Smokey Eyes
When a female walks into a room with smokey eyes a perception based on appearance is made through a tone conveyed through color psychology mixed with other forms of nonverbal communication.
The black smokey eye often conveys a sense of mystery and rebellion; the color black signifying as mysterious and the most attractive color to be worn.
I find the smokey eye creates this victorian gothic aesthetic as if you were walking through a London fog at night in the 19th century (or just think of Morticia Addams from The Addams Family). The fog serves as unsettling tone creating a white haze being blown from a black cylinder body of a cigarette being put to the lips.
Some say the gaze of the cigarette in a film from the 1920's could and should be a haze.
I think the chairoscuso depends on the mise en scène of the cigarette in a scene.
I think the answer lies in a case by case basis by asking
What purpose does the cigarette serve in the storyline and tone of the film?
Is the cigarette necessary?
Is the cigarette signifying a underlying meaning in a scene?
Does the cigarette establish or maintain a historical time period?
In many cases removing cigarettes from films would be erasing part of history, censorship, and would impede on the first amendment by undermining the highest level of protection regarding freedom of speech(Burstyn v. Wilson)
Not all history is butterflies and dandelions.
Doctors in the 1930's encouraged patients to smoke and was not public knowledge smoking linked to lung cancer in the United States until 1964.
In many older noir films cigarettes showed romantic tension or was a way of essentially showing an intercourse scene without actually doing so because of Hays Code being put into place where intercourse could not be shown and was highly taboo at the time.
But, if cigarettes were to be edited out there may be a completely different interpretation of the film: essentially creating a Kuleshov effect.
(Example of Kuleshov effect)Hypothetically, if the cigarettes were to be edited out wouldn't they have to take out the scene entirely or figure out a way to cut out the action of the cigarette being used which would look really off-putting and lead to a TON of jump cuts.
(Good use of jump cut example)Perhaps for some of the extras or people not in the foreground by using an animated mask tracker in After Effects , going frame by frame in Photoshop to remove the cigarette, or remove the person holding the cigarette in the scene all together.
But, that could ruin the composition of the shot and could run into continuity issues which takes the viewer away from the story.
Not to mention amount of time, energy, and resources needed is tasking.
Not only would you have to find someone who actually knows how to digitalize film and possibly edit the physical film but, the cost would be very expensive.
Another question to consider is who would pay to remove the cigarettes from the films?
Would it be...
The production companies?
The companies that have the distribution rights?
The government which means taxpayers?
Let's be honest cost of living is already expensive and I don't want to pay more in taxes and you don't want to either unless the government owes you money on your tax return.
Hypothetically, the responsibility falls onto taxpayers it would leave me with a repulsing taste, having hard earned taxpayer dollars go towards censoring media instead of helping citizens address other forms of intervention: mental health, shelter, and food to survive.
Also, SAMHSA would have to prove film has a very strong correlation to cigarette use and media consumption before anything would be done. Even if there is a strong correlation I think some parameter of cigarette use in films should be put into effect for current and future movies.
There are also many other psychological and environmental factors that have a stronger influence a decision to smoke than old movies.








