I need a scene, preferably from a Golden Age film or British Classic that shows a major character smoking in a public place - such as on a plane, bus, train, library etc etc (restaurant, bars, and cafes do not count).
They can be by themselves or with someone -it really doesn't matter.

It would be great if the act of smoking is not related to an idea...such as sex, wealth etc. That's why it would be great to have a single person on a bus (or whatever) having a cigarette.

The more famous the film is - the better so I don't have to spend ages explaining it in my thesis.

Cheers
Rochelle

I have set the best minds at my disposal to this query: librarians, eidetic and film-geeky all. You'll have your answers.

Great timing since I've finished work for the evening. Thanks so much for your support. I really appreciate it . I'm happy to report that I've completed my entire first draft. All I have to do now is edit and polish and a lot of it I might add

One university almost down...one more to go.

when Army examines ship: "Carson, what's the report?"
Army hospital doctors: "... third class witch doctor."
Klaatu escape montage: news readers' ash trays
after dinner at boarding house: cigarette holder
card game at boarding house: cigarette holder
at jeweler's: lit cigarette in Hugh Marlowe's hand
electricity neutralized montage: London, man in hat, gesturing, has a
pipe
Prof. Barnhard's study: Prof. Barnhard has a pipe
General's meeting: multiple instances
General Cutler's office: smoking ash tray

quote:

---

Originally posted by miss tonya:
BTW, Grant didn't smoke in N by NW. It was Eva Marie Saint.

---

But Grant's matches. James Mason also smokes in the film.

In my analysis of 'I Was Born But...' (Ozu), I am making a point of trams/trains as signifiers for Japan's industrialisation. Donald Richie argues that trains have no referential meaning and are oftened featured in Ozu films because he liked them.

I disgree with this since such ojects place the film in historical context with a corresponding reality. Similarly, it overemphasizes auteur theory.

That's where the smoking would have come in handy:

A filmmaker may have no intention when a character smokes but nowadays we can gather that smoking was an acceptable practice in a public place back then.

Problem is that the assumption of 'smoking as meaningless', is a dangerous overreaching assumption especially for that cinema and period - for all smoking may have been loaded with meaning back then (marketing, fashion, sex appeal, virility, etc).

Hitchcock poses a further danger since the re-popularized auteurism of the 1950s was inspired by Hollywood filmmakers such as himself, Ford etc. This means EVERY aspect of
mise-en-scene is potentially loaded with meaning. Too dangerous a path here.

Thanks all the same. I'll keep thinking but not today, I feel like absolute hell....every part of my body is aching...I literally feel like death.

Nearly EVERY golden age film has people smoking in it. It shouldn't take you that long to find tons of examples.

The trains in Ozu's films are very significant, they appear in nearly every one of the films just like rain appears in nearly every Kurosawa film. Although Ozu makes references to the westernization of Japan throughout his works, I don't think the trains have to do with that at all.

One of the key moments in any Ozu film comes near the end of Early Summer (1951). There is a stretch of track in a mountain pass. The shot holds on it, a train arrives, runs through, leaves, and we're left with the same held shot as before only a train has come and gone. It's the idea of not stepping in the same river twice. The trains that move people about in Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice or take people to and from work in Ohayo or Equinox Flower are all metaphors for the passage of time, how things and people change (although Ozu also deals with how things remain eternal). The last shot of Equinox Flower is a shot of the train the husband is leaving on--all the learning he's done in relation to his family is summed up by the movement of the train. Again in Early Summer, Setsuko Hara agrees to marry this guy and go off to a remote locale, the first shots of the village are tracking shots, perhaps even from a train, the movement referring again to the movement of her life into this new situation. I think if you go back to all the train scenes in Ozu and look at them in context, you'll see (I hope unless I'm talking through my hat) that they have to do with the flow of time and the changes in people rather than the state of Japan. I haven't seen I was Born But... in a while but my guess is that he was using this metaphor even as early as 1932.

Where Ozu criticizes western Japan comes in other moments, scenes at work or discussions of business (which is a large point in I Was Born But...). The kids in IWBB can beat up the Boss's kid but at work the kids father kow-tows to the Boss. Thus the business world and class structure is set opposite to nature or involves more complexities than the simple logic the kids have been working with. The kids learn this tough lesson: being strong doesn't mean you won't end up a salaryman. As an experiment, go back and see if the trains relate to this idea in the film in any way. The End of Summer opens with a neon sign reading New Japan, but even here it's not so much about the westernization or industrialization of Japan but the loss of the old Japan/ese values that the Ozu films are all about. The westernization is part of the circle--the people have lost touch with the Tao so the westernization takes hold which leads to more loss of the connection which leads to more westernization, etc. That's really what the Ozu films are about, that and respecting the eternal patterns of life.

Cigarettes are something that are casual and might show up in movies unconsciously, but given that you're on a set, are acting, have blocking to do and multiple takes, I don't think they're there by accident. Other things might be of a time and place like cars and clothing design. I don't think a filmmaker says, let's go get a diferent kind of street or car design. But, I think the decision to show someone smoking or not is deliberate in most cases.

Cheers mate - please read my previous post. What do you think?

Rochelle

quote:

---

Originally posted by cine-sin:

A filmmaker may have no intention when a character smokes but nowadays we can gather that smoking was an acceptable practice in a public place back then.

---

Smoking was very common in the 30s and 40s,
the time of Golden Age cinema.

quote:

---

Problem is that the assumption of 'smoking as meaningless', is a dangerous overreaching assumption especially for that cinema and period - for all smoking may have been loaded with meaning back then (marketing, fashion, sex appeal, virility, etc).

---

For the main characters in a scene in a movie, smoking is almost certainly a conscious decision, probably scripted or directed, and having some shade of meaning. Even if the actor decides "my character should smoke here," there is probably something to be conveyed by smoking.

Hitchcock poses a further danger since the re-popularized auteurism of the 1950s was inspired by Hollywood filmmakers such as himself, Ford etc. This means EVERY aspect of
mise-en-scene is potentially loaded with meaning. Too dangerous a path here.

Thanks all the same. I'll keep thinking but not today, I feel like absolute hell....every part of my body is aching...I literally feel like death.

Cheers
Rochelle [/B][/QUOTE]

Look forward to many discussions on films/scores.