowly. This is a control issue that makes non smokers feel better about this issue. I had a very large family when I was growing up (28 first cousins). Although people smoked around me and my family my entire life, I have never known of one person on either side who had any type of smoking related illness that did not smoke themselves. As for subsidies to tobacco farmers and companies, tobacco is a plant, so sue God or Darwin for having the audacity to let it develop. When you look in the mirror and quit doing things that damage children equally, we can talk about your right to control a behavior that is private. The Government should use more money that helps smokers stop, and quit relying on cigarette taxes when their coffers run low.

Instead of these academic exercises about political correctness and influence on a young mind, why not use the time and energy to really get people to quit smoking? One main reason is that every state and federal government in the country would most likely go bankrupt. It is also hypocritical to unilaterally state all the benefits of preventing people from seeing someone smoke without considering that Davis is wearing a fur coat, cars are driven in films and contribute to global warming, and that movies then and now portray drug abuse, prostitution, and a heavy consumption of alcohol. It's an art form, not a vehicle for the views of a tobacco company or of someone who has an anti-tobacco agenda. What has happened to teaching children right from wrong, and with realizing that, however influenced, we have a personal responsibility to police our own health and habit? Tobacco is a plant. Should we outlaw it's cultivation or sue a higher power for having the temerity to let it grow? Finally, the tobacco farmer subsidies were created to protect small farmers from the rapacious practices of Big Tobacco. Since we all know how Prohibition ended, I think we can extrapolate out that regardless of any amount of anti smoking legislation, people who want or feel they need to smoke are going to obtain it and do it somewhere. I must state that I am not a smoker and never have been.

wow! i ended up on this site just because i googled "thinking about not smoking makes me want another cigarette." (that's a quote from ZDR in case you didn't know)

at any rate, this is the most expressively intelligent page of collective writing i've come across. thank you for sharing your insights with wit! no really, pat yourself on the back if you're reading this. not kidding! just pat yourself on the back. i congratulate you! you're so brilliant!

...and for those of you who DID NOT get that, may i make it CLEAR-UHR:

such amazing posts! well pretty good at least. better than average. have you seen the video comments on youtube? day suk. day r wurs cahments i halve evr cn. eye dont beelive ir! ur a moron!

i always wonder, "are they too drunk to look at what they're writing?"

but drunkness also consumes my moment so for all i know i may be one of them.

oh, about that whole smoking bit...censorship is a double-edged sword. as are many wielded objects with opposite excesses of sharpness. it's funny that self-inflicted damages (like smoking) are (generally) looked down upon under while damages to others inflicted in the name of a cause are glamorized. make your own judgment (a very strange spelling of a word..."d-g-m", ha! i'm 'merican) with that observation.

Ebert: I am daily impressed and moved by the thought that goes into these posts. I receive almost none of the neanderthal variety.

This reminds me of the time when Spielberg "re-imagined" "E.T.", and removed the guns from the cops chasing the kid and the alien. This revisionist PC crap highlights the famous saying "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it". Things should be left as they are and people should teach kids about the times when people killed themselves and everyone around them wherever they went...

I think that as a protest, anyone who thinks the cigarette should be there should use the stamp and draw the cigarette back in, writing directly below it "SO THERE!".

A lot of men think it ihat same Fark entry shows a shot of Barack Obama with a butt hangin off his lip. I remember early rumblings about his smoking, as if commentators were throwing it out there to see if it 'caught fire' as an issue. It didn't. A lot of men think it is very sexy to see beautiful women smoking cigars. Many movies, pictures, music video clips ( that you can see in youtube ) have shown through the history of entertainment celebrity women smoking cigars.