Yeah, except that the law is on my side -- you fuck off.

I agree that that should be the point. However, reading most of the posts, I'm not sure that was the intended point of this thread.

Next time you jaywalk, watch you back.

Let's outlaw scratches on cds too. Someone needs to pay.

Are you going to be consistently supportive of the law in your response when the FBI legally looks over your library records?

Whuh?

I find it pathetic that the same people who whine over cd scratches are so quick to claim "Who fucking cares?"

Why? It seems perfectly aligned to me - don't scratch my CDs | don't make your disgusting smoke around me.

Remember, the "WHOFA KING CARES" is directed at the people who are making a big deal out of someone being forced to not smoke in a play where, may I remind you, actors are paid to act like they're doing things - not really do them. We don't see actors getting up on stage and getting drunk because their character did.

Exactly. Actors are paid to ACT in a PERFORMANCE. What kind of jackass interrupts a play to make a complaint about one lousy cigarette. Leave the theatre if it bothers you that much, but don't subject everyone else to your asinine shit.

Hey, I agree on that point, okay? It's downright stupid that they actually stopped the play and did this, but my point stands - why does the smoking actually have to take place at all? Why can't it be a prop?

Taking that idea to its extreme, actors shouldn't walk or talk either... because that's what real people do and these are just characters. When performing, the best actors are so present in the moment that their character and setting is their reality. Is cigarette smoking during a performance necessary to portray a smoking character successfully? No, but it helps a lot.

Should the director have been more aware about the laws? Probably, but that doesn't make what the audience member did any less selfish or inconsiderate. She had a right to be upset, but she could have handled it much better. She could have left discreetly, gone straight to the box office or theater manager, complained, and demanded her money back. If she knows the law is on her side, she can call *gasp* the police. No, now that her night's ruined she feels obligatied to ruin everyone else's.

Hell, why should we even expect historical accuracy or period garb then either? Could you imagine a world where Anchorman delivered unfunny jokes without the aid of cheesy suits and bushy moustaches?!?

Ah, well you're absolutely right about that.

Technically, even real tobacco being smoked is a prop, but that's just a semantic point.

Why does it have to take place? Because most likely it's written in the script. The playwright has purposely made that character a smoker and had them smoking at that particular point. It might be symbolic. It might be character development. Its meaning might totally be up to the actor or director; the fact is that it was intended to be there. Read Henrik Ibsen's A Doll House and tell me how much the Rank/Nora dynamic in Act III loses out if the cigar's not there.

So why not just have the actor not light up and pretend to smoke? Because it looks fucking stupid.

I haven't read this thread really, but I'm for indoor air ordinances and aganist this jackass who made a big deal about it. This is not within the spirit of the law in my opinion.

Well it's important to recognize, in light of your terrible username, that you're putting as much effort into your totally unsupportable argument ("why do actors really wear clothes? why do actors really sit on chairs? why isn't all theater pantomime"), as anyone is putting into their arguments against smoking bans.

hahahaha

got me too....

i laughed

but yeah this is one of the worst anti-smoking arguments i've read

I agree. Even in light of their terrible country, this is too extreme.

I've got nothing to hide WRT my library records, but I will still argue your point: L no, I only use the law when it's on my side! When it's agin me (I.E. the jaywalking comment -- I...ahem...allegedly jaywalk all the time), FIGHT THE POWER!

Let's disassemble the problem: should they have rewritten the play right in the middle? Is the person calling out the problem at fault because she decided to do so right in the middle of the performance? In both cases, the answer is: L no!

The better way to handle the situation would have been to change the play as soon as the law went into effect. These indirect threats of violence in this thread only reinforce my opinion that smoking turns people into assholes, and I will continue to vote the activity into legislation at every opportunity. You want the freedom to smoke? Find a way to do so without violating my freedom to breathe clean air.

And an even better way to handle the situation is to allow theatres lee-way to light tobacco as necessary for the performance through a licensing scheme and/or warnings before the performance that smoking will occur (similar to warnings of nudity or other questionable subject matter that are already in place). This way, the piece remains in integrity and people who would be bothered by the smoke can spend their money elsewhere. To change a work of art for the sole reason of conforming to the law is censorship. At certain levels, this is appropriate to protect children or the general public who are not interested in the subject matter. Perhaps something at this level seems appropriate, but where exactly does the slope get more slippery?

The more people that hate it, the more I love it. It stays!


When did I say that actors shouldn't wear clothes or sit in chairs? Would those not be props? What I'm saying is, the actual act of smoking is not vital to ANY part, ever. Actors act like they're doing things utilizing props. An unlit cigarette can be a prop. Actually lighting it is 100% unnecessary.

i feel the same way about guitar solos.